>fifth edition >DM says roll stats in front of him >3d6

>>52768606
Moon druid

>>52768606
Make a Thief, die in the first combat and reroll.

>>52768606
make a stoner character that only wants to smoke of his wizard pipe and scowl at monsters.

>>52768606
>3d6 straight in any post-2e edition
>rolling stats in any post-2e edition
You should find a new DM, because your current one is more of a retard than your character.

If you insist on continuing, cleric or druid with a lot of buff and utility spells. Pick Variant Human to get your Con to a nearly-stable 6 while bumping Wis to 15. If your character and game survive, put ASIs into Con until it reaches 10, then Wis.

Alternatively >>52768657, but make a wizard and run into the nearest enemy.

>>52768606
Be heavily armored fighter.

Senile cleric.

File: Above Randy.jpg (35KB, 498x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 498x500px

>>52768606
You can make like a tree and get the fuck out of there. No gaming is better than bad gaming and with a retarded DM like you have it is going to be bad.

Scarred half-orc witch doctor.

>>52768606
If he doesn't at least let you reroll Con and Int, then fuck out of there and find a DM that follows the 'below 10 reroll' rule.

File: 1492340104874.jpg (27KB, 796x464px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 796x464px

>Not somersaulting out of the room when your DM told you to roll for stats
You brought this on yourself.

>>52768684
>>52768740
>>52768827
>>52768920

Only game in this middle of fucking nowhere town

>>52768684
>rolling stats in any post-2e edition
This.

Are people actually trying to make their players roll for stats in 5E, or is this just the lame new forced meme for April 2017?

>>52768606
Moon druid if you actually want to help. Otherwise rogue or monk or something so you can die quickly.

Of course what you should really do is walk away.

>>52768606
A quick exit.

File: 1490271878806.gif (836KB, 317x320px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 317x320px

Rolled 2, 4, 4, 3, 6, 1, 6, 3, 5, 2, 6, 5, 2, 5, 6, 5, 3, 6 = 74 (18d6)

>>52768606
Here have my great roll bro, Its on the house

>>52768950
With the Internet the middle of nowhere is as close as Roll20.

And again No gaming is better than bad gaming. At least with no gaming you can be doing something more fun with your time.

Fuck you can even start your own game, with blackjack and hookers.

>>52768630
Good answer. They are almost wholly stat independent, at least in the single-digit levels where their Wildshape is effective.

>>52769016
>2, 4, 4
>3, 6, 1
>6, 3, 5
>2, 6, 5
>2, 5, 6
>5, 3, 6

10, 10, 14, 13, 13, 14

Half Orc Fighter, pick a shield and heavy armor.
Play the heroic and altruistic type and naturally sacrifice yourself for your friends.
Then die and be glad you get to reroll.

>>52768606

3d6 down the line has only ever worked in pre-3e editions because of how the stats work, ie anything below a 15+ doesn't matter but doesn't hurt either. That your DM is so retarded he either can't recognize WHY that method was acceptable then and not now (mechanics changed), or that he is so retarded he blindly clings to tradition despite it being a completely different game (or wants to appeal to the authority if equally retsrdd grogs he probably cocksucks on some forum or blog) is more than enough justifucation to exit the game and never look back.

This is someone who never read the rulebook of the game he is running, or worse, read it and did not care. So I repeat, DO NOT PLAY IN HIS GAME!

>>52768965
I have my players roll. We use 4d6 roll-then-rearrange though. And one time 1d20 in order, but it's probably better if we don't talk about that

>>52769288

You are hosing them still, but not as badly as OP. I would allow an array or point buy if they roll worse than what it provides.

>>52769288
I personally run for a 6-man group.
So what I have everyone do for stats is that that each person, including me, rolls 4d6 drop lowest. That gives us seven stats. Then drop the lowest of those seven, mark the low roller as "unlucky" and the high roller as "lucky" in my notes, and let everybody arrange the resultant stat set.

I like it because it means we get rolled stats, which some of my players are nuts for and we all find fun, but also means everyone's on a level playing field.

>>52769288

4d6 drop lowest, or 4d6 keep everything?

>>52769340

What does being lucky or unlucky entail?

>>52769373
Just that if I need a plothook relating to luck or unluck, I already know who I'm using.

Party needs a push towards checking out the nobility so they'll stumble across the plots of the League of Evil Butlers?

Well, maybe the lucky guy happens to have a run-in with a drunk lord who's throwing around invitations to his wedding. The party nearly gets poisoned, and now wants to know who was murdering who.
Or maybe the unlucky guy gets framed by a passing butler for some nefarious misdeed. Not because he actually did anything, just because the butler looked at him and thought "Yeah, fuck that guy in particular". The party proves his innocence, then turns to figuring out who framed him and why.

>>52769459

So you turn the plpt against the fuy who rolled the worst?

Isn't that kind of bullshit? Punishing the player because of RNG?

Rolled 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 1, 6, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1, 1 = 60 (24d6)

Try this roll from Murica

>>52769559
It sounds to me like he makes the highest roller unlucky, so he has the best stats, but worst luck, and makes the worst stats guy lucky.

>>52768606
5e is not the kind of game where you should be rolling 3d6 straight down.

>>52768740
>I'm a power gaming faggot that needs every ingame advantage i can get

Rolled 2, 4, 4, 2, 6, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 6, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 2 = 61 (18d6)

Let's do this.

>>52769850
STR 10
DEX 12
CON 10
INT 10
WIS 9
CHA 9

Hmm...

Your way to a different game where your GM doesn't force you to keep fucking awful stats in the game where you should have a 20 in your primary by level 4.

>>52769560
Str 4, Dex 5, Con 9, Int 11, Wis 7, Cha 11 and 13 dicks in your murica ass, because he said 3d6, retard

>>52769560
Dude....

Rolled 2, 3, 5, 6, 1, 1, 6, 2, 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 4, 6, 3, 4 = 61 (18d6)

>>52768606

>>52769843
>Wanting to actually participate in the game is somehow power gaming.

Yeah, alright.

>>52770114
Str 10
Dex 8
Con 14
Int 9
Wis 7
Cha 13

Bard or fighter I guess.

>>52769559
I'm careful not to make it have any real direct consquence on them in particular.

In the "framed by the butler" example, it wouldn't go
Framed -> arrested -> in prison while the other PCs investigate -> trial -> freed
It'd go more like
Framed -> accused -> NOT arrested, NOT in prison -> all PCs investigate -> all PCs present findings to the guard -> acquitted

It does, I'll admit, sound like picking on the guy, but in practice it's worked out as "You botched the rolls during chargen, so here's some extra spotlight".

>>52770118
>I can't participate unless I am POWERFUL AND HAVE GREAT STATS AND STUFFZ!!!!

Mkay Mr.Faggotpowergamerfaggot

>>52770260
>You can totally play a character with ones in every stat! Stop whining and learn to ROLEPLAY!

What the fuck do you even call this? When someone goes so out of their way to avoid any kind of optimization whatsoever that they end up playing a useless cripple, just because in their own twisted logic they've convinced themselves that being good or exceptional at anything is somehow a bad thing.

Anti-gamers? Reverse-optimizers? Shit man, I dunno. I don't get that sort of attitude.

feral druid

>>52770330
You call them "People with permissive DMs".
See, if the GM lets backstory and narrative trump stats and rules, then a character with trash stats is still perfectly viable. Not because the game says so, because it don't and to it they ain't. But rather because the GM has said that having fun is OK.

But then they conclude "Hey, I had trash stats and played a monk and was a help to the party and that means all the people saying that bad stats mean a bad character or that the monk is worthless are all just powergaming play-to-win faggots". When in fact, having trash stats means you're a drag on the party and being a trash class means you're a drag on the party.

>>52770260

Enlighten our powergaming asses on how you would play 'Murrica's array of Str 4, Dex 5, Con 9, Int 11, Wis 7, Cha 11 and still meaningfully contribute in and out of combat in a way that is not metagaming due to your terrible stats? Keep in mind you have the common sense of Chris-chan, so weak you can't even carry a tune, get sick fairly often, and have to wear a helmet due to lack of coordination. I'm sure your average intelligence and people skills will carry you far.

>>52770423
Not that fag, but I'm up for a challenge of my 3.5 op-fu.

What level?
Are these stats before racial adjustments, or are they after the racial mods for whatever race I choose?

File: main-qimg-c13860a1396ecabe61721319e2317f31.png (165KB, 602x389px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 602x389px

>>52769352
Drop lowest obv

>>52769340
This reminds me of an idea that I've really besn wanting to try out.

Everybody rolls 3d6 in order. They can then trade stats amongst themselves. So if you roll a 6 dex, you can't switch that with your 15 str, but you can trade it to the guy who rolled a 14 for dex.

It's a sort of cooperative character creation, and it seems like it would be a fun team building activity. Theoretically everyone would end up at the same level, because both the extremely high and extremely low stats get passed around.

In practice I feel like my group just wouldn't trade with each other and try to hoarde whatever rolls they got.

>>52770407
>See, if the GM lets backstory and narrative trump stats and rules, then a character with trash stats is still perfectly viable.

Then why bother with stats at all then? In fact, why bother with any sort of rules if everyone's just going to ignore them?

>>52770423
As a young skinny boy. I dunno, 9 years old. or something. With potential to grow.

>>52770407
Found the freeform faggot

Rolled 4, 5, 6, 2, 5, 3, 6, 3, 3, 6, 2, 5, 2, 6, 4, 1, 5, 1 = 69 (18d6)

>>52770548
Why would a frail 9 year old go adventuring at all? Who in their right mind would let them tag along? Outside of sheer GM fiat, there's no reason for that character to be in a party of any kind.

>>52770631
Uh, chummer, you might want to reread that.

>>52770650
There's likely no reason for most of your powergaming group to be together.

As for a kid?

>adopted by group
>child of one of the members
>hired to keep him
>found floating in a fucking basket
>saved from being eaten by goblins and his parents are dead

Now, give him a couple magic items and some stat growth, and he's fine.

give him a -2 penalty to certain skills, but give him 4 ranks (6 with a feat of focus), and he's still at a +2-+4 to use said skill.

