Why no low?

[hewligan]

I have GMed with some lowish stat characters, but generally the wisdom and charisma dump stats. The first ever game I played in I had a Gnome that was rolled the old fashioned way, and a 14 was considered a very good stat.

I am half-way to agreeing with Morrus, except that in my games I don't play it as high-fantasy, more mid-fantasy. The players are definitely better than your average villager. Something marked them out to stand up against the threat, or to break away from the constraints of their village. That I can live with. However, I don't want them to be super-powered, and thus I tended towards allowing a point-buy system, but with a balance that meant that if you wanted an 18 you would have to make some sacrifices elsewhere, and two 18s were not going to happen unless you wanted to be carried around in a palanquin.

My idea of a perfect starting hero would be to have stats around 17, 15, 13, 10, 10, 8. However, I also offer an improved stat increase with levels in my games: +1 every 2 levels gained, rather than every 4 levels. That gives you a character at level 8 (which I see as very powerful, the sort of person who is nationally known) with a stat range perhaps like so: 19, 16, 14, 10, 10, 8. At 20th level they could have the following: 22, 18, 14, 10, 10, 9 - and that is before any magic stat increases (which are likely to have added another couple of points).

Anyway, that is how I have tended to hang.

I think a flaw or slight weakness can aid a character, and can also allow a GM to play to it on very rare occasions. It helps the story and the uniqueness of the character.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I agree with Morrus, although I've certainly played plenty of characters with some low scores without worrying about it.

 

[Haltherrion]

Well... 4E actually encourages multiple low stats (9s at least), maybe too much so. But that aside, it probably depends on the game group and the character generation method more than anything else.

When my groups and I did random stats, we most often did a best 3 of 4d6 method, assign as you like. That doesn't tend to create many low stats.

But we realized that was over doing it. While we like having high stats in key abilities, it is fun to live with some low stats as well. So, until moving to 4E (more on that below), we used a character generation method that typically assigned stats to a figure and the players picked the figure they liked. This allowed the ref to create a slate of characters some with balanced stats, some with no lows, some with more extremes. We had enough (25+) to choose from that everyone seemed to be able to find what they wanted.

We moved away from that in 4E. I tried to do it for the first draft but the problem with 4E is that I think they over-did their concept of leveling: they have multiple ways to affects AC for instance, every class uses its own stat for to-hit, and so on. There no longer is a reasonable way provide unusual stat mixes that also don't affect the game overly. So, I ditched that and went with stat arrays that look something like the standard ones.

If they do a 4.5E or 5E, I'd like to see them roll back some of the leveling. I like it in principle but I think they carried it too far.

As to using low stats, I'm all for it. Makes for more interesting characters some times.

 

[Ariosto]

(well, way back originally, the first few PCs were 3d6 arrange to taste)

IIRC, that is actually "in the same ballpark" as best 3 of 4d6 in order, as far as being able to field the rare classes.

In hardcore 1e, it was my assumption that you rolled 3d6 in stat order.

That was not among the "by the book" options, for what that's worth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With 2d6+6, you get 8-18 with an average of 13. This was pretty common in Chaosium's RuneQuest even before SIZ and INT went to that as standard (in 3rd ed.). In old RQ, the 13-16 range often gives a bonus (the next bracket being 17-20, with 21 as normal human maximum).

The 18 comes up 1 roll in 36.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could always do something like 1d12+6 or 1d10+8 for stats, still getting you a high of 18 (pre-mod) while clipping the lows at a manageable 7 or 9.

Talk about "bonus inflation"! When 1 in 12 or 1 in 10 characters has that particular stat at 18, and 25% or 30% have at least 16, bonuses become "the new normal" -- and simply not getting a bonus is "the new sucks to be you".

It's embarrassing when so many characters can beat your fighter at arm wrestling! (Even a magic-user or thief, if the relevant PR is also high.) Heck, if you've got the 18/xx rule (as in AD&D) then one may as well play something else until a character has an 18 strength.

Half or more of all characters have at least one score of 18! (1/12 stats, 6 stats per character; 1/10 means more) So, if you also arrange to suit then guess what becomes nearly mandatory? You're headed for "cookie cutter" characters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Talk about "bonus inflation"! When 1 in 12 or 1 in 10 characters has that particular stat at 18, and 25% or 30% have at least 16, bonuses become "the new normal" -- and simply not getting a bonus is "the new sucks to be you".

Well, personally, I still prefer 4d6 and arrange to suit for D&D- that suggestion was directed at those who want randomization but who strongly dislike the lows the original systems can generate.

 

[Janx]

Well, personally, I still prefer 4d6 and arrange to suit for D&D- that suggestion was directed at those who want randomization but who strongly dislike the lows the original systems can generate.

I been using 4d6, keep the best 3 for 20 years. it's been working fine enough. I've been lucky enough to get few low scores and just about every PC has had a few cool stats.

My paired inversion idea is a way to balance a lucky roller to a not-so-lucky player. I've got on friend who can't roll above a 10 to save is life.

