post yfw some fucking moron picks their class before rolling

File: images (5).jpg (7KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x168px

>>53037986
>rolling

File: bad time.png (58KB, 245x260px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 245x260px

>>53037986
>MFW people roll for stats
>MFW when DMs demand this and wonder why they only have retards in their games

>>53038035
>opinions
rolling is fun

>>53038035
>MFW people don't roll for stats
>MFW when DMs don't demand rolling and wonder why they only have minmaxing retards in their games

File: Dissapointment sets in.gif (1MB, 478x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 478x360px

>>53038132
>>53038175
>Getting fucked over by pure luck and not being able to play the character you want to play is "fun". Ralling sure is great.

OK.

File: c025.jpg (110KB, 680x799px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 680x799px

>>53037986
>rolling

>not doing 6*3d6 assign

>>53038200
>I need the -perfect- fighter, nevermind he's identical to all the other fighters previously, who cares about playing an unpredictably flawed and interesting character?

Sure thing.

>>53037986
>rolling for stats
>point buying stats
I just hand out pre-made character sheets, and my players just fill in stuff like their name and backstory.
Okay, it's not that simple, but you get the gist.

>>53038571
>playing dnd
>a interesting character
pick one

>>53038571
>Playing a fighter
>Even though rogues are better at fighting
>And casters objectively more powerful and useful

Stupid rollfags and their nonoptimal play. You'll get your whole party killed.

>>53038596
All my rolled characters have been interesting. Maybe you just lack the imagination to do anything cool?

>>53038023
>>53038035
>>53038200
>>53038527

let me guess you are all people that can't adapt and won't play unless you can play your special snowflake characters?

And this is why I don't play dnd.

>>53038630
>And this is why I don't play dnd.

Hey hey, don't blanket all editions of dnd to this stupidity. You get to roll stuff before 3rd edition fine. Go far down enough and you even get to do 3d6 in order - that's when it gets really fun.

>>53038630
Well I don't play DnD either so eh.
I've no problem with it in games like Call of Ctuhlu.
And I can accept rolling if there is a reasonable minimum on stats obtained from rolling.
Curious as it may sound I don't take the bus for an hour and then walk for 30 min just to play an autistic man in a wheelchair

>>53038571
Who says it has to be "perfect" in a mechanical sense? Maybe they just want a specific type of fighter. Maybe they want to play a fast, agile Dex based fighter, but they roll low dex? Then they're not dealing with "a fun, unpredictable flaw", they're just not playing the character they wanted to. If you want fun, unpredictable flaws, why not randomly roll a flaw from a big list of them? Would be a lot more interesting and quirky than just playing someone who's flat out incompetent.

>>53038659
Or why not just roll your stats before deciding what kind of a character you want to play?

>>53038596
The problem is with you, not the system.
I'm not sure what kind of system you'd need to force people to create interesting characters.

>>53038659
>Maybe they want to play a fast, agile Dex based fighter, but they roll low dex?
See >>53038552

>>53038695
>I'm not sure what kind of system you'd need to force people to create interesting characters.

One where interesting backstories, hopes and dreams, instincts and quirks, are all integral to the very system.

Such as Burning Wheel.

>>53038706
Burning Wheel's shit though.

>>53038646

adnd usually doesn't suffer from this disease. It is mostly 3.0 and onward.

Biggest difference is in approach. In adnd you weren't very different from other people that were in you class. Only way to actually make a difference was roleplay. 3rd edition gives tons of feats, class feature variants and other shit to make you more unique.

Second difference is that earlier editions weren't about your characters. You died easily and often. It was about journey and experiences you got from it. Not everyone would survive but it was fun exploration.

Never editions are about keeping your special snowflake safe and sound and god forbid he gets seriously hurt.

>>53038711
Why? I find it pretty good at what it does and fun to play if I'm looking for a more narrative-based game with an actual plot in it.

>>53038656

That argument is invalid. No sane GM would force you play useless character. But bitching and refusing to play because you did't get all your stats as you want them is shitty attitude.

>>53038734
>No sane GM would force you play useless character
well I'm pretty lucky since I have good GM's overall.
And like I said it depends on the type of game I find it more interesting to find how my character could be an archaeologist while not being very smart in CoC than spending two games having my head grinded against sand in a post apocalyptic setting.
Yeah in the latter case it was fun at first but after some time it really was boring

File: Retard Alert.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>53037986
>Rolling for stats

Glad you'll never be my DM.

>>53038023
>>53038035
>>53038200
>>53038527
>>53038608
>>53038794
People who have never tried to roll for stats.

>>53038839
>People who have never tried to roll for stats.
see >>53038774 I have and didn't have that much fun except for CoC

>>53038847
Possibly because CoC is the very opposite of "heroic". Rolling for stats, at least 3d6 in order, isn't exactly heroic.

So it works well for the grittier dungeon crawls than epic tales where all characters are supposed to stay alive.

>>53038869
I agree.
Also when you think about it it makes more sense to roll for stats in a game where your character's background/personality is predominant

>>53038869

CoC is definition of heroic. You are a scrub who shouldn't face those eldritch horrors but you do. CoC usually ends with some or everyone dying in a process to stop a abomination from taking foothold into our reality. Sometimes it is a short-term victory. World will never learn about your sacrifice and it will never thank you for it.

And that is definition of a hero. Doing something normal people can't, won't and are unwilling. Punching Balrog in the dick isn't hero material. It is superhero material.

>Nobody rolls an array of six numbers and place them in the stats you want.

Rolling for each stats is retarded because you ruin the fun of choosing how you'd like to play. Points buy is retarded because Everyone will have the same number in their stats. At least this way you have the fun of the luck and the fun of control. I love getting a 6 and putting it on a useless stat, makes me roleplay more.

>>53039009
>Points buy is retarded because Everyone will have the same number in their stats.
This is kind of stupid.

>>53039028
That's why point buy is stupid, yes.

>>53039042
No nigger, I'm saying you're stupid for thinking that's a problem that arises when you play with anybody who isn't a munchkin.

>>53039080
Why would you not put the highest possible amount of points to your class's prime requisite, and the lowest amount to charisma or whatever else useless?

>>53039080
>Boy, it suuure is fun to play with people who has 16/15/14/14/10/10 in different orders.

>>53039086
Because you have a character concept that means you want to distribute your points differently?

>>53039102
>somebody else has the same numbers as me, but in a different order
>this somehow affects my fun
It's tragic, really.

>>53039102
>16/15/14/14/10/10
Yep, he doesn't know.