>>52770695
But you won't...because you're more interested in a +4 ring of dex or str, going to your half demon/half drow bard/assassian/mage, in getting a +4 to his already 22 dex.

Or am I mistaken?

*whistle*

>>52770695
>There's likely no reason for most of your powergaming group to be together.

If they're all competent in their respective fields, then it could at least be assumed they're a mercenary company who are all being allowed along adventures because they can actually earn their share of the gold.

It's not the most exciting motivation, but for an otherwise blank-slate character basic competence is a big driving factor.

Who in their right mind is going to take a kid into a dangerous dungeon with them where they'll be risking all their lives trying to protect them. Why are they going to load him up with magic items when a single magic item getting sold would be enough money to hire a fucking babysitter like this kid needs? Hell, you could probably hire a tutor so that when he's an actual adult, he'll have moderate intelligence enough to become a wizard.

Why does every other player have to bend over backwards and act out of character for their level of Int/Wis just to justify your stats being applied to a child?

>>52770695
>There's likely no reason for most of your powergaming group to be together.

Congratulations! You missed the entire point! Which was that a character needs to be at least somewhat competent stat-wise, otherwise they're a burden on the group as a whole. Nobody likes to babysit another party member. It's not fun, and anyone who forces a group to do it, whether it's the player who makes a retarded cripple because "muh roleplahy" or the GM who has to shoehorn a crap character into the group because they insist on rolling your stats, is an asshole.

>>52770773
>Who in their right mind is going to take a kid into a dangerous dungeon with them where they'll be risking all their lives trying to protect them.

In what way is he needing protected due to lower stats?

He can stand back and shoot, or cast CHA spells (for bard or other cha class).

>>52770807
Yes yes, you're a powergaming fuckwad that must have all 18's, or you feel 'weak'.

We get it faggot.

>>52768606
Either the DM doesn't understand the system or this is a bait thread.

File: Spellcheck_by_Doug_Beekman.jpg (114KB, 736x1094px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 736x1094px

>>52768606
>5e
>DM is a notorious minmaxer
>Read somewhere that the most optimal statline for players would be 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16.
>"using these static numbers, please choose an applicable class and race, "
Halp.
Pls.

>>52770854
I'd recommend you start by learning to play.
Ain't nuffin wrong with what he's doing.

>>52770828
>In what way is he needing protected due to lower stats?

The fact that he has a Con penalty and a Dex penalty means that the first time anyone swings at him in a fight he's probably going to trip over a rock and die.

Monsters don't just politely ignore short people standing in the back of a fight, especially if they're flinging spells. Except instead of a Wizard who has a degree of magical training and might actually accomplish something significant with his spells, you're letting a child be the frail person you have to protect.

It's all of the glass with none of the cannon, except worse, because your typical Wizard would still probably not be as glass as that.

It would be better for everyone if he stayed home and they brought along the NPC Village hunter who was all 10s except for 14 dex and just shot arrows all day.

>>52770899
And why, pray tell, can the child not be slinging spells?

>>52770899
>The fact that he has a Con penalty and a Dex penalty means that the first time anyone swings at him in a fight he's probably going to trip over a rock and die.

>What is armor
>What is HP
>What is Toughness

File: mallard-male-standing.jpg.adapt.945.1.jpg (37KB, 945x531px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 945x531px

>>52768965
My group rolls for stats. 4d6, drop the lowest die, 7 times, drop the lowest score, and then place those scores where you want.

>>52770911
because a spell slinger MUST have a min of 18 to cast anything.....otherwise, the spell caster is totally gimped and useless.

>>52770933
>What is armor
something a wizard doesn't have. At best he's got light armor or mage armor, which relies on Dex, and therefore takes a penalty.
>What is HP
Miniscule being level 1 and suffering a penalty from negative Con
>What is Toughness
Something that won't matter considering the stacked deck against him

Why would the party want to bring this waif along for their perilous romp? He can't cast spells worth a shit, hit worth a shit, survive worth a shit, has poor skills

>>52768606
Make necromanncer that only uses undead to deal damage

>>52770899
Why would a child have a dex penalty, anyways?

>>52770844
>Y-y-you're still a powergamer!

Just admit you have no goddamn idea what you're talking about and we can move on. You've already been btfo'd by multiple anons and now you're just crying about how no one agrees with you. You aren't fooling anyone.

>>52770844
I know right? these faggots dont roll with all threes. Fucking plebs.

>>52770984
Your undead don't key off int so you'll be fine

>>52770911
He can, he'll just be worse at it than any actual professional magician. And of course there's the fact that most spellcasting actually takes time to learn, so unless you make him a sorcerer then you've got a weird child prodigy who has gone through several years of Wizard/Bard training at this point?

>>52770933
>What is armor?

Something spellcasters don't get overly high amounts of, and is negated by his terrible dex

>What is HP

The same as above, but lower due to his Con

>What is toughness

A feat you're spending to make him marginally more survivable instead of getting focus on skills like the guy above suggested, meaning now he's contributing even less to the fight except he's slightly less of an annoyance to protect.

I mean, just imagine this kid walking into a dungeon. He's going to be making a racket, because he doesn't know how to move quietly. He won't be able to spot an ambush until it's already upon him. He's going to need someone to carry all of his supplies and him up cliffs or other things, and odds are he's going to just get shot by a single arrow and get killed without doing anything.

Unless the entire party has a max of 7 Int/Wis, nobody should think this is a good idea. Why do you support child soldiers and the killing of them anon?

>>52770990
Try to keep up, we're using the amazingly awful array that we rolled up thread with a 4 STR and 5 DEX.

>>52770952
I was assuming we were talking 5e, in which case a 14 would be the minimum I would expect from a professional dungeon delver.

He doesn't need to be the greatest mage in the land, but being better than the average townsperson seems like a good starting qualifier to go on an adventure.

>>52768606
Ask the DM to run Swords and Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord instead

>>52770990
See >>52771031

The array was >>52770423

The child part was suggested to help explain how low all the scores were. It doesn't explain why it's 'Bring your clumsy 9 year old to the Goblin Warrens' day

>>52768606
Play a fighter that thinks he's a paladin and be basically don quixote

>>52771069
Ok, then people need to stop implying that the trash dex is because of an age penalty.

>>52771114
Nobody was implying that

>>52771114
The only reason the whole child thing came up in the first place is because the "muh ROLEPLAY" retard was using it as a justification for his crap character, as if that somehow made it better.

Rolled 5, 1, 3, 1, 6, 6, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4 = 44 (12d6)

>>52768965
I preffer to make them start with a base 6 across the board and then roll 12d6 in order adding every two rolled numbers to a stat.

The lowest stat you get is 8 and the highest is 18.
Average is 12 so barely anyone will roll a useless character.

Watch me.

>>52771187

12 Str
10 Dex
18 Con
13 Int
14 Wis
13 Cha

>Pick your muscle-wizard.

Never really posted in one of these threads but...

I stopped playing 3.5e/Pathfinder years ago because it's a system entirely focused on dungeon crawls and heavily encourages people to make optimized characters using point buys. People play it like it's some kind of wargame rather than a roleplaying game, and that's not what I want.

New DM wants to run a game in Pathfinder for some reason, I'm not going to make an optimized character at all and I'm going to have fun. We can choose between rolling stats 4d6d1 or using point buy. I chose to roll. I have a 5 in one of my stats and I'm okay with this.

Pathfinder/3.5 seems like a system that people hear about, try out, then when they hear about other systems they move on and never look back, or that they stick to forever and end up talking about optimization and how much damage their level X character does on average.

>>52771284
>I stopped playing 3.5e/Pathfinder years ago because it's a system entirely focused on dungeon crawls and heavily encourages people to make optimized characters using point buys. People play it like it's some kind of wargame rather than a roleplaying game, and that's not what I want.
Cool story bro.

>New DM wants to run a game in Pathfinder for some reason, I'm not going to make an optimized character at all and I'm going to have fun. We can choose between rolling stats 4d6d1 or using point buy. I chose to roll. I have a 5 in one of my stats and I'm okay with this.
The hilarious thing is that it really doesn't matter unless you tank a stat your class needs, or are playing a class that's so shit it needs all stats.
And if that's the case, you're fucking over your group.

>Pathfinder/3.5 seems like a system that people hear about, try out, then when they hear about other systems they move on and never look back, or that they stick to forever and end up talking about optimization and how much damage their level X character does on average.
Cool story bro

>>52771284
>I have a 5 in one of my stats

The powergamers will now explain how your charc is hopeless and lame, and will destroy and drag down the entire group, and possibly destroy all RPGS. If you enjoy that, you're having fun wrong, and should die.

>>52771362
Yeah, those fucking powergamers that expect a person to have a stat above 11 to offset their 4s and 5s. How dare they not want to babysit the special needs child I made?

>>52771362
Oh shut the fuck up you salty little bitch.

>>52771414
>Not having all 18's and above
>needs babysitting

Since we're implying..

>>52771362
I don't entirely blame the players desu, they're not 100% wrong. The system and the scenarios seem to be created with a power level in mind, and almost entirely around combat/dungeon crawling and not much actual roleplaying.

Combat encounters seem to end up levelled according to the power level of the players, or at least what is 'supposed to be' the power level of the players rather than what makes sense. You stop seeing low level creatures because they're not a challenge, you don't see high level creatures because they will destroy you. Things like that bother me, it's like when you're playing Oblivion and you realise that as you level up, the bandits have suspiciously better and better weapons and armour until eventually you see bandits in daedric and ebony armour. If everything else is getting stronger as you level up, do you actually gain any power?

>>52771414
I didn't say what my other stats were.

Have a couple neg's on your stats?

You're totally hopeless and will RUIN ALL RPGS if you attempt to roll with it.

Skill ranks make up for a lot of stats, and feats do as well. But if you have a negative.....you simply must kill yourself and start over.

This is serious shit.....play a pc with a neg on a stat, can and WILL ruin RPGS forever.

You're warned.

>>52771445
Did I say 18? No, I said 11.