I'm sure there's exceptions, but I doubt many people want to play a PC with really low stats. Or lower stats when other players rolled really well. The random generation can cause a problem when there's a gross disparity.

 

[Celebrim]

Here's a general question about stats...in several versions of D&D: Why does the game have a scale of 3-18, or so, but almost all characters use the higher half?

Think about it. Even the NPCs rarely have a stat lower than 8. Stats 1-10* (or 3-10) are hardly ever used. Why have them? For monsters?

Very good question.

The answer is that DM's almost always pad NPC's with excessively high attributes. For most purposes, NPC's exist only to thwart PC's. In order to maximize the challenge of an NPC, DM's tend to use 'elite stat arrays' or the equivalent even when the NPC's in question are rather ordinary - like common soldiers, caravan gaurds, low-life thugs, bandits and the like.

One of the upshots of this is that while the stat array theoretically goes from 3-18, the average tends to be around 14. It's not that unusual to in some campaigns to see NPC's sporting 2-3 18's and no stat under a 12.

And the result of that is for players to have a tendency to see attributes of 8 or 10 not as 'average' but rather as 'really weak', so that a character with 8 dexterity is 'clumsy' or one with a 10 intelligence is 'stupid' even though both attributes are sufficiently within the range of 'ordinary' that they probably wouldn't stand out immediately.

EDIT: Maybe I should say: Stats 12-18 are used all the time while it is very rare to see a character with a stat in the 1-7 range.

I make a conscious effort not to inflate my stats because IMO it cheats the players out of the experience of being special. NPC's generally tend to be weaker opponents than their level would otherwise suggest because they don't have elite stat arrays and aren't decked out like magical christmas trees. Likewise, a PC tends to have an importance to the community much higher than their level would suggest because they do.

Granted, I don't stat out alot of simpletons, fools, and commoners who are ineffectual at virtually everything, but I do make a particular point of making my average characters average and of reducing any attribute unnecessary for the character concept to as low as can be believed. There is no reason why a merchant or craftsman with a job that doesn't involve some amount of manual labor needs more than a 6-7 strength or 6-7 dexterity or both. A maid or a noblewoman might well get by with a 4 or 5 strength. Most noncombatant characters tend to have 8 constitution or less, and there is no reason that a brute laborer or enforcer needs more than 6-8 in any of his social or mental attributes. It's not usual for me to stat out some 'senior citizen' that has a combined strength, dexterity, and constitution of 12-14. The fact that they hobble about and are in frail health in no way means that they aren't respected and experienced members of the community. It may seem like a waste to have a 9th level character with 9 hit points, but it goes a long way toward explaining why the low level adventures are having the adventures and not the town elders.

 

[Water Bob]

And the result of that is for players to have a tendency to see attributes of 8 or 10 not as 'average' but rather as 'really weak', so that a character with 8 dexterity is 'clumsy' or one with a 10 intelligence is 'stupid' even though both attributes are sufficiently within the range of 'ordinary' that they probably wouldn't stand out immediately.

This hits the nail on the head.

I think GM's (DM's) should be more stringy when it comes to stats. Allow the 18 to be rare and desired--not commonplace to where each PC has at least one 18 stat.

Plus, a stat with a negative modifier (in 3E d20) shouldn't be looked at so negatively.

There's a fantastic line by Gary Gygax in the 1E AD&D DMG that says something like: Players are always pulling to make thier characters more powerful. It's the DM's job to keep them in check.

I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he meant. Players, and DMs alike, justify high scores these days with comments like, "Well, its no fun not playing a hero! If I wanted to play an average person, then I wouldn't be playing a fantasy game!"

I think a hero can be made from a character with stats above as well as below 10.

GM's should try to keep the "average" at 10 in their games so that this "stat abuse" doesn't happen.

I mean, a character with STR 7 should be extremely playable and not considered unplayable as a PC. This guy can carry around 25 lbs of weight with no problem. That's fairly fit! Even with a medium load, he's akin to some of our military people carrying gear--the STR 7 can carry almost 50 pounds (46 lbs) and be encumbered.

Walking around with 46 pounds of gear on you is a pretty tall order for most folks. The guy isn't Conan, but he's not a cripple, either (and he's probably carrying more gear than Frodo does).

I think the game, too, is meant for lower stats. Proof in the pudding is the arrays. The 3E DMG says an "elite" array is: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. And, it says a non-elite array is: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.

I agree with this. Look at the elite array. I've seen a lot of players consider those numbers very low and consider a character with those stats to be "weak".

On average stat, one marginally below average stat, and four above average stats is not "weak". It's pretty damn good. Elite.

PCs should measure themselves vs the elite array. If they are a lot better than that array, I think they're a bit overpowered (at 1st level, before stat growth at later levels).

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think a better question is "if you're only rarely going to use the actual score instead of the modifier, why not just use the modifier?"

 

[Umbran]

Think about it. Even the NPCs rarely have a stat lower than 8. Stats 1-10* (or 3-10) are hardly ever used. Why have them? For monsters?

I don't know about you, but I have NPCs and monsters with low stats all the time. It is a major way for me to keep them colorful.