File: 1118full-the-317th-platoon-photo.jpg (169KB, 860x679px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 860x679px

>>53037986
>rolling their stats

File: ....gif (2MB, 160x120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 160x120px

>>53037986
>3d6 in order for all 7 stats the way God intended
>no dumpstats
>entire group roleplaying new and interesting characters each time for a good decade now
>yfw more than half of 'roleplayers' will never know this fun because they're closeminded and ignorant

>>53038552
The system I use lets you prioritize stats but still has room for them to be rolled lower.
Start with 24 d6 (24 can be whatever number), assign them to each stat in order and take the highest three per stat.
It is close to 4d6 drop 1 in order but you could for example have wisdom be 5d6 drop 2 and strength be a flat 3d6.

>>53039102
>16/15/14/14/10/10

ahahahah

where is 15/14/13/12/10/8?

It is funny when even a pointbuy isn't enough for munchkins and it also got a power creep.

>>53039421
>all 7 stats

>>53039421
>7 stats
>no dumpstats
>what is comeliness

>>53038839
rolled every one of my characters, its pretty fun

a good compromise is rolling 6, then distributing them, that way if you roll an 18, at least your main stat is good

>>53037986
>Rolling for stats

Wow and what's next, playing D&D?

File: angry ProJared.png (382KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 800x450px

>>53037986

File: 1410215477728.png (842KB, 796x997px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 796x997px

>>53037986
>He waits until after rolling for stats to pick class

I choose to play a fighter before rolling, I get 5 STR, I'll stick with my choice.

>>53039421
You're playing RuneQuest, aren't you?

>>53039592
>I get 5 STR, I'll stick with my choice.
Unfortunately my son, you don't qualify for Fighter with only a 5 in STR.

File: basic dnd.jpg (68KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 392x500px

>>53039616
>He plays AD&D!

You can be a fighter with 5 STR if you play a game for true men.

>>53039638
>Basic
No thanks, I'd rather not play a mistake.

File: in-bruges-ray-muppet-face.jpg (34KB, 984x418px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 984x418px

>tfw I like to play a generic Male Human Fighter in D&D systems
Don't judge me, I like being the friendly reliable weaponsmaster. all dem feats, man. (haven't played since 3.5, are feats still a thing? WHAT YEAR IS THIS?!)

I like playing characters who can have weapon variety, which brings with it strategic and role variety. Need a tank? I'll put on my shield. Got into a barfight? Awesome, I can dual-wield bar stools effectively. Caught with pants down in the outhouse? FIST OF FURY.

>trolls trying to trick people into thinking people actually use rolling stats
Anyone who's actually tried rolled stats over a long amount of time recognizes it's terrible.

>trolls trying to trick people into thinking people actually go back to point buy after trying rolling stats
Anyone who's actually tried rolled stats recognizes point-buy is terrible.

>>53039689
3.5 fighters need to be optimized to be any effective, though, and you probably still couldn't do all the things you describe as well as you'd like. Also feats are a terrible concept.

You'd be better off trying AD&D, or even Basic. You can actually wreck shit in those systems.

>>53039723
>>53039758
>trolls who roll stats are only capable of sadly copying people who do point buy
Never has a man been proven so right so quickly.

>>53039781
I'm not interested in wrecking shit nor being as effective as I'd expect to be. I am content being an endearing character.

ORE random character generator is the only acceptable rolling for stats method that exists.

>>53039781
That's because the game's math is centered around having completely average stats that don't affect much in the way of gameplay, which is a good thing in my opinion. Then again if it were up to me fifth edition would have gone back to B/X for most of its combat math and attribute score bonuses. Might not be a bad idea for another heartbreaker...

>roll godly stats
>GM and all players except one make the game go excruciatingly slow
>bail abruptly after a bad roll breaks the camel's back

>>53040355
>Why not stop with rolls altogether and play freeform?

Just give everyone 18s in all stats.

It's litetally insignificant compared to class features.

>he doesn't roll for class

>>53039102
But that actually is fun. Or at least no less fun than playing with random arrays.

File: brave.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>53037986
post yfw some fucking morons play roleplaying games as if they were board games

File: 1436782061786.png (143KB, 489x584px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 489x584px

I was in a DnD game once where the GM insisted we roll stats.

One player rolled 14 or higher in every single stat.
Another player rolled one 11 and the rest 10 or below.

What a stupid system.

>>53038717
And I like 3.5.

>>53040813
Would you have complained as much if you'd been the one that got the high stats?

Luck is equal to all.

How do people who roll up these spastics and cripples justify them becoming adventurers in the first place?
Even when I do point buy I ask this question of people who reduce their stats to below the "average" range - I find it helps weed out players that play personality-free lumps of hp but have convinced themselves they are good roleplayers because they think that incompetence is a compelling character trait.

>>53039421
>not being able to come with interesting characters without using a RNG crutch.
I pity you.

>>53040957
>How do people who roll up these spastics and cripples justify them becoming adventurers in the first place?

I feel like people vastly overestimate how terrible stats you can get by rolling (even by 3d6 drop lowest), or just that their standards are really high and having a score of 7 somewhere means a cripple.

It's a meme either way.

>>53039421
>someone actually doing it right

Play on brother.

>>53040507
This.

You want randomization? Roll for race+class+background.

You get much more exciting stuff than "haha, Pete's fighter has 5 WIS! That means he gets -2 to some saves, lol!", and have to actually try to justify your character, without being mechanically handicapped in a big way.

>>53041086
Rolling for race and especially class is going to have a much larger impact in the game.

What if you're going to have a whole party of clerics?

File: 1491278502405.jpg (110KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 683x1024px

Point buy or predetermined array?

>>53041124
>Rolling for race and especially class is going to have a much larger impact in the game.

That's the point. Much more meaningful impact, but at the same time, much less chance at gimping/overpowering the character compared to other party members.

>What if you're going to have a whole party of clerics?

DEUS VULT

Literally, since the dicegods willed it.

>>53041124
Sounds fine by me.

>>53039086
because the DM varies the fuck out of the checks, so you know your dump stat is going to be used, and eventually you'll need it.

Mitigated somewhat with varied parties, but he's also somehow fucking great at splitting us up without us realizing it. And i dont mean like "oh a slide opens up and half of you slide down", no, he'll do shit like put 6 things we want in an area, but we would only be able to maybe get one or two without splitting.

And we always fucking choose to split. It's straight up almost killed us all several times, but he's just that good at baiting us

>>53041278
But then wouldn't you need to have some other party member's class abilities all the more? If the thief is on the other side of the town right now, wouldn't you need his lockpicking skill more than his high dexterity?

>>53040957
Where do you think adventurers come from? That's how villages get rid of their unwanted, useless members. It's like exposure in Greco-Roman days, except maybe they'll manage to stab something to death before they get eaten.

File: ae6.png (52KB, 346x360px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 346x360px

>>53037986
>rolling
>classes
>mfw
Rolling is only good if you want to play a combat statblock thats restricted by a combat class.

>>53039421
>Needs to roll to come up with an interesting concept
You sure you aren't a rollplayer in disguise?

>>53039421
>Not rolling 4d6 and discarding the lowest roll.
Do you want shitty characters who can't do anything? Because that's how you get them.