>18 16 14 12 10 8 (in a stat that doesn't matter)

That's what powergaming looks like

>14 12 11 10 8 6

This is what basic competence in a specific field of adventuring looks like

>11 10 8 7 5 5 4

This is what you're implying is totally fine and not a burden on anyone else

And the best part is, you're advocating for the rolling system that can give you all 3 of these in the same group

>>52771362
see
>>52771013

You know what?
Fuck ALL of you, I'm cutting the gordian know because you're too 'tarded.

Variant Human, Illusionist Wizard.
Statline is now 4,5,10,12,7,11. Put the feat in Alert if you're afraid of your party members conspiring to leave you defenseless, or in Lightly Armored if you want less-bad AC.

Illusions don't grant saves until interacted with: Thus, not being a mouthbreathing 'tard allows you to execute BFC without granting saves. Thus, you never need to roll to hit and your save DC never matters.

>>52771535
>you either have 18's
>or 3's

lol

>>52771501
Have a couple plus's on your stats?

You're a total powergamer and will RUIN ALL RPGS if you attempt to roll with it.

Skill ranks make up for a lot of stats, and feats do as well. But if you have a positive....you simply must kill yourself in real life.

This is serious shit.....play a pc with a plus on a stat, can and WILL ruin RPGS forever.

You're warned.

>>52771551
^This guy right here gets it

>>52771555
But but but stats dont matter when im role playing!

>>52771551
>Stat above 11

Woah, slow down there you fucking powergamer. Did you just put your human racial bonus in your class's primary stat? Way to be a min-maxing fuck. Can't even deal with an 11, wow.

>>52771614
>human racial bonus to stats
>wat?

>>52771635
I assumed you went with that 4 Str 5 dex 9 con 11 int 7 wis 11 cha statline and bumped up the Con and Int by 1 point with variant human.

>>52771658
4 ,5 on str/dex gives a nasty -3 to skill checks, etc
the 9 on con a -1.

That 11? that's breaking even, no negs, no bonus. the 7 gives a -2.

So if we're making a mage....and we put the 11 in int and con...i'm not sure how much the other low stats will bother him. He doesn't use armor, so weight isn't a big deal. He's not going to be climbing ropes or picking locks, so dex isn't a huge concern.

Take toughness (or some such feat), and then take it again or use it to buff up your illusions a bit....and you've got an ugly little mage.

Totally workable.

>>52769904
keksalotl plz

>>52771589
It is actually a ton of fun playing a mediocre stat character with a focus. 5e even more so than previous editions.

A lot of characters work perfectly find without the perfect stat array.

Meanwhile, we also have MAD characters which are just not that good without better-than-array stats.

>>52770952
that's just sarcasm

>>52771780
You don't get to assign stats in this clusterfuck.

But yes, the answer (as already solved) is to play a mage and use spells that don't give a fuck about your casting stat.
Being the party buffwhore would also work quite well.

>>52771780
Dex affects AC, so a heavy penalty there makes you a very easy target in a fight. Of course, that's assuming you get to arrange stats, which isn't often the case for 3d6 in order.

It's workable, but not if everyone in the party rolls similarly poorly.

>>52771845
>You don't get to assign stats in this clusterfuck.

Ugh. Ok, that makes it a little nastier.

Reminds me of my d&d days. Where there was often pc's with a 3-5 in a couple stats...and never charisma, always the stat bomb hit on fucking str or dex.

>>52772053
I feel like 3d6 in order worked better back in the AD&D days where you needed above a 14 or below a 7 to really have the numbers start to affect things.

5e is a bit better overall, since you can make a pretty serviceable character with relatively low stats, and even for something reliant on them it isn't hard to squeeze out a 16, though I would say 5e does need the ability to swap things around even if going for 3d6, just because it is more dependent on numbers mattering to a degree.

File: 834583.jpg (27KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x480px

NO MATTER YOUR STATS,

YOU CAN ALWAYS BE A MOON DRUID

OR A BARD

>>52771551
But you can't cast spells beyond 1st level.

>>52772273
5e did away with that.

And if we're doing 3.5, I'll just go venerable Dragonwrought Kobold for a +3 to my mental stats, dump my attribute gains in int, and be totally fine on the spellcasting requirements front as long as I craft a +2 int magic item before 15th level.

>Rolls a stat line 3d6 down the line
>STR 11
>DEX 14
>CON 7
>INT 7
>WIS 8
>CHA 11
>Play rogue with 4 hp at level 1
>Get hit by an arrow in first combat for 4 damage
>stabilize but down at 0 hp.
>Orc runs up and hits me for 6 damage
>Fail saving throw because I only rolled a 14 on the die.
>Die.
That was fun.

>>52772159
Yeah, stat rolling was more for when you had to have REALLY exceptional stats, good or bad, for any significant changes. That, and players were a lot more likely to die, and thus more disposable.

>>52772432
First level pc's are always in danger of getting cut down.

I've had a rogue die from a couple kobold slings.

Lv1 is a dangerous time to be a pc. This is as it should be.

>>52771284
>I stopped playing 3.5e/Pathfinder years ago because it's a system entirely focused on dungeon crawls

To be honest, it handles dungeon crawling in a manner that is in my opinion worse than TSR D&D, namely with its bloated combat system

>>52772601
I mean... DnD in general handles dungeon crawling badly in my eyes. Every dungeon is levelled, and most dungeon masters level encunters, so what's the point levelling up if you don't actually get any stronger?

Why even optimize a character if the DM just optimizes the encounters to balance it out?

>>52772633
what? who scales dungeons?

>heres a lv 1 dungeon guys
>heres a lv 2 dungeon
>this one is lv 3, best save it for later

No no.

>>52772633
Have you never actually played a good dungeon crawl?

>>52772633
Please be bait.

>>52772679
>good
>dungeon crawl

Yes. Eye of the Beholder on Nintendo.

In an rpg? No.

File: flip.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>52772432
>attacking the downed character when there are other moving characters
>BUT THATS WHAT THEY WOULD DO

File: Screenshot+2017-04-18+08.24.38.png (1MB, 1094x1063px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1094x1063px

>>52772662
>>52772679
>>52772698

I mean they do sort of explicitly set up scenarios for specifically levelled characters and have encounters specifically for those levels of characters right. So what's the point of levelling up and improving if everything else is just improving to match you?

>>52769062
It could work character wise as well. Have them be really uncomfortable when not in wildshape because of how frail and vulnerable they are.

>>52771780
>modifiers
This is why I do roll under. Conpletely changes the nature of the system.

>>52768606
Leave the game, 3d6 is not meant for anything newer than 2E, and it was even cautioned against in 1E.

Rolled 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 4, 5, 4, 6, 4, 6, 3, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 3 = 64 (18d6)

>>52773209
You'll have to explain how it does anything aside from making people want - instead of +.

>>52772707
Have you considered that maybe you just don't like dungeon crawls?

>>52768606

Staunch Gygaxian Grognard here. Roll with it OP, sounds like it'll make some for some interesting roleplay, and with proper strategy, stats aren't nearly as important as these faggots are making them out to be.

File: 1491930457956.jpg (65KB, 675x703px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 675x703px

>>52773521
Consider:

With modifiers, a 10 is literally useless. Even an 18, the natural peak of human achievement, only grants a +4 bonus.

Using roll under mechanics however, on a standard, unmodified check, a 10 grants a 50% chance of success. An 18 makes you the unstoppable near demigod you are in a given field.

Basically, it changes the dynamic to being less lolsrandumb, and makes things more balanced across the score range. It also has the added bendfit that odd numbers actually do grant a benefit.

It was actually pretty simple to hack 5e to run this way. No idea whether it would work with 3.pf tho

>>52773696
And I assume you add modifiers for things like Proficiency and target's AC?

>>52773561
Yes, it was considered. I found that theres some truth to that.

>>52773784
Correct. Proficiency bonus just gets added to the ability score.

DCs are converted into penalties against a score (for AC and skill checks it's DC-10, for saving throws DC-8).

So a 2nd level character with a stat of 12 has a 14 for skills and weapons they're proficient with. An enemy with AC 14 instead gives a -4 penalty to attacks.

If the aforementioned character attacked the aforementioned enemy, then they'd need to roll 10 or lower

>>52773996
So you've just made all stats give +1 per point above 10, instead of +1 per two points. You've also made all d20 rolls harder by a point.

'grats, man. Huge difference there.

Rolled 2, 6, 1, 3, 5, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 6, 3, 2, 5, 5, 2, 6 = 64 (18d6)

>>52774198

2, 6, 1 = 9 STR
3, 5, 1 = 9 DEX
4, 1, 5 = 10 CON
1, 6, 6 = 13 INT
3, 2, 5 = 10 WIS
5, 2, 6 = 13 CHA

These rules are 'average'... I guess?

>>52774318
Ya.

Looks good.

>>52774053
Well first off it makes d20 rolls easier, not harder.

More to the point however, that DOES make a huge difference. Consider >>52774318. With modifiers they get a +5% chance of success over the baseline. Rolling under makes them 15% more likely to succeed on an equivalent check.

Changing the game in this way simultaneously makes low power play viable within the system, and makes a high powered heroic style actually feel heroic instead of the bare minimum needed to be competent.

t. Guy who's been running this hack for almost a year now

>>52774458
>Well first off it makes d20 rolls easier, not harder.
If and only if you have a relevant stat of 13 or greater.
Anybody with a 11 or 12 is no better off, anybody with a 10 or less is having a harder time.

>>52773032
>So what's the point of levelling up and improving if everything else is just improving to match you?

Things aren't improving to match you, you're going up against harder things. Unless your GM is running Oblivion, in which case he may just be adding numbers to a crab's stat block and giving bandits shinier armor every time you level up.

I'm running a 5e game with rolled stats. It's even the default method described in the book.

I don't understand how this is crippling or somehow game-breaking. Yes, certain people are bad at certain things, but then the party has to rely upon one another more so to cover each other's weaknesses. Being capable and kicking ass is fun and all, but a game needs contrast and challenge. Failure can be just as interesting as success, so long as the GM isn't stomping your nuts about it.