>>53039421
>yfw more than half of 'roleplayers' will never know this fun because they're closeminded and ignorant

Says the person who's been playing the same way for a decade. Seems like you've prevailed despite rolling stats and not because of it - interesting characters have nothing to do with mechanics.

>>53040926
>Would you have complained as much if you'd been the one that got the high stats?
Yes, because anytime I do anything right, everyone who didn't roll as high will get jealous and accuse me of only doing so well because I got lucky during chargen.
>Luck is equal to all.
So's point buy.

>>53037986
You and your fucking rolling nonsense. By having random stats, then it means you have zero control on your character, and if that is so, I suggest you should also roll for race, class, or whatever the fuck your game use.
You will be a gnome fighter with 6 strength specialized in two-handed axes because random is the king. Now, go play with this character and don't re-roll it. I dare you.

>>53041966
>Villages willfully get rid of expendable forces who could protect their village from an orc raid.
Are you sure you're not rocking 5 INT there?

>>53041124
I wouldn't have a problem with it.

>>53041124
>>53041180
>>53041228
>>53042323
Really? You'd have no problem with dividing your party roles between everyone, constantly getting in each other's way, while no one in the group knows how to pick a lock or get rid of a trap, but you can't handle rolling a 5 in a far less significant ability score?

If rolling for stats is so fucking terrible, you should be able to argue against it without such ridiculous strawmen.

>>53042377
If we need someone to pick locks or get rid of traps, we'll just buy ourselves wands of "knock" or "disable trap" or some shit like that. That's also assuming that we even need someone who can disable traps in the first place, since not every campaign is going to necessarily have dungeons with traps to worry about.

Also, it's much easier to replace a class feature with magic than it is to deal with a bad primary stat that your class is expected to use from the moment you start until the moment you die or retire.

>>53042312
Absolutely. It's expensive to keep supporting the spastics and cripples in the hopes that maybe someday they'll prove useful. Much better to just convince them to go be adventurers. If they die then no big loss, and if they somehow miraculously survive and become capable of taking on orc raids, then the occasional fee to hire them is still cheaper than constantly having to throw money away on them.

>>53042244
You don't get to choose who you are in real life anon. Are YOU a statblock?

>>53042377
>dividing party roles
That's not really what its about unless you have a really gamist approach to it anyway. I don't look at my group of friends and go "man, we could really use someone who can ride a motorbike, and you two, you are both cheesemakers, one of you has got to go".

>>53042489
>It's expensive to keep supporting the spastics and cripples in the hopes that maybe someday they'll prove useful.
Not when you're in a world where horrible monsters are constantly razing small villages to the ground. Taking care of Org'rath the Barbarian is much easier than paying for the destruction of life and property that would occur if a bunch of goblins decided to raid your village.

File: what ya gon do.jpg (84KB, 610x471px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 610x471px

>>53037986

>>53042513
>You don't get to choose who you are in real life anon.
Yes you do. The only things you have no control over is your birth, your death, and other people.
> I don't look at my group of friends and go "man, we could really use someone who can ride a motorbike, and you two, you are both cheesemakers, one of you has got to go".
Presumably, you and your friends also aren't going into abandoned tombs to fight undead and steal treasure either.

File: 1489849747593.jpg (44KB, 398x370px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 398x370px

>>53038630
>>53038839
>rollfags this derriere-distressed

>>53042555
That's because undead in real life is a ruse, and the treasure was already looted by the people who buries the dead.

>>53042555
>your birth
So your race, sex and the natural limit of your stats then. And we probably would if it were an option, but the fact that its a perfectly legitimate way to approach rpgs doesn't invalidate it because you don't like it.

I feel like there are some crucial pieces missing from this debate: namely, edition and tone.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting you should roll 3d6 in order in a game of 3.5e, are you? Or that you should do point-buy in a game of B/X where that perfectly optimized character is probably going to die in the first trap anyway?

Or are you? I wouldn't know, you might be.

>>53042612
>the fact that its a perfectly legitimate way to approach rpgs doesn't invalidate it because you don't like it

Yet you're constantly going on about how rollfags are fucking retarded and their way of playing has no place in reality. You can't just go and play the "BUT IT'S JUST MY OPINION, I LIKE IT, YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING AGAINST IT!" -card after all that.

File: chris_evans_laughing.gif (1MB, 200x198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x198px

>people for rolling
>people against rolling

You're all plebeians.

Give the players two options:
>1 Write down your own stats from a predetermined stat point pool
>2 Roll your own stats (with some bonus stat points to shuffle around because you have made a sacrifice onto the altar of RNGesus)

I also allow players to buy stat lock downs and rerolls at the cost of some bonus stat points.

>>53042682
You've completely lost track of the conversation anon.

>>53042513
Yes you are a statblock anon. We all are. Everything can be measured and quantified. That's how you have intelligence tests, mensa, aptitude tests, how fast you can move, run, how much can you lift. All this can be measured, and is measurable constantly in the military, sports, science, even in fucking fashion. You can be easily measured by real life standards. And you can clearly put a lot of effort to change the outcome, changing your measurement as much as it needed.
Actors gain and lose pounds to star in some role. Don't you think that this fucking simply fact of reality do not change someone's "stats"? You can be a dumbfuck, and learn a lot of shit within a couple of years, to at least be somewhat smarter than you would two years ago. You are a stat anon, and there's nothing random about it.

>>53039665
And yet you play AD&D

>>53042596
Okay, so you wouldn't have a reason to gain class levels to survive against monsters who guard ancient treasure.
>>53042612
Way to miss the point genius. I'm saying that aside from those three things, you get to choose who you are in real life.

Which really makes it tragic that so many people choose to become ignorant pieces of garbage.

>>53042689
Mine get the chance to stick to the points or to the dice, no more no less.
Same with hp.

>>53042712
In which case the post to which I was responding was not making a valid criticism by using the word "statblock". The use of the word as a criticism being what I was attacking there, of course.

>>53042712
>Actors gain and lose pounds to star in some role. Don't you think that this fucking simply fact of reality do not change someone's "stats"?

Not in the older editions it doesn't. Back then stats were far more rigid and changed almost never at all, save by means of magic. Even the simple +1 to dexterity a halfling gets was borderline supernatural.

These days stats are far more fluid and change all the damn time, because players put more meaning to them.

>>53042739
>I'm saying that aside from those three things, you get to choose who you are in real life
Which makes your post not an argument against rolling for race and sex, as well as stats, arguably.

File: 1318602552038.gif (214KB, 158x152px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 158x152px

>>53042750
The lockdowns and rerolls are there as a gateway drug for the autistic rollplay players. They want the extra free stat points, but they're hesitant to lose control, so I throw them a bone.

>>53042797
The onnly one who brought those things up was you. Your argument is the one immaterial to this discussion

File: 1493122432808.jpg (239KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1440x1080px

>>53037986
>mfw the DM requests min maxing and no fun

>rolling for stats
>fucking ever

>"I want to play a wizard"
>"fuck you greatly, you rolled shit in INT, you gonna have to play a different class"
Why the fuck should I get fucked and not be allowed to play the choice I want in a roleplaying game because of any reason, let alone luck?

>>53042917
Your chances of rolling too low an INT to be unable to play a wizard at all are roughly 22%. Even if you still manage to hit that low, any reasonable DM is going to let you reroll if you really want to be a wizard.

>>53042955
>Your chances of rolling too low an INT to be unable to play a wizard at all are roughly 22%.
What's this based on?

>>53042955
If you are allowed to reroll, ever, you completely removes the entire premise of rolling in the first place. Because you can simply reroll until you reach the min/max you desired in the first place.
It's not a solution to a problem, because rolling was the problem in the first place.

>>53039421
>yfw more than half of 'roleplayers' will never know this fun because they're closeminded and ignorant
You couldn't have said it better. It's all about playing the hand you're dealt, not folding because you didn't get a straight flush.

File: Oh+lawdy+the+feels+tingle+within+me+_1357d43559850ba6e0052ef76b65b38f.jpg (21KB, 302x291px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 302x291px

>>53042555
>Presumably, you and your friends also aren't going into abandoned tombs to fight undead and steal treasure either.

>>53043006
Do this.
>>53042689
Players can reroll in case of a really bad roll, but if they keep rerolling, eventually they'll get to a point where they would have been better off just picking their stats.

>>53042955
A reasonable GM would also let you just pick the standard of "one stat at 16, one at 14, one at 12, two at 10 and one at 8"

The only method rolling works is rolling and assigning
And still

I'm more worried about players rolling very high for all their stats and leaving the rest behind or having all their stats be the same 11s and 12s
Unlikely, but it has happened to me multiple times and its not fun

>>53038839
I play with the standard array and have no trouble with it.

>>53043013
There's no point in playing at all if you know that the highest you'll ever get is an ace high hand.

>>53042996
>What's this based on?

In most systems where rolling for stats is encouraged, you need 9 intelligence to be a wizard.

>>53043006
Exaggerated strawman.

>>53043044
>>53043055
Isn't it boring though?

>>53043065
You honestly probably won't get that bad stats.

Well, unless you think having nothing higher than 13 and a single 6 is "ace high", in which case the problem is in expectations, not results.

>>53043076
>its not fun
What do you think

>>53039421

People will shit on your way of doing it your way is because the idea of playing a flawed character scares them. They don't know that stats don't make someone a hero, their determination, choices, and actions do.

>>53043121
>>53043076
>wizard with 9 int

Shit nigger, you are a special kind of retard

>>53042377
Hirelings, mate. t's what they are for (to say nothing about how in modern D&D you can cover just about anything with anything).

>>53043089
>Well, unless you think having nothing higher than 13 and a single 6 is "ace high", in which case the problem is in expectations, not results.
In comparison to the other guy who rolled nothing lower than a 15 with a stat at 18 before racials gets applied, it might as fucking well be "ace high" for all the good you'll do in any WotC era game of D&D.

>>53043125
You're more likely to get a flawed character with point buy than with rolling.

>>53043147
A wizard with 9 intelligence is perfectly capable. It just means he can't get spells higher than 4th - but your precious 18int minmaxed wizard is probably going to die before that point anyway, so what does it matter?

>>53043162
>nothing lower than a 15 with a stat at 18 before racials gets applied

What, with 3d6 in order? If your buddy really manages that, you don't groan in envy, you pat at his back for an awesome character he's never going to roll again.

Then you watch him be killed in the first goblin encounter anyway, and you laugh.

>>53043076
It can get repetitive, especially since very quickly using the standard array you realize everyone sort of builds their character the same way. They put the 15 and 14 in the two main spots and then basically dump the rest, or put the rest of the stats where their character would be, they are basically like RP stats.
This causes a problem where no one really has any bad stats which makes character kinds of cookie cutter.
That being said, I wouldn't be against say rolling for each stat separately. But only if it was say 4d6 and you drop the lowest dice, and then if you want you have ONE reroll, and make a rule where you have to take the reroll. Another option would be you take the reroll if it's higher. 4d6 drop the lowest gives you best spread in terms of letting chance decide.

Everyone, stop answering to this guy >>53043202

He is trolling fucking everyone and is an expert at it

>>53043076
>Exaggerated strawman.
Not really. I'm the DM. I don't make characters. They players do. And one guy roll 18s and 16s. Two others score one 12 and a 13 while having 8s and 6s everywhere else.
If I don't allow them to reroll, you will have one guy that can face an encounter, with two others that cannot survive one single monster. If I allow them to reroll, then they will keep rerolling until they manage to get close the first guy, who "aced" the rolls. This slows everything down, and there's no guarantee they will ever hope to reach even a 14. I have one guy that roll 10s so hard, that it is presposterous.
Then the gamer starts, and the guy with 16s and 18s hambaton everything, until he's pinned, and now the other two are innefective to survive on their own, and help him, because their spells DCs are resistable, their damage or even chance to hit is so low, making them basically two commoners following that one guy who looks like Captain America.
The three lose interest too fast, because one is doing everything on his own, while the other two can't do anything at all.
And that's why we don't roll dice for stats anymore.

>>53043202
Now I know you're an idiot.

Enjoy this (you) moron, last you're getting from me in this thread.

File: hah.jpg (73KB, 349x1160px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 349x1160px

>>53043176
>thinks having a single stat at 8 makes a flawed character

>>53043208
You say that as if every fighter/wizard/cleric/etc. doesn't end up coming out the same anyways. Besides, you have race/feats/class features/spells/equipment to help differentiate your character from one another.

>>53043244
Isn't that what the whole argument for rolling is about? You roll so you get shitty stats which somehow makes your character interesting and flawed?

>>53043225
>And one guy roll 18s and 16s. Two others score one 12 and a 13 while having 8s and 6s everywhere else.

As I said, an exaggeration. You tell me what -MIGHT- happen, even though it hardly never does. It's only one, very slight possibility.

Most likely what happens is the whole party rolling somewhere between 7 and 13, maybe one 6 and one 16. Just because you this one time rolled a 3 while your friend got an 18 and nothing lower than 10 doesn't make the entire system invalid.

> If I allow them to reroll, then they will keep rerolling until they manage to get close the first guy, who "aced" the rolls.

See, this here's the strawman. In your mind there's nothing between "zero" and "infinite". There's no such thing as just one reroll, for instance.

>Then the gamer starts, and the guy with 16s and 18s hambaton everything, until he's pinned, and now the other two are innefective to survive on their own, and help him, because their spells DCs are resistable, their damage or even chance to hit is so low, making them basically two commoners following that one guy who looks like Captain America.