Heaven forbid you pitch an idea in gamefinder where the PCs aren't starting with godmode on.

>>52776177
[autistic point buy screeching intensifies]

My buildsssssss

>>52776177
If it works out well, it's fine.

But then you get the situation where Alex and Bob both make the same class and race.
But Alex rolls 16,16,14,12,10,10
And Bob rolls 14,14,13,11,10,8.

Until you hit the level where they get their archetypes, Bob is just "Alex but with worse numbers".
And if they choose the same archetype? Well then Bob is stuck playing second string to Alex for ever.

And it even happens with overly similar classes. Wiz and sorc, for example.

>>52776177
>Yes, certain people are bad at certain things, b
This is unacceptable.

>>52776177
>PCs aren't starting with godmode on.

I go for pointbuy in 5e specifically to avoid that. Pointbuy caps out at 15, which means even min-maxing with racial mods as much as you can, you've got a +3 mod, tops, and for each of those you're probably gonna have an 8 somewhere else.

Meanwhile, somebody rolling can just get an 18, and suddenly their Elf has 20 dex way before they should. Now their AC is nearly as good as someone in full plate, which the Fighter who got a more mediocre strength roll won't be able to get for several levels at least. Not only that, but they'll be doing more damage thanks to being at a +2 above everyone else for it and accuracy, and they won't need to spend feats on boosting Dex so they can buy Sharpshooter and get ahead even further.

You want to see Godmode in 5e? Just roll until someone gets an 18

>>52776232
I've never understood that logic.

I dm for 3 guys that normally play the exact same class. Always. 3 mages, 3 rogues, 3 fighters......always the same (well, 90% of the time)

We always roll, and we never have this issue. They don't make it a 'lol my player has 2 more str than yours, so I win!!".

They'll pick different weapons (sometimes), and always take different feats and skills.

If Bob and Alex try to duplicate each other, that's not a mechanics issue when their stats aren't equal. It's a player issue.

File: 1453896293869.jpg (69KB, 640x628px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x628px

>>52768606
>5e
>3d6 down the line

You make nothing and never play with that DM.

Riddle me this: if the vast majority of D&D players do not roll for stats, why is it the default generation mechanic presented in the book?

>>52776391
I'd wager that most people that play (not including online), roll for stats.

But then, I sometimes wonder if most of tg actually plays.

>>52768606

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

>>52776298
In 5e, there's basically no character options outside of spell/invocation/maneuver selection, archetype choice, and skills.

Sounds to me like you're playing 3.PF, which doesn't have nearly as much of an issue in that regard. There's a dozen ways to make a fighter in core (and all but one suck past fifth level, but that's another topic) so there's plenty of design space to go around.

>>52776298
I played in a 2e game where we had a Wizard and 3 Warriors. One of them rolled pretty poorly on everything but Con, one of them rolled average, and one of them rolled insane percentile strength and also enough Cha to be a Paladin.

I'll let you guess which one was relegated to pack mule, which one was relegated to cleanup duty, and which one was nicknamed 'Superman' and took care of everything actually important that a Fighter is capable of.

>>52773032
If I remember right reading the 5eDM book, it explains level to potential experience ratios for this exact reason.

Which is like x amount of characters of y level need A amount of potential xp to be an easy encounter, B amount of xp to be an average encounter, and C amount of xp to be a hard encounter.

(It was five levels of difficulty)
It explained it pretty well. So as the difficulty increases you can sculpt the story around easy to extremely difficult encounters depending on however you want to mix your monsters, so long as they are in a certain xp range you'll know how hard it should be for your players.

>>52776391
The 'default' way for 5e is 4d6 drop lowest, assign them as you will. not 3d6 down the line.

>>52776781
To further clarify this.
Imagine a single PC at level one.
A medium difficulty encounter would be 100xp if he kills the monster.
50 for easy
And 150 for hard.
Using this, along with the numbers of PCs intended to be in the fight, and their current levels, you can form challenging or fluff based encounter's suited to the PCS levels.

>>52776627
2e pallys rocked. They were just very very rare without DM allowing nonstandard rolls.

>>52776920
Yeah. He was the center of the party. We gave him all the magical equipment since he could use it best, and he took care of all the bending bars and other things fighters do in a dungeon. Even if he hasn't been a Paladin, he still would have had a massive edge against the guy who was only useful as a meatshield and the Fighter that was just average.

It was still a fun time, though I was playing the mage so I might be biased.

>>52777155
>I never got to play a pally in 2e
>I never got the rolls for it
>I'm still sorta butthurt about this

>>52777178
Sorry to hear that anon. 2e has a lot of variant rolling systems available though

>>52777192
We always did the same method.

4d6, drop lowest (reroll 1's) play em' in order.

6-18 on each stat.

It was a 'high powered' rolling system back then. But we usually had 2-3 players, so we justified it.

>>52774519
Not him but why the fuck wouldn't you have a relevant stat that's over 13 at the very least?

I mean, unless you somehow rolled nothing above a 10 and/or you were too stubborn not to use an array or point buy for whatever reason, you're going to have a stat that's over 13 at the very least for whatever stat you're focusing on for your class.

If your luck is that shit and the DM doesn't let you reroll, you have WAY bigger problems than whatever "flaws" you can find in rolling under.

>>52777718
Relevant to the roll in question, not to your class.

Such as when you zap the BSF with a Charm Person.

>>52777785
In either method, if your wisdom is crap, you're going to be screwed one way or another anyways, which makes sense because an enemy mage is exploiting your weakness in resistant their mind-altering effect.

In addition, in 5e at least, you'd also get advantage if someone was attempting to use Charm Person against you during combat, so when you factor in that, the chance of success vs. failure will more or less even out.

>>52778045
The point is the mechanical impact. I don't get why you're acting like I'm accusing you of something when I provided a simple example.

You have made success less likely for any roll where the roller's stat that relates to the roll in question is 10 or lower,
You have made success more likely for any roll where the roller's stat that relates to the roll in question is 13 or higher,
These are facts, not allegations. You are not on trial here, though you're sure acting guilty.

>Don't worry guys stats don't matter. You can roleplay around them!
>>You failed your perception check. 3 orcs with bows open fire on the group.
>Cleric. You get hit with 2 arrows for 11 damage. You're at -5 hp.

>>52778422

>If my charc ever fails a check, or takes damage, then it was because i was stat-fucked, and the dm sucks, and i h8 this game!
>rageface.jpg

>>52778160
As I said, I'm not even the guy you were talking to, I'm just weighing in on this discussion so any supposed guilt you can gleam from my previous posts ultimately have nothing to do with this discussion.

Aside from that, why exactly is it a bad thing to have a weak stat be less likely to fail and a good stat be more likely to succeed?

>>52778452
If the stats don't matter then there wouldn't be a mechanical difference between a dude with 8 CON vs. a dude with 18 CON, which puts you in an awkward position.

If the stats truly don't matter, then what's the point of having them? If they do matter, then why would anyone choose not to have the best stats required to play their class to the best of their ability?

Also, why exactly does having good stats in the stats that your class is more likely to use automatically make it impossible to roleplay in the first place?

>>52778546
Myself, I don't think that having good stats HURT RP in any way. In fact, IMO, I think that heroes should be a cut above the avg npc farmer.

However, heroes have heroic flaws as well...and a low stat (or flaw), shouldn't make them impossible to play.

>>52778546
But failing a skill check because you got a bad roll, isn't something that "omg rp is ruined!".

If a thief fails to hide and gets spotted, is it because he had a low stat? or didn't put enough ranks in hide? or because sometimes, the npc gets a lucky break?

>>52768606
8 int gnome (illusionist) wizard.
Pick spells that don't need attack rolls or don't have ability score significant DCs
Stuff like sleep, magic missile, grease, fog cloud, minor illusion, etc
Illusions do have an int check to disbelieve /see through, but only if a creature spends their action investigating it, or if they interact with it in some way, so you can still achieve total cover (ie cannot be targeted) by making an illusory 5ft cube box around your tiny gnome body.
Gnomes are also great to annoy your DM. you can talk in a stupid voice, say inappropriate things in character to derail plots, and be a massive pest until your DM is more than happy for you to reroll (point buy) a new character. If he kills him off, you also win.

>>52778706
A low stat in and of itself does not equal a flaw, especially since most systems will allow you to raise a stat during play while flaws are inherent downsides associated with your character that may or may not be possible to get rid of regardless of however much investment you make in the campaign.
>>52778734
That has nothing to do with this discussion though.

>>52778905
>That has nothing to do with this discussion though.
see...
>>52778422

>>52778835
>Gnomes are also great to annoy your DM. you can talk in a stupid voice, say inappropriate things in character to derail plots, and be a massive pest until your DM is more than happy for you to reroll (point buy) a new character. If he kills him off, you also win.
This motherfucker gets it. When I rolled shit and the DM didn't let me reroll, I just played my shit character as the most obnoxious piece of trash this side of FR. He'd make inappropriate comments to female NPCs, would steal from random people, get into drunken rants about elves, dwarves, and any number of races that pissed him off that day, and he always did something to derail the plot, like one time when he prepositioned the princess into giving him a blowjob while her parents were in the room giving us a quest.

Our DM was a pussy who didn't like killing PC's off because "muh narrative," so whenever something happened, the DM would make it so I never died.

The game ended up imploding 2 months in though.

>>52778934
There's a difference between making an opposed roll and being killed because the DM forgot that passive perception exists.

>>52778452
>Stat penalty at -1 instead of a bonus of at least +2
>INT mod is probably negative so say goodbye to skill points
Having a 12 in every stat would be better than 3d6 down the line.

File: trailerparkboys.jpg (199KB, 1140x760px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1140x760px

>>52768606
the Green Bastard from parts unknown of course

>>52779012
And what if your passive perception is 11 becaus eyour stats refuse to let you have skill points to customize your character?

>>52778504
>Aside from that, why exactly is it a bad thing to have a weak stat be less likely to fail and a good stat be more likely to succeed?
READING COMPREHENSION, retard.
Weak stats are more likely to fail.