...You seem to be on the impression that stats matter a lot more than they do. Most likely the guys with 16s and 18s will die because they're fucking morons and think themselves supermen, while the ones with lower stats know better and actually survive by clever play.

>>53043269
All that's true, but what I'm saying is using the standard array creates a fewer amount of character builds.
And this isn't just with my group, I've played with multiple groups and have found that the standard array tends to narrow character creation.

>>53038023
>>53037986
>rolling any dice at all
>not just playing a freeform where you win using your superior speed

>>53043076
Well let's see. We are currently playing D&D 5th edition. So your wizard with 9 INT has +1 to hit with his spells on levels 1 to 4; on levels 5 to 8 his bonus would be +2! His spell DC for enemies to resist his magic would be 9. An enemy needs to roll 9 or more in a d20 (plus any bonuses that he clearly has) to avoid getting charmed or getting hit by AoE, the only thing wizards actually do good.
So, your wizard has trouble fighting commoners. He clearly shouldn't be going down tunnels to explore them to find more spells scrolls to learn more magic, because he can't survive the first hour alone.

>>53043307
>You tell me what -MIGHT- happen, even though it hardly never does
Not him but speak for yourself faggot. In a group with 4-6 people, each rolling six stats, you're bound to roll a 16-18 sooner or later, especially if the DM lets you reroll and once racials come into play.
>There's no such thing as just one reroll, for instance.
Well sometimes you get fucked over by RNG twice, haven't you ever heard of probability?
>Most likely the guys with 16s and 18s will die because they're fucking morons and think themselves supermen, while the ones with lower stats know better and actually survive by clever play.
Not everyone's a reckless moron who runs into the fray though. It's like thinking that wizards are balanced because newbies tend not to spend their spell slots wisely.

>>53043351
>We are currently playing D&D 5th edition

You are literally the first one to ever bring up editions into the discussion.

I have a feeling it should've been done much earlier.

>>53043332
>All that's true, but what I'm saying is using the standard array creates a fewer amount of character builds.
How so?
>I've played with multiple groups and have found that the standard array tends to narrow character creation.
Okay, I've played in multiple games with point buy and I can say the opposite. Hell, I've played in systems where you don't even get to roll for stats but each character ended up being distinct from one another.

>>53043374
>Not him but speak for yourself faggot. In a group with 4-6 people, each rolling six stats, you're bound to roll a 16-18 sooner or later, especially if the DM lets you reroll and once racials come into play.

Yeah, and that guy (if you really aren't him) was talking about ALL 18s and 16s for one guy, and nothing greater than 13 for another. Don't move the goalposts for him, he can do it well enough himself.

>Well sometimes you get fucked over by RNG twice, haven't you ever heard of probability?
Just having one reroll prompts you to really think whether you need it, or whether you can make this statline work - precisely for the reason you described. If you still decide to reroll, it's probably because your stats were truly horrendous, and getting anything as bad a second time has pretty astronomical rolls. If you still manage to roll that badly again, you just shrug and play him.

>Not everyone's a reckless moron who runs into the fray though. It's like thinking that wizards are balanced because newbies tend not to spend their spell slots wisely.

All the more reason stats don't matter as much as you think.

>>53043459
>Yeah, and that guy (if you really aren't him) was talking about ALL 18s and 16s for one guy, and nothing greater than 13 for another. Don't move the goalposts for him, he can do it well enough himself.
Even if his point was hyperbole, the point remains that when you have one dude with awesome stats and people without, it's going to cause some issues within the campaign.
>If you still manage to roll that badly again, you just shrug and play him.
Why should I have to play a character that I don't want to play just because RNG says so? I mean, is fucking over a power gamer really worth making everyone else suffer due to having shit luck?
>All the more reason stats don't matter as much as you think.
No, they matter a-fucking-lot, because it's much easier to pull off smart plays when your numbers are high enough to let you make the rolls.

>>53043650
>Even if his point was hyperbole, the point remains that when you have one dude with awesome stats and people without, it's going to cause some issues within the campaign.

It's never caused any for me. I really think it's just a meme at this point, people who've never tried rolling stats making justifications to why they continue not doing so.

>Why should I have to play a character that I don't want to play just because RNG says so? I mean, is fucking over a power gamer really worth making everyone else suffer due to having shit luck?

Again, you exaggerate how much stats even mean.

>No, they matter a-fucking-lot, because it's much easier to pull off smart plays when your numbers are high enough to let you make the rolls.

Depends on the edition. You notice how we're still not bringing up exactly what EDITION we're talking about? It's like it makes it so much easier to argue we're objectively right.

Listen roll fags, it's like this:

Either rolls matter a lot, and hence you should not roll because it could lead to stupid character who can't really contribute, or makes things effortless OR

Rolls don't matter a lot, so you are just fucking wasting time by rolling for a few cheap laughs and thrills, you gambling addicted fuck.

Either way, rolling for stats is stupid, check mate atheists!

>>53042296
Honestly, in ten years of rolling that's happened to me only three times. I average 1 to 2 new campaigns a year, most of which are played through to the end.

>>53043796
How many new characters are rolled during those campaigns, on average? Usually stats being rolled also implies more lethal games, so.

>>53043722
>It's never caused any for me.
That's like saying that it's okay to eat your weight in lard because "I've never had no heart attack before."
>I really think it's just a meme at this point, people who've never tried rolling stats making justifications to why they continue not doing so.
How presumptuous of you to say faggot.
>Again, you exaggerate how much stats even mean.
If stats truly don't matter, why roll at all? Why not cut the bullshit and just use point buy or an array or something?
>You notice how we're still not bringing up exactly what EDITION we're talking about? It's like it makes it so much easier to argue we're objectively right.
The default assumption is generally 3.PF because that's the only edition of D&D that has enough problems to where these sorts of arguments crop up most often.

Even then, you wouldn't want to play a character with low stats in any WotC era D&D edition overall.

>>53043830
Two of them were Pathfinder Society games. My random roll got me Half Orc Fighter, with a 16 in my STR and a 17 in CON. I was a wrecking ball in one, and my other was an Elf Wizard with an INT of 18 starting random.

I've only had to roll new characters twice in ten years due to actual death, and two campaigns just didn't finish.

>>53043850
>That's like saying that it's okay to eat your weight in lard because "I've never had no heart attack before."

Not really. The heart attack won't give you a clean slate for the next campaign.

>The default assumption is generally 3.PF because that's the only edition of D&D that has enough problems to where these sorts of arguments crop up most often.

Yeah, but in 3.PF you'd never roll 3d6s in order. You always do 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired - and in those cases having such horribly low stats becomes unlikely enough that it's really not worth talking about.

>>53043869
Aren't those characters the type of min-maxing garbage that most roll-fags ITT are hoping to avoid?

I dunno chief, I think rollfags are just rollplayers who pretend that their 9 in a dump stat is analogous to an actual flaw.

>>53043920
Eh, it didn't bother me. It wasn't my preferred choice but when each stat had to be rolled individually and preassigned beforehand, you gotta take what you get.

>>53043905
>Not really.
Yes it is, you're saying that because you've never dealt with the consequences of your bad decisions, it means that your bad decision isn't actually bad. Just because a dude cured his own cancer by shooting himself in the face doesn't mean that people should be loading buckshot as a means of cancer treatment.
>Yeah, but in 3.PF you'd never roll 3d6s in order.
Says who?

>>53042659
Let it go, anon. They're just here to screech at each other.

Of course the fun of random stats wouldn't be as well suited to a long-form game where your character is expected to survive numerous sessions and distinguish themselves with feats, archetypes or prestige classes. Everyone in the thread knows that building a character for 6 months of sessions based on a random dice throw could hand an unfortunate player a playstyle that they strongly dislike.

Likewise, we all know that in shorter-form games or settings with higher lethality, it's good to encourage changing playstyles with the use of random stats, and there's no point optimising a character that simply won't remain active for long.

>>53043938
Of course it wouldn't bother you, you got exactly what you needed.

>>53043970
It bothered me because at both times either was the race and class I wished to play the least. But I was a good jimmy and worked with what I got. I didn't like it but I made it work.

>MFW The Half Orc Barbarian had a DEX of 6.

>>53043996
That's like saying "well, I wished that I had more to work with than a small loan of a million dollars but I guess I'll have to make due with what I have."

You want real pain? Try playing a Monk for two months and seeing how everyone else is dealing more damage than you because you got nothing but 12's and 13's across the board.

Go fuck yourself.

>>53043950
>Yes it is, you're saying that because you've never dealt with the consequences of your bad decisions, it means that your bad decision isn't actually bad. Just because a dude cured his own cancer by shooting himself in the face doesn't mean that people should be loading buckshot as a means of cancer treatment.

No, I mean, the consequence of your bad roll is going to go away as soon as the character dies. The cancer or heart attack are going to certainly linger longer.

>Says who?

Uh... common sense?

Look, I enjoy rolling 3d6 in order in older cames as much as the next person, but I'd never lay that burden on a group of Pathfinder players.

File: 1493330340620.gif (682KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 540x540px

>Not just sucking your dms dick and wearing cute leggings for him to get the stats you want

>>53044049
Nothing but 12 and 13s across the board and you were dealing the least damage? What the fuck shitty feats did you pick?

Also: Monk NOT building into Combat Maneuvers? I see why people don't like playing with you.

>>53044063
>No, I mean, the consequence of your bad roll is going to go away as soon as the character dies.
So you're saying that I should just kill my character off rather than reroll?
>Uh... common sense?
If common sense were a factor in this discussion, we'd be using point buy or an array for a long-term campaign in the first goddamn place.

>>53044101
>What the fuck shitty feats did you pick?
Probably all of them because most good feats require 13+ in a stat

>>53044115
Still many good (not great, but passable) feats you can take without.

>>53043351
I'm just going to draw attention to this

Someone with utterly unremarkable +0 in all stats has about a 50% chance of just shrugging off anything your wizard does. As your level goes up, eventually you'll get more like a 70% chance of hitting commoners.

If they have proficiency in saves you're back down into shitsville at 30-40% or so.

Imagine playing a game of d&d where you only resolve a spell for every 2 slots you expend. You're not even twice as bad as an optimised wizard- you're WORSE, because you're losing slots AND turns and costing party members resources (and risking crit fails, potentially) as the fight drags on.


Even with my last caster having a +4 to their spellcasting stat, I can count on one hand the number of times that enemies actually failed their saves against him.

>>53044132
Not really
>12 in str
no power attack for you
>12 in dex
lmao no combat reflexes/weapon finesse/piranha bite

In one of the campaigns I played in we did 4d6 drop the lowest for every stat and you could swap one stat with another. This means that if you want to play a fighter and roll an 18 for INT you can swap it with strength and still play a fighter. This stopped min-maxing but allowed people to play classes they wanted.

>>53044152
And that's fine.
>Thinking those are the only good feats available.
No wonder why you are terrible at this game.

I won this. Leaving the board before you make more of a useless babby of yourself.
~Tips Fedora~ Later, M'Loser.

>>53044101
>Nothing but 12 and 13s across the board and you were dealing the least damage?
Yeah, because 12-13 is only a +2 modifier mate while everyone else had a 15 or higher in their primary stat.
>Monk NOT building into Combat Maneuvers?
Why are you assuming that I didn't?

>>53044169
Yeah I forgot there are great feats like toughness and skill focus

>>53044169
>"Welp, I've made enough of an ass out of myself, better leave before anyone else can find out how stupid I am."
And then the errant retard left the thread forever, until he returned to defend the honor and dignity that he never had.

Hoo boy this thread's just such a wonderful breeding ground for intelligent discussion, isn't it!

So we've got point-buy, array, rolling (in order and assign). Any other methods to devise stat values?

>>53044169
Nice one anon, you actually made me laugh out loud at 3am. Le kek to you, fellow memer!

>>53044334
>Any other methods to devise stat values?
base the characters off their real world stats

>>53044344
Obviously we all have 18 intelligence, right?

File: 1493444876585.gif (208KB, 354x534px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 354x534px

>>53044473
Stat str by seeing how much your players can lift
stat dex by throwing increasingly hard to dodge objects at them until they get hit
stat con by drinking contest
stat int by a series of increasingly hard math problems, no calculator allowed. If they bring up an abacus they're smart and can use that
stat wisdom by trivia night
stat cha by taking them out on a date

>>53044344
So what, zero in everything because they're fictional and incapable of influencing the world in any meaningful way?

Or where you stat the players and they play themselves? That could work in a perfect world, but the only situation i can imagine where someone doesn't inflate their own stats is if they're cripplingly depressed and DEflate them.

>>53044500
No, players can make what characters they want but you judge their stats based off the player.

Chris the accountant wants to play ragnar the barbarian, but ragnar is as strong as Chris, and as handsome, etc.

>Not roll and assign, then point buy up to a minimum if you rolled real shit
Have fun being a peasant

>>53038552
The only good chargen system tbqh famigliano

Play Mongoose Traveller with character death in character generation you fucking pansies.

in all seriousness, assigning rolls is a great half way point that I prefer to use in all my games.

File: eldritch horror.jpg (9KB, 228x223px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 228x223px

>>53037986
>rolling for stats

>>53048463
Yes, yes, we went through that already.

Now stop bumping.

File: shitdude.png (144KB, 247x311px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 247x311px

>>53038035

>there are people who are terrified of playing something new and need to pointbuy their exact class everytime

Sad!