>>52779305
In 5e, there are no skill points to distribute, you either get to add your prof. bonus to a skill or you don't.

>>52779333
>Weak stats are more likely to fail.
Which is a bad thing?

>>52768684
>>52768965

I always make my players roll, because I don't like the minmaxed cookie-cutter characters that I get otherwise. I give them the option of going core races/classes and rearranging their attributes, or rolling down the line and playing any class (still core races). I also do a secret GM roll and allow them to replace one attribute with that roll for better or worse (rarely do they come off worse for it).

>>52768606
Play a backline cleric. Your Wis is high enough that you should have no problem casting all the spells you'll actually need to cast, and by the time you need a higher Wis you can get magic items to amp your Wis to where you need it to be. Focus on support, rather than an in-your-face combat oriented cleric.

>>52779348
Well that's dumb. How do I differentiate between low level characters of the same class then?

>>52773595
This. Why are there so many uncreative people in this thread? You play what the dice send your way and find a way to make it work.

>>52779368
Decide on your point and state it, faggot.
Are you in favor of weak stats being more likely to fail?
Are you in favor of weak stats being less likely to fail?


>>52779439
Race, which skills they're proficient in, and spells they chose.

>>52779439
Their race? Their background? Their proficiencies?

>>52779439
By taking different backgrounds which give different skills and bonuses, and then when you actually get to pick a subclass depending on your class

>>52779452
>>52779481
>>52779488
Wait. So if I want to be good at two different skills and they don't share the same background that means I can't be proficient in those two skills?
What kind of cookie cutter design is this shit.

>>52779517
Then pick a class that permits you to take one of the skills your background grants that you don't want, and pick that skill. If your background would grant you a skill you already have, it becomes a "free choice".

>>52779452
Dude, you need to calm down, I'm not even the dude you were arguing with initially, I'm just weighing in with my own opinion.

Why are you being so defensive about this thing? It's not like you have to use his house rule if you feel that strongly against it.

>>52779517
You also can't buy your starting equipment. You have to pick from a extremely small list of things and you can't pick anything else.

>>52779517
You get a minimum of 4 skills by default, 2 from class, 2 from background. You can potentially pick up more with a feat later.

Unless you want to dip into two really contrasting skills with a class, you'll probably find something. Not only that, but the section actively recommends working with your DM to come up with new backgrounds to better suit your character, since they come with other upsides as well.

>>52779565
That's a lie. It's up to the DM if he has you start with the basic equipment package, or if you buy equipment normally. There's even a table for starting gold values by class and everything, though again, the DM could just give everyone a flat value as well.

5e has lots of Variant rules.

>>52779565
The presets are there if you want to just choose something quickly, you can still roll for your starting gold and buy equipment normally if the presets aren't doing anything for you.

>>52779565
>>52779517
5e was made for casuals who've never touched a RPG before in their life so their design philosophy revolved around "How can we make their characters for them and give them as little room for creativity as possible".

File: me on the right.png (704KB, 840x623px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 840x623px

What would a CON 3 character look like?

>>52779691
Smeagol

File: 1490725867787.jpg (191KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 894x894px

>>52779691
Best I can do is Con 8.

Rolled 4, 6, 3, 3, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 4 = 40 (12d6)

>>52779723

Best way to roll stats is to do 2d6 down the line and then multiply by 1.5, rounding to nearest even number.

I only use rolling whenever a players doesn't know what they want to do. So we let the dice decide.

>>52779333
>If my charc fails it's because of weak stats!
>and my charc should NEVER FUCKING FAIL!

Mkay

>>52779710
But smeagol is incredibly tough and enduring. He manages to travel hundreds of miles enormously quickly considering his hobbit sized legs, and on almost no food or water.

>>52780152
Undead have no con

I'm pretty sure that fucking thing was undead of some kind.

File: 1482955982835.jpg (237KB, 600x1041px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 600x1041px

>>52768606
>Make a Thief, die in the first combat and reroll.

Fuck that. You take that shit and own it. You roleplay the cleric that just barely passed seminary through sheer stubborness and unshakable faith.

You are a week dumbass but the gods put you here for a fucking purpose, even if it is to serve as a warning to others.

You play this character and make them pay dor sticking you with shit stats in a system where stats are the almighty god for determining character worth.

>>52778984
>like one time when he prepositioned the princess into giving him a blowjob while her parents were in the room giving us a quest.

I mean...what'd she say? Did it work?

>>52780100
10
10
10
6
10
10
-------------------------

Since there isn't at least a +1 modifier, it would be a reroll.
--------------------------
8
14
10
10
16
10

--------------------------
You smoking crack my man?

>>52780100
How do you determine "nearest even number" for an odd number? Round up?

>>52780100
Yeah, naw, that's shit. It makes absolute trash stats (4s, 6s) very common.
One in fucking six rolls will be a four or a six. That's absurd.

The mean works out fine, but the distribution is fucked to sunday.

>>52780627
I don't know how you derived what you did.

>>52780674
You only round .5 numbers, you don't round odd ones. Rounding to nearest even is done to prevent moving the average.

>>52780728
I don't view a more drastic distribution as a bad thing. I like characters with obvious strengths and weaknesses.

>>52780100
For the record, this would be
STR 15
DEX 9
CON 10
INT 6
WIS 10
CHA 9

Dumb as bricks warrior man, nice.

>>52781167
>You only round .5 numbers, you don't round odd ones. Rounding to nearest even is done to prevent moving the average.
You're contradicting yourself. Or just badly explaining.

>>52768606
>What can I make this?
A justified reason to hate that particular bullshit method of stat generation.

>>52781167
Well, I rounded to the nearest even number, or else some of those 10's would be 9's.

Average is going to be 10, but lower numbers are likely - specifically 9. It's not a great stat gen method.

>>52781250
If the number produced is not a whole number, I either add or subtract 0.5. I choose which based on what will make it an even number.

So here's the whole table:

2 -> 3 -> 3
3 -> 4.5 -> 4
4 -> 6 -> 6
5 -> 7.5 -> 8
6 -> 9 -> 9
7 -> 10.5 -> 10
8 -> 12 -> 12
9 -> 13.5 -> 14
10 -> 15 -> 15
11 -> 16.5 -> 16
12 -> 18 -> 18

>>52781333
Yeah sorry, I guess I didn't explain round-to-nearest-even well enough. It's referenced commonly in my field so I'm a little blind to the complexity.

Your second set of numbers makes more sense knowing you were rounding 9 to 10. Thought you only rolled lower than 7 once.

>>52781370
No, there were several 6's. 3 iirc.

I still had the online dice roller up, so here are the actual rolls before the 1.5 multiplication, top number is the last number rolled, bottom is the first.

Roll(2d6)+0:
3,4,+0
Total:7

Roll(2d6)+0:
5,5,+0
Total:10

Roll(2d6)+0:
3,3,+0
Total:6

Roll(2d6)+0:
5,1,+0
Total:6

Roll(2d6)+0:
6,3,+0
Total:9

Roll(2d6)+0:
3,2,+0
Total:5

Roll(2d6)+0:
2,4,+0
Total:6

Roll(2d6)+0:
5,2,+0
Total:7

Roll(2d6)+0:
1,3,+0
Total:4

Roll(2d6)+0:
4,2,+0
Total:6

Roll(2d6)+0:
2,5,+0
Total:7

Roll(2d6)+0:
1,6,+0
Total:7

>>52770773
>If they're all competent in their respective fields, then it could at least be assumed they're a mercenary company who are all being allowed along adventures because they can actually earn their share of the gold.

That is the most boring group description I've ever seen. And sadly is something so common, these days.

>we're a mercenary group and money is the only thing binding us together
That sounds to me like a bunch of millennials too used to playing video games who are trying pen and paper for the first time. You know, those kinds of players that are so locked up in video game rpg characters that end up being incapable of crating anything that doesn't fit the [meatshield/offensive wizard/support/edgy rogue] roles. The same kids who then come to the internet to complain about how martials should be just as powerful as casters and how the alignment system is bad because evil is a social construct, when in truth they just want be nerdy and be part of the nerdy outcast group but don't know shit about the game and completely miss the point about what roleplaying games are supposed to be.

Sure, you can play whatever you want, of course. But don't complain later when the DM start off an adventure with...
>[ Your characters magically wake up together in some random ass location even though they are complete strangers and are immediately greeted by the generic DMPC who then proceeds to explain away their mission ]
... because your boring ass group have no backstory and the players have no roleplaying skills or imagination to work with.

Its perfectly fine for newbie games to be like this. The real sad part is seeing games like that among experienced players. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

>>52781541
Could you at least hold off on putting words in my mouth after you read the second sentence of that post?

I already said it wasn't a great tying factor, but it was one, which is all the other guy asked.

And I'd certainly prefer the bland, sensible motivation over having to jump through hoops to justify why the guy with 1 hitpoint thinks getting shot at is a good career change.

Why can't we have characters with motivations and weaknesses that make sense on our own? Why do we have to be so creatively bankrupt that we need random rolls to decide that a character should be weak in some area?

A guy with 14 Int and everything else below 10 makes at least some sense adventuring. A guy with everything below 10 makes you question why anyone else wouldn't be better.

At that point, I'd be wondering why every single NPC and monster doesn't seem to have a crippling disability. Where's the Goblin who rolled 3 on his Dex and ruins every ambush? They did bring him along right? They wouldn't do something intelligent like telling him to stay home and not be a warrior, would they?

Rolled 6, 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 3, 5, 6, 1, 6, 3 = 43 (13d6)

What I have my players do is start with a base of 3 for all stats, then roll 13D6, the 13th being a +3 bonus for the landed stat (e.g. 1 = +3 STR, 6 = +3 CHR). Hasn't failed us yet.

>>52781677
>STR 13
>DEX 5
>CON 9
>INT 10
>WIS 14
>CHA 15

neat

>>52781690
>1, 6
Cha should be 10, methinks.

>>52781617
>I'd be wondering why every single NPC and monster doesn't seem to have a crippling disability. Where's the Goblin who rolled 3 on his Dex and ruins every ambush?

Those NPC's are there, right next to the npc blacksmith that rolled 18 on his strength and 17 on his con........he just didn't want to adventure.

The goblin with the 3 dex? His tribe ate him after he blew an ambush. Or he was killed in his sleep by an adventurer.

Some of you all focus way to much on stats...seriously

>>52781541
>The real sad part is seeing games like that among experienced players. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

No one in our group would tolerate that bullshit. It's not you. It's just shitty DM work, and tolerated by shit players.

>>52781957
Yeah, that's the thing. I usually like to have some immersion when I'm playing a game, and that breaks pretty hard when you're weaker than every able-bodied man in town, but you're still being hired to go fight monsters.

If the locals are having a goblin problem, and the village blacksmith is this amazing, then get him and all the other people who lucked out on a useful stat and have them do it instead of relying on these no-name strangers that keep tripping over themselves.

Rolling for stats is on par with Critical Fumbles. Good for laughs if you're not taking things seriously and don't care what happens, bad if you actually want a reason for anyone to treat the PCs like adventurer's instead of escaped mental patients.

>>52781617
If you're describing creating an interesting character as jumping hoops then why are you playing a roleplaying game?

You talk about roleplaying games as if they're simply fantasy combat simulators. Can't you see you're completely missing the point?

Roleplaying games are about exploring a fantastic world, talking to fantastic people, doing fantastic things and facing fantastic challenges. Its a make believe game with rules.

If you can only have fun with combat then whats the difference between playing a tabletop game and a multiplayer action rpg videogame?

Back then we had fun creating characters with weak points or even completely random points.
You would look at those points and try to make a character out of it, how would a person with those attributes be like, how did they have lived their lives?
Would they be a farmer with strong physical attributes but low intellect?
Would they be a bookworm who is an apprentice wizard but who could hardly use a shield?
Would they be a charismatic scoundrel? Or maybe an artist?
Or would they be someone completely average in every attribute, someone who could be proficient in several different things but specialize in none?

Creating a group of characters with combat in mind is not what D&D was supposed to be.

DMs who also make adventures with only combat in mind, using social interactions as intervals between battles are completely missing the point, too.

>>52781971
>>52781541
Being competent and having a good backstory are not exclusive options, stop making false equivalencies.

>>52782050
>Would they be a farmer with strong physical attributes but low intellect?
Why this character can have interesting backstory, but a Fighter with high str low int I made with pointbuy cannot?

Ditto for the rest of your examples.

>>52776177
5e's roll system is generally fine. The more finicky DMs can even fine tune encounters for it if it becomes a real issue since you're not hampered as much by spreading out stats.

OPs 3d6 down the line is a bit silly though, the main way in the book is 4d6 drop lowest I think.

>>52782046
>and that breaks pretty hard when you're weaker than every able-bodied man in town, but you're still being hired to go fight monsters.

As a hero pc, you've got skills and training and equipment that makes up for the stats, that the average npc doesn't have, or even have access to.

The village doctor may be very smart, with Int above a low rolled wizard at lv 1.......but he can't cast spells.

The blacksmith may have a massive strength, even more than the fighter with some bad rolls, but the blacksmith can't use combat expertise, or use a great sword, or even function in heavy armor.

The fisherman may have a good dex, even more than the rogue that got some bad rolls, but he knows NOTHING about disarming traps, and wouldn't know the first thing about picking locks.

But you feel emasculated because you had a couple bad rolls....

Whatever m8. I just have a different style than you. No harm, no foul.

>>52782050
>creating an interesting character as jumping hoops

No, creating an interesting character is completely divorced from stats. Jumping through hoops is what you use to justify Johnny '5s across the board' deciding to become a knight and anyone letting him near a sword.

>exploring a fantastic world, talking to fantastic people, doing fantastic things and facing fantastic challenges. Its a make believe game with rules.

Yeah, and the way you commonly interact with those things is those rules. Hard to explore places when your wisdom is low enough that you miss the broad side of a barn, or to talk to people when your Charisma makes them dislike you as soon as you open your mouth, or to face challenges when you're going to trip and die on the first trap anyway.

>Back then we had fun creating characters with weak points or even completely random points.

Do you mean back in 2e, when the points didn't matter unless you rolled really high or really low? Because at that point you do have the freedom to have your Fighter still adventure when his 7 strength is about as good as someone with 14. But D&D doesn't have that anymore

>Or would they be someone completely average in every attribute

Or maybe they won't roll anything above a 10 and be a liability to their adventuring pals

>Creating a group of characters with combat in mind is not what D&D was supposed to be.

Then maybe 99% of the rules shouldn't be focused around combat and the assumption that the characters will be fighting things a lot of the time.

You can whine about 'how things were back then' and 'just roleplay it' and all that jazz, but rolling doesn't add

>>52782123
I wish my players would understand this more...

>>52782123
At 1st level, the difference between a fighter's class features and a NPC warrior's class features are less than the difference between good rolls and bad rolls.
Likewise for rogue and NPC expert, and even monk and commoner.

>>52782123
Cool. I'd rather play as the random villagers who are actually competent in specific areas and have an actual direct motivation to solve the problem.

We can have a fun time roleplaying with them, since we aren't just leaning on class-features in order to solve problems.

I'd rather play as someone who is good at something mundane over someone who is mediocre at something fantastical.

>>52782050
>Creating a group of characters with combat in mind is not what D&D was supposed to be.
D&D was literally born out of a wargame, and almost the entire rulebook directly deals with how you use your stats to punch things in the face.

>>52782046
You can't imagine any adventure that doesn't revolves heavily around killing stuff, right?
Or any challenge that isn't about defeating an enemy in combat.

In your setting anyone who isn't fit for combat stays locked up in their houses because they wouldn't be able to face the dangers of the outside world.

>>52782110
I'm not saying that the pointbuy system is inherently bad. I'm saying that there's so much more to roleplaying games than combat.

You're basically arguing that anyone who isn't fit for combat wouldn't be able to be an adventurer because adventurers are people who are hired to kill stuff and are incapable of solving problems by anything other than brute force.

>>52782163
That's my main gripe with D&D, d20 is too swingy. You should roll with 3d6 or 2d6 and adjust difficulties accordingly so the characters can perform reliably.

>>52782163
Going off of that logic, then there's actually no reason to play a fighter over a warrior, since the stock 1st level human warriors important stats are nearly as good as a 1st level PCs (unless you go 20+ point buy). http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-0/foot-soldier-human-warrior-1/

Nearly the entire difference between a first level human warrior and a first level human fighter is that the fighter is slightly better trained. Stats between PCs and NPCs are almost negligible.

>>52782216
No, in my setting anyone who isn't fit for combat tends to avoid places where there are large amounts of monsters, traps, and other lethal things.

>You can't imagine any adventure that doesn't revolves heavily around killing stuff, right?

Yes, because political intrigue or puzzle-solving is going to go so much better with negatives in their mental stats.

Unless you're doing things like ignoring Charisma or Int and just doing those things out of character, but at that point why roll stats at all?

>>52782193
>Cool. I'd rather play as the random villagers who are actually competent in specific areas and have an actual direct motivation to solve the problem.
>We can have a fun time roleplaying with them, since we aren't just leaning on class-features in order to solve problems.

Hmm. Ok, I get your point. I think.
In the above example:

You'd rather pick the doctor with ranks of knowledge he's acquired over 20 years of doctoring, instead of a mage who casts color spray.

You'd rather pick the blacksmith, who's got ranks in profession, instead of a fighter using cleave.

And you'd rather pick the fishermen with ranks in fishing, instead of a rogue with ranks in disarm.

Because somehow, those npcs are BETTER than a pc class. I see what you're saying, i just disagree 100%. I don't view the game that way.

My pc doesn't get mad at lv 4, because some zero level prince has more wealth than I do, even though he has no exp, and no class skills like i do. That doesn't make me want to reroll as as a zero level noble.

Just different styles.

>>52782216
Well maybe not brute force, but you *have* to admit that PCs are specialists in their field, hired for their expertise. That's what having class levels in the first place means.

You wouldn't send a random joe to the moon, you'd pick a highly trained astronaut instead you know? Same with the adventuring party.

>>52782232
>That's my main gripe with D&D, d20 is too swingy

Ya, sometimes it is.It doesn't have to be though, that's the DM and players choice.

>>52782238
No, retard. It means that a 1st level warrior with good stats beats a 1st level fighter with OK stats. Not that warrior is better than fighter, and certainly not that the disparity hol - OK, I can't bring myself to say that.
Fact. A competently made warrior can keep up with a fighter just because the fighter has NO class features of note.
That doesn't hold true for the other martials, though. Aside from the monk, the monk is trash on a shit platter.
And fighter is strictly superior to warrior if you don't have a looming stat differential.

Have you bitches roleplayed with all 3s?

Fuck you powergaming faggots

>>52782283
Nope. Never had all 18's either. And the odds are just as good you'll get all 3's, as all 18's. You usually end up somewhere between the two.

>>52782260
Yes, I would rather be a Doctor who is skilled at using mundane medicine and is very well learned, rather than a Wizard who has such mediocre Int that he knows one spell and isn't even very good at it.

I'd rather have the Blacksmith who can do neat utility stuff with metal while still being hardy and packing a punch thanks to his raw brawn over a trembling weakling who learned enough swordplay to give two goblins a papercut at the same time.

I'd rather pick the guy who has clear survival skills and some knowledge of the natural world, who's light on his feet and can throw a mean fishing spear, over the guy who read a book about how to pick locks, but breaks them half the time.

Yeah, I would rather play the game about the nobody's who are actually good at what they set out do do. I want to be playing the guy who can walk up to the party and say, 'Here's what I bring to the table, and I'm very good at it!' rather than 'I'm not very good at the thing I trained for years at!'

>>52782279
To be honest my current favorite is Fate's 4df, which gives values between -4 and +4, with the vast majority of values between -1 and +1. I'm also letting players handle all the rolling, which gives them a very good idea what their characters are capable of doing and what not.