File: 1448486357258.jpg (191KB, 970x617px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 970x617px

>>53051815
>He actually needs to roll to decide which character he wants to play
>Too delusional to realize the irony of rolling to decide what you're going to roleplay.

>>53043176
No, you're not.

>>53052386
Yes, you are.

Point buy requires that you draw from a finite resource to gain decent stats, which means that you won't have enough to ever have more than two stats above 15+ while also having at least two stats that are equal to or less than 10 at character creation.

With rolling, the stats you gain are gained independent of one another, so there's nothing stopping you from getting characters that have nothing lower than a 15 across the board, or nothing higher than a 12 across the board, or nothing but 13-14's across the board.

For better or for worse, it's all random, and the only reason people roll stats is if it's a oneshot (so it doesn't matter what you roll since you'll only play that character for one session anyways) or they're power gamers hoping to get high rolls across the board, while wiping anything that doesn't meet their standards.

File: vlad the implyer.jpg (134KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 960x960px

>>53052656
Most pointbuy systems start at 8 in stats, and also make higher stats more expensive, ie. they reward well rounded characters without significant strengths or flaws. Furthermore the variety between any two characters who follow the same class and race combination will be minimal because even people who don't try to optimize can't really fuck up.

In a random roll game, it's not unusual to have a couple players have a 4 or 5 in a stat. It's not unusual to have a smart fighter, or a strong wizard, a very fragile thief, or a very charismatic cleric.

I could give countless hours of testimony on how much more interesting games are when people play actually varied characters regularly, and have to come up with interesting explanations for why their character with those odd statblocks is doing X. But there's not really any point when most of the people will refuse to try it because 'reasons' and this thread is going to devolve into unhinged autism only anonimity on a hentai cambodian cave drawing website can provide.

>>53053109
Well, yes. People who roll for stats are usually unhinged autists who think the only way to give characters interesting quirks are 'durr my fighter has 4 cha'

>>53053109
>Furthermore the variety between any two characters who follow the same class and race combination will be minimal because even people who don't try to optimize can't really fuck up.
You say that as if there's a difference between Fighter#3587 and Fighter #2876 in the first place.
>In a random roll game, it's not unusual to have a couple players have a 4 or 5 in a stat. It's not unusual to have a smart fighter, or a strong wizard, a very fragile thief, or a very charismatic cleric.
Which is all well and good until you realize that you're effectively playing a gimped character who cannot even perform their jobs.
>have to come up with interesting explanations for why their character with those odd statblocks is doing X.
There's nothing stopping you from doing that with point buy though.

>>53053109
Ever thought about giving your character actual flaws beyond mechanical ones? Like loyalty to a clan that the DM can use to give conflicting goals to the other players (not necessarily antagonistic, but divergent) or the like? Try thinking outside the game, dumb rollplaying scum.

>read thread
>Rollfags floundering and shitting on everything yet again
Unsurprising.

>>53038630
>>53038656
>Two people who don't play DnD argue about Dnd
/tg/ never change

>>53053812
Yeah, it's actually a bit sad really. People who know nothing about tabletop trying to convince others that they know what they're talking about.

Rolling for stats is only acceptable when you roll the values then assign the values to stats as you please.

Otherwise it's awful.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with minmaxing when it comes to something as basic as your character's stats.

>>Wow all these professional athletes are such minmaxers, lots of them are dumb as a brick
>>Ugh, Isaac Newton put all his points into INT, doesn't he know that it's such a better role playing opportunity to play a mathematician with 6 int and 18 Dex?

That's like saying it's "roll-playing" and minmaxing for casters to put max ranks in Concentration and Knowledge instead of cross-class ranks in fucking Balance and Survival.

Your character should be good at their job, otherwise why the fuck would they risk life and limb on the daily to try and make a living adventuring as something they don't care about and don't particularly even enjoy.

Rolling for stats ENCOURAGES shitty play practices since since it means to be effective with trash ability scores they need to rely on strong shit that doesn't require rolls or stats to be effective.

A wizard with shit int is just forced to only use no-save or save and suck spells.

Enjoy your party of five Moon Druids because everyone rolled poorly.

>>53040957
Anon, adventurers are often quite literally murderhobos. You don't need good stats to have no moral integrity.

File: both.png (88KB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 260x260px

>>53037986
I'm gonna put this to bed.

Rolling stats is good for a table that has no idea what kind of character they want to play, or they want to spice it up by letting the dice more or less determine what they play.

Point-buy is good when everyone comes to the table with a character or concept they already have in their head and want to play.

Both are valid depending on what kind of game the table wants to play.

>>53055521
This guy gets it. I find myself more often in the latter however, hence my preference. Would be interesting to do an entire game on the fly though, with characters being randomly generated like that.

Randomly generating a character: totally fine.

Randomly rolling stats in D&D: archaic mechanic with basically very minor benefits, and for the modern ones, lots of detriments.

>not rolling for race
>not rolling for gender
>not rolling for birth location
>not rolling for millennium of birth

One of these days my group will get four characters born on the same planet in the same general era

>>53053109
>It's not unusual to have a smart fighter, or a strong wizard, a very fragile thief, or a very charismatic cleric.
Well said, this is exactly what pointbuy suppresses.

>>53056099
>no matter how far apart or the time period of each character, they each have a way of communicating with each other
>commence time puzzle shenanigans

>>53056336
>Well said, this is exactly what pointbuy suppresses.

All of those are sorta supported builds in 4e. I mean, you wouldn't want to intentionally make the thief any more fragile than he already is, but I bet there's some revenant cheese there.

>>53052656
When 95% of your stats are in the 8-15 range, then there's actually no variety, no unusual strengths or flaws. You're all similar clones of joe slightly above average.

>>53053109 is exactly right.

>>53056365
>When 95% of your stats are in the 8-15 range, then there's actually no variety, no unusual strengths or flaws. You're all similar clones of joe slightly above average.

5-16 in 3/4/5e is actually the same level of variance OD&D has with bonuses with stat rolling.

>>53056385
Except of course for anything but 18 and 3 the bonuses were still +/-2, so it's more like 7-14 for 90% of cases.

But yeah, that +/- 5% will sure make your character unique.

>>53053290
>Which is all well and good until you realize that you're effectively playing a gimped character who cannot even perform their jobs.
>thinking characters that aren't cookie cutter copies are gimped
Good job proving you have never once tried to roleplay a person instead of an archetype.

>>53056365
>When 95% of your stats are in the 8-15 range, then there's actually no variety, no unusual strengths or flaws. You're all similar clones of joe slightly above average.
I guarantee you that any given "clone of Joe slightly above average" will be leagues more compelling as a character when played by someone with even a vague idea for a personality than a rolled character played by someone that genuinely believes Str 6 or Dex 17 are compelling character traits.

dice take away player agency, better get rid of RNG at all

>>53043125
pretty much this

>>53043125
>They don't know that stats don't make someone a hero

...

so why roll?