>>52782280
I was just pointing out that the difference between the stock NPC warrior and a PC fighter made using a 15 point point buy isn't going to have such an amazing difference in stats that the fighter completely BTFO the warrior. Referring back to >>52782193 even the good and bad rolls don't really matter that much - warriors and fighters are nearly the same.

>>52782314
It's all about the stats with you.

You understand that skill ranks and items and bab and other class perks will make up for a decreased stat?

We've just got different styles of play. No worries. I hope you get all 18's.

>>52782349
Except that's not possible for him, since he's using point buy.

>>52782349
If stats don't matter then why are you playing a game with stats.

At some point any reasonable person has to seriously ask themselves why they're bothering to drag the 8 STR 7 CON greatsword fighter along when he's a demonstrable drain on the group, or alternatively they have to wonder at what sort mad god decided all these magic items should fall out of the sky into this dude's lap to make up for his glaring deficiencies.

>>52768965
3d6 replace anything below 8 with 8 and anything above 16 with 16. If your average is like 10, you may reroll everything.

>>52782349
>You understand that skill ranks and items and bab and other class perks will make up for a decreased stat?

Will they?

In 5e, a Fighter with 12 Strength and proficiency in a sword is at a +3 to hit. That Blacksmith with 18 is more accurate than him using a sword, and that's if he isn't using a Simple weapon he's actually proficient with. Then you deal with the Fighter dealing maybe 5 damage a swing with his longsword, while the Blacksmith with even a piddly hammer will be smacking people for that at a minimum.

I'm sorry that you're incapable of seeing the fun of playing something atypical like this. For all your talk of role-playing and how you don't need to have a strong character to have fun, you're being really insistent that you be able to play a proper PC class and get all your skills and class features and attack bonuses and magic items.

>>52782314
>Yeah, I would rather play the game about the nobody's who are actually good at what they set out do do. I want to be playing the guy who can walk up to the party and say, 'Here's what I bring to the table, and I'm very good at it!' rather than 'I'm not very good at the thing I trained for years at!'

>be rogue with -3 to dex
>got a crippled hand and a limp
>be level 1
>take 4 ranks in disarm
>take skill focus disarm
>be human
>take mech inclined
>disarming traps is now 4 + 3 +2 -3= +6
>I'm now better than 99% of the realms at disarming traps
>I'll have no trouble finding a group to take me

>>52782349
Yeah, but why my party would have him tag along instead of another guy who's better at those skills due to his good stats?

>>52782386
No no. Stats matter, and the rare times i get to play (since i'm forever dm), I hope like fuckall I get high stats.

I'm still butthurt that I didn't ever get good enough rolls to play a pally years ago. I'm not saying stats aren't good. I'm saying a few low stats don't make a rolled up pc unplayable or fun.
There's a happy medium in this debate, without picking one extreme (all threes), or the other (must have all 18's)

>>52768606
First legit reason to make a child PC

>>52782394
see
>>52782389
You want that fishermen trying to disarm the trap?

G'luck with that.

>>52782389
Cool. And how good is he at moving silently or picking a lock? That 18 dex Fisherman is nearly as good at both of those as you are at something you've focused your entire life around to overcome your constant shakes.

>>52782430
And not even for fetish material.

>>52782437
Yes, but I could have a rogue with +12 to disarming traps, why not pick him instead?

>>52782437
I mean, he's at a +4 compared to the Rogue's +6, but can also sneak up to the trap without alerting nearby enemies, try and unlock the thing as well if it's a trapped door, and have pretty good AC and Reflex so that if he does trigger it, he'll be quick enough to get out of the way.

Before long your +6 skill focused Rogue is gonna fail a check to disable something and die because he can't avoid a stationary dart launcher

>>52782447
Then take the fishermen with zero ranks.

He's got a +2, if he's got an 18 dex. I believe (depending on the edition), untrained zero rank skills you add half your stat bonus in?

Plus, he can catch fish. He can't pick locks, or disarm traps, but you'll be happy to have him in your group, since he can catch fish like a motherfucker, AND, he's very nimble.

I'll take the rogue.

>>52782273
Why to they have to be hired specifically?
Have they no objectives of their own?
No life goals besides hoarding money?

Why can't they be an archaeological expedition team of mostly scholars with only one or two brutes among them for carrying heavy stuff?

Why can't they be members of a caravan of merchants and artists that travels around the continent making trade and providing entertainment?

Why can't they be a bunch of random people trapped inside a tavern, trying to survive an attack by a undead army that overran the entire city?

Why can't they be a team of investigators with the task of finding the source of a series of gruesome murders?

Why can't they be the survivors of a shipwreck who are stranded on a strange hostile island?

Why can't they be anything else other than a group of mercenaries that have nothing going on in their lives besides being hired to go to dangerous places with the purpose of killing stuff?

>>52782464
I'd rather have the +12. But if it's not an option, it's not an option.

>>52782471
And he'll be pretty damn good at stabbing a fucker with his fish gutting knife, which the -3 Dex Rogue will be dogshit at.

>>52782474
Pretty sure that's only for certain skills. Though, if we move this to 5e, your -3 Rogue is at a +1 tops if he takes Expertise for his key Rogue abilities. Meanwhile, my 18 Dex fisher has 14 AC, and proficiency with Survival, Javelins, and Fishing tools, while also having a +4 to all of your Rogue's skills.

Yeah, you can keep the Rogue.

>>52782475
>Why can't they be anything else other than a group of mercenaries that have nothing going on in their lives besides being hired to go to dangerous places with the purpose of killing stuff?

Because shit dm's, and players who know no better.

I'm not trying to be a dick about this either. I'm honestly saddened that some of these posters haven't had a chance to play with a good group and dm. Maybe they've been happy with what their doing? I dunno. Of course I think OUR style is best style.......but they likely feel the same. I guess it's all a matter of choice and style and preference.

>>52782475
None of those examples, while being nice setups for a campaign, exclude characters who are competent and have good stats. I fail to see the point you're trying to make?

>>52782485
It's always an option. Maybe your teammates will realize their options and let the -3 dex rogue get mauled by a random animal on the way back from the first adventure and hire a far more competent person with his share of the spoils.

>>52782512
Ya, I can't comment on 4th and 5th. I'll take your word for it though.

This is how my first DM decided stats. Two options.

4d6, drop lowest. May reroll stats from 8 and lower but MUST take the reroll. Arrange as desired.

Second option is taking 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8 for stat spread.

I've been rolling characters like this since I was 11 years old and I'll keep doing it until I die.

>>52782529
Well, if anything, you've really got me fired up to play a Fisherman character, so thanks for that, I guess

>>52782521
It doesn't.
Its not about the stats.
I'll repeat. Its not about the fucking stats.
Its about thinking that you can't have fun in a game because there are people in your party that are better at killing things than you.
I give up. Bye.

>>52782513
Again, false equivalency. For example, in a campaign about that archeological dig I'd make

A) characters good at archeology
B) characters good at hauling heavy stuff

Same for all the other examples.

>>52782548
lol

Cheers m8.

>Be fisherman with high dex
>Carry a filet knife and a small jav
>sneak up and destroy enemies
>catch fish
>life is good

>>52782562
I've never advocated killing stuff being the only way to play.

If your stats make you shitty at the thing the campaign is about, it's not going to be a long or successful campaign.

Using your example, if the team of investigators have no investigating skills to speak of, it's going to lead to a shitty game experience.

>>52782538
See, that's forgiving enough that the odds of rolling a one-legged cerebral palsy sufferer with downs syndrome who has no business adventuring are statistically negligible. If you can't get a decent stat array with 4k3 with an option to reroll on 8 or less, god well and truly hates you.

>>52782562
Honestly it seems that a lot of people ITT worry a lot about pc vs pc stats. And worry about being a 'weak link'.

File: 22268c34cd3d59eaa94ad4eeb97d02dc.jpg (15KB, 236x314px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x314px

>>52782587

>what?

>>52782594
>And worry about being a 'weak link'.
Of course. Every single time you engage with the game mechanics your stats matter.

>>52782605
I beg your pardon?

>>52768606
obviously you play the princess, and have the rest of the party save you. ROLEPLAYING as an npc-like character can be a lot of fun; yeah you won't be cutting people up, but there is still plenty FUN you can have with the damsel in distress.

>>52782529
Yes, usually retards don't know what they're talking about. Thank you.

File: bcf7aafd2a41321fb62b3b0fb50a3374.jpg (22KB, 325x427px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 325x427px

>>52782624
>Using your example, if the team of investigators have no investigating skills to speak of, it's going to lead to a shitty game experience.

>Badum-bada-bada-badabadum...
>No?
>Didn't get the PinkPanther reference?

>>52782638
No one said this was only about 5e faggot.

File: 1485461854570.gif (1MB, 430x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 430x360px

>>52782661
The thread literally starts out >fifth edition and at least, most of the discussion is based heavily on post 3.x D&D where stats are much more important to the math of the system than 2e and below.

>>52782594
Having a character who is legitimately incompetent at most things their class is supposed to do, surrounded by people who are at least baseline competent, is not an enjoyable experience for anyone involved.

A slight stat differential isn't a problem, but when you've got one guy who's rocking 10 or less across the board in a group that has normal PC stats you've got a problem.

MAYBE he can get around it if he's playing a class that can contribute without interacting with non-friendlies, like a wizard who does nothing but cast buff/utility spells that don't require any sort of roll and keeps Magic Missile in his pocket as his sole method of inflicting harm on someone, but that's assuming he's actually playing a caster and is playing an edition that doesn't have stat requirements for casting.

>>52782312
>wanting a stat higher than 8

The fuck you trying to be? Superman?

>>52782714
If every PC has a role, then sure, I could see the issue.

If a weak stat guy (for lack of a better phrase), can't tank, and his role is tank.....that's a problem.

Although, I've seen fighters with great stats, have a bad session, and miss every sword swing, and the group didn't boot him out for being incompetent.

I've seen mages run out of spells and have to hide at the back of the party, unable to do anything except hold a staff and go full defense.
They weren't kicked for being a fail mage.

But your point is taken.

>>52782647
I'm sorry, I didn't and ruined your joke : (

>>52782780
The difference there is that everyone has really bad days and really good days, but it's not a great experience when a character has to have a really good day just to match the average days of everyone else, and at the same time their threshold for "really bad day" is a lot lower than everyone else because their defenses are bad across the board.

>>52782789
I mean I posted an investigator who sucked at investigating and still got shit done.

Fuck i'm old........

>>52782591
>you're the son of a farmer
>you father is attacked by some unknown thing in the woods
>he is alive and conscious but very sick and getting worse quickly
>you need to take them to a temple on one of the big cities so he gets proper treatment
>sending someone there to ask for someone to come to your village would take too much time and your father would probably be dead by then
>you decide to put your father in a wagon and take him to the capital
>you take two other people with:
>your brother, to help carry your father
>and the village scholar who is an apprentice wizard that studied in the capital and knows her way around
>in the middle of the journey, while passing through a forest, you wagon is attacked by a small group of goblins who think you're easy prey, or at least easy enough for them
>you manage to fend off the goblins
>your father is safe but the wagon is damaged
>the wizard says she knows an old druid who lives in the forest who could probably help you out
>you take a few wooden planks from the broken wagon and some rope, make a makeshift stretcher and then venture into the forest in search of the druid

And there you go, you just took four people who are absolutely not prepared for combat and "have no business adventuring" and transformed them into ADVENTURERS.

Being an adventurer in not a profession. Anyone can be an adventurer, they just need to be put into a adverse situation where they need to use their wits and skills to make through. Any person with any challenging situation is enough.
You don't need to be battle hardened warriors or powerful warlocks with perfectly balanced stats to have fun with your friends.

>>52782842
>>you're the son of a farmer

What did we farm?

>>52782842
If you don't want to use the rules of the game just play freeform.

If you want to have your special snowflake NPC class campaign that doesn't progress past level 3 then do that, but don't pretend those types of characters are suitable for anything even vaguely resembling a normal game.

>>52782842
So you've clearly established beforehand that you're playing an atypical type of game and the players have agreed to it.

How is this related to the scenario of a group of normal player characters doing normal player character things, while also dragging Lobotomized Forest Gump around with them because he bricked all his stat rolls?

>>52782872
>normal game.

Thats vague and undefined.

I've never had a normal game compared to what I see posted here.

We've never had half dragon half troll lv 43 blackguard/cleric/rogue pc's, that raped the lady of pain in her ear....

>>52782842
The thing about this story? It has characters who are competent at what they do. You and your brother are clearly decently strong farmhands, able to carry a full grown man through the woods without issue. Clearly tough enough to get through a scrap with some goblins and live.

The village scholar seems to know a lot of stuff if she studied in the capital, knows a few spells, and also knows random facts about druids in the forest. She also can't be of too poor constitution, or else she'd be having a lot of trouble making the journey.

You're not describing a game where they players got shitty stats. You're describing a game where the players have decent stats and abilities, but are using NPC classes, rather than one where the players have PC classes, but don't have the stats to justify how they ever lived long enough to get those classes at all.

>>52782920
So you've never, in your entire life, played an adventure module or run by a competent but uninventive GM with player characters who were all statistically relevant? Or you can't even conceive what that might look like.

It seems like you're being deliberately contrarian at this point.

>>52768606
a peasant looking to become a adventurer, your village came down with a plague when you were young leaving you with a weak immune system, and it killed the only school teacher for miles.

>>52768950
You have the internet you dumb fuck. Why don't you use it? What's it like to have 80 IQ?

An unintelligent person with a frail body. Its not exactly a typical rpg character type, but be the best damn frail oaf you can be. Metagaming wise, I dunno, you might be best off picking life cleric or something so you can at least wear some heavy armour and try your best not to die, but stats aren't indicative of personality or your character's goals. I'd try to play a little kid so I'd at least have a good reason to be frail and a bit stupid, plus I could have fun in my armour and get to heal the grown ups and not have to talk to weird strangers and stuff, but trying to do something like that doesn't fit in every campaign.

>>52782872
>>52782890

What is preventing you from deepening the plot and making the characters advance into other things?
Maybe at the end of this adventure your father dies and you decide to leave the village, move into the capital and become a soldier.
Your brother decided to join a religious order, become a paladin and devote himself to helping the weak or some other thing.
The wizard decided to further her studies and become a more stronger wizard, capable of handling stuff better next time she needs to fight for her life.
Next adventure you can play the same characters, slightly more experienced and stronger and move on with a new adventure.

The problem with you guys is lack of imagination.

>>52782927
The problem is not the fucking stats.
Of course you're not gonna play a cripple whose adventure is taking a shit and trying to clean your butt without having to call the nurse for help.

You're underestimating what common, normal people can do, though. You speak of adventurers as if they're supernatural beings whose destinies had been long ago prophesied to roam the land in search of adventures or some kind of shit.
People start small. Adventurers have to start their stories somewhere.You're not born as a cleric or as a bard. You were born an orphan and had shit stats before you joined a monastery and started your journey to became an ass-kicking monk.

>>52783082
Forgive my shitty writing. Its late, I'm tired, and the keyboard on this notebook is fucking awful.

>>52783082
>The problem is not the fucking stats.

Then why is point buy a problem at all?

>You're underestimating what common, normal people can do, though.

On the contrary, I'm advocating for common people. The problem is that rolling doesn't get you that. It gets you these weird mish-mash characters that swing towards extremes.

>You were born an orphan and had shit stats

Yeah, babies have 1 in every stat because they're fucking babies. That doesn't make it somehow a more interesting place to start.

>Adventurers have to start their stories somewhere.

And why can't that be the point with the basic ability to do things by the rules of the system? Is your two farmer brothers adventure really going to be that much different in quality if they're both 8 strength instead of 12? Heck, the average town guard is 14 strength, and they probably don't even do as much manual lifting as those farmboys do on a daily basis.

>>52781617
>Why can't we have characters with motivations and weaknesses that make sense on our own?
You can, except that YOU can't, you made a fucking mercenary working for money
>Why do we have to be so creatively bankrupt that we need random rolls to decide that a character should be weak in some area?
I don't know why you are so creatively bankrupt, the other anon blamed video games but you don't get that bad with just that.
You made the most boring character ever while arguing about using your own creativity instead of dice rolls. But you are the living embodiment of why there is some value in rolling stats, because you are so creatively bankrupt that you NEED random roll

>>52783322
>There's likely no reason for your powergaming group to be together!
>Here's a reason, it's kinda boring and basic as an example, but-
>Ha! That's a boring and bad reason! You have no creativity!

And I'm sure the guy who was trying to justify his child character tagging along with the party was so much more nuanced?

Rolled 2, 3, 4, 5, 2, 4, 3, 3, 2, 3, 6, 3, 5, 1, 1, 6, 3, 3 = 59 (18d6)

Only cool people that like the fun and challenge of working with what they get, like a puzzle in and of itself, prefer rolling stats. None of this safety net "roll 4 drop lowest one" or "I want point-buy optimization for muh powerbuild/archetypical character".

File: Footmen.png (435KB, 1155x1200px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1155x1200px

>>52768606

A crappy generic town guard who somehow found himself working with the party's shenanigans and is now trying to use this new opportunity to become something more than a crappy generic town guard. Though he lacks any real skills, he has determination, memorized the local law down to the letter, and can generally call on some support from other guards in the realm as well as give a nice word to them for the rest of his party.

>>52783342
>And I'm sure the guy who was trying to justify his child character tagging along with the party was so much more nuanced?
Sadly, yes even that kids story is better than, a mercenary working for, and you are not going to believe this, money.
Fuck me, that's borderline worse than literally nothing

>>52783353
9 str
11 dex
8 con
12 int
7 wis
12 cha

Clearly a wiz or sorc build. Half-elf for cha and bump wis and dex up one for a decent sorc. High Elf for dex and int for not-as-decent wiz.

>>52783389
Well, good thing it was a random 2 second example to justify how such a group would work together, rather than a serious attempt at a backstory.

Or do you go around critiquing every post on anonymous message boards?

Get over yourself you nitpicking fuck

>>52783411
Is a example that anon decided to use while arguing about creativity, is not like we are arguing about underwater fighting and this is just the whatever excuse to get into a fight in the ocean, so is not even relevant to the actual discussion. The anon was challenge to even came up with a decent excuse to have their power gaming party as a clear indicator he can be creative for shit and his reply is the most non reason ever, "kinda boring and basic" doesn't even begin to describe how bad is it

>>52783459
Try forming an actual sentance, then getting back to me on that.

Or don't, because why the fuck should I care? Feel free to write your thesis on how a post I barely even remember making is the ultimate butthurt in your life right now.

>>52770641
4 + 5 + 6 = 15
2 + 5 + 3 = 10
6 + 3 + 3 = 12
6 + 2 + 5 = 13
2 + 6 + 4 = 12
1 + 5 + 1 = 7

Strong, smart and ugly fighter

Rolled 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 4 = 50 (18d6)

>>52780605
Nah, the DM said that the king was outraged and he threw us all into a dungeon. We ended up breaking out later but everyone else in the party was pissed because a) they lost all their starting gold because of it and b) the DM prevented the Barbarian from strangling me, even though everyone (myself included) wanted this character to die.

>>52770260
But that's wrong. Rolling for stats doesn't prevent powergaming, if anything it encourages it since someone with garbage stats will be forced to rely on OP shit that doesn't need high ability scores to be effective.

He's not going to play a sorcerer or paladin with 11 Cha and 5 Con, he's just gonna pick Moon Druid and ignore his entire shitty statline.

I hate this idea that making an effective character is somehow powergaming.

>>Ugh. The wizard leveled Spellcraft, Concentration and Knowledge:Arcana instead of cross-class ranks in Jump and Swim, what a powergaming faggot.

Doing dumb and inefficient things just for the sake of being dumb and inefficient isn't "role playing" it's being retarded.


Your character is an actual person in whatever world they inhabit, and since people enjoy being competent and skilled at what they do it makes sense for your character to try to be effective within his own world

>>52779691
An infant mortality statistic