If the stats don't matter why roll?

>>53054001
>People who know nothing about tabletop trying to convince others that they know what they're talking about.

Rolling for stats was a thing for two decades before point-buy was ever even suggested, so it's far more likely the rollfags know what they're talking about than pointbuyfags. They'll almost invariably have tried both.

Having experienced both systems, I can safely say the latter is more often than not talking out of their asses.

>>53056908
We have used leaves to wipe our asses for thousands of years before toilet paper was invented, would you say people who still use leaves know what they are doing?

>>53056917
If they've tried toilet paper and still for some reason stick with leaves?

When you move the tabletop game demographics to the far larger asswiper crowd, even the few "rollfags" suddenly become millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions. Why would so many people still use leaves? I'd be intrigued to find out.

>>53038175
>elite array or point buy
>minmaxing
Yeah a 15 is such a powerful stat
Minmaxer are those who roll and if not satisfied they suicide their character and roll again till the have as many 18s as they see fit

>>53056788
There is a slight possibility they will matter, mechanically speaking, if you roll high or low enough - and occasionally even the middle stats will matter for you need to make a stat roll.

It's common enough that you should determine them, yet not so common that you should be scared of bad stats. And if the occasional low stat or high stat gives you a bit of extra character grist, then that's just a bonus, isn't it?

It's kind of a stupid strawman that rollfags -need- to have a low stat somewhere to be able to make a memorable character, but it doesn't hurt either, especially not when it's random: it was something you didn't see coming and now have to think about out of nowhere. It gets those little cogs in your brain going and immerses you into the character creation the way pointbuy quite doesn't, because with pointbuy you know exactly how it goes.

That's how I feel about it anyway.

>>53038200
>He doesn't have a folder of premade character sheets, with rolled stats and everything.

>>53039421
>rolling
>no dump stats
that's statistically impossible

>>53041175
Muh dick

>>53044500
A neat way of solving this is in The End of the World games (I think that's what they're called, the ones where you play yourselves sitting down to a gaming session, only to have a Zombie/Alien/Robot/Great Old One apocalypse happen)

You use a sort of secret ballot system to mark other players stats up and down, depending on where they pegged them initially.
Also, once play starts it's near mandated the GM gets killed off in the first minute

>>53037986
I am that moron, and I'm proud of it. My highest roll was a 9 in Intelligence and I played a Wizard. I lasted longer than anyone in the group, even the guy who fudged an 18 in all his stats.

>>53057241
>even the guy who fudged an 18 in all his stats

How did that happen?

>>53043076
>wizard with 9 int
???
>Isn't it boring though?
no

there's no intrinsic excitement or fun in the way you pick stats, besides the possibility of getting some really wacky bullshit rising the more you randomise
but 'wacky bullshit' isn't what you want every character to be and is best suited for one-shots, rather than long-running campaigns.

ultimately it just feels more practical to offer point buy or an array, between everyone starting on the same level, being able to build the character they want, and just being plain faster in the case of arrays

>>53057279
>???

Yep. See >>53057241

I haven't played a wizard with 9 intelligence, but I have seen it happen, and I have played a thief with 10 dexterity. It's nearly as outlandish, I suppose.

And yes, we had fun. Possibly more than a yet another point-bought 18 Int guy. It even lasted a while and wasn't a one-shot.

When you point-buy all wizards to have high intelligence, then you enforce the notion that wizards -should- have high intelligence, and that every wizard you meet in the game does. I don't think this should always be the case: I reckon there's a place for a bunch of 10 Int underarchievers.

>>53056952
>Why would so many people still use leaves? I'd be intrigued to find out.

Because we have used leaves back when I started wiping my ass, and that's the proper way to do it.

I mean, you are basically asking why people oppose change. It's just what about 50% people do on a regular basis.

>>53057263
Alright, I'm exaggerating. The guy wanted to play a Paladin but was worried he wouldn't meet the ability score requirements, so he fudged those abilities which were relevant to Paladin'ing. He ended up with 18 Charisma and a little bit less for Strength, Constitution and Wisdom. He did dump Dexterity and Intelligence, but he never suffered the consequences for that other than those being his real life dump stats.

>>53057303
>I mean, you are basically asking why people oppose change. It's just what about 50% people do on a regular basis.

My very first few games were point-buy: I didn't get around to rolling for stats, especially not 3d6 in order, until several years to my career. I ended up preferring that way.

By your logic, I should've opposed it not just because point-buy is inherently better, but also because people oppose change.

>>53042513
if you're going to be doing a job that requires somebody ride a motorbike really good, you're not going to bring the fucking cheesemakers
conversely if you're going to be doing a lot of cheesemaking but not any traveling you're not going to want the guy who spends all his time on his motorcycle

now if you wanted to make cheese in one place and deliver it somewhere else, you'd have both the cheesemakers and a motorcyclist - although if you don't need that much cheese you'll probably only hire one

this is why practical adventurers bring a variety of talents when going out into the wilds, because a party consisting of exactly one specialisation is not only going to be useless for 60% of situations but most of them will end up more redundant than tits on a zombie because they'll all be stepping on eachother's toes
on the OOC side, both of those issues apply just the same, except it's more a matter of fun than practicality. you're not having fun if you're not actually doing anything, after all, and nothing sucks away chances to do shit like four other people doing the shit you can, before you can.

i'm not saying such a campaign can't be fun though, there's plenty of stories of all-X parties getting up to ridiculous shenanigans, and there's reason enough for a bunch of similar specialists to end up together - usually because they were brought together involuntarily and have no better options.

tl;dr your example was shit and you would be really bad at picking for a motorcross team

>>53057318
I have spoken in general, your anecdote does nothing to disprove it.

Besides, the important part is the idea being old or considered traditional, not the person being introduced to the idea.

>>53057300
i think you're seriously misunderstanding what a wizard actually is and why people expect them to have high intelligence
it's a profession that requires intense and constant study to even attempt to practise, as well as - in pf, anyway - intrinsic knowledge of another language entirely.
it's not like being.. i don't know, a doctor or a thief where you could at least pass yourself off as knowing your shit while doing the bare basics, or have a natural aptitude, or could just be very lucky, because your very ability to bend the fabric of reality relies on how well you can learn and memorise your spells

now you're right in that people wanting a high int for their wizards reinforces this, but ultimately the basic concept requires it. low-int wizards SHOULD be very abnormal.

you could justify having a low 'main' stat in pretty much every other class than wizard, because i don't think any of them are as rooted in requiring their stat to even begin to learn their craft.

>>53057519
Rote memorization is a thing.

in 5e you could play a wizard with 9 INT easily, as long as you have high enough other stats to compensate and use spells with no saves, like buffs and blade spells (in 4e it's a bit more tricky, in 3 you can't even cast spells, before that you don't reach the requirement with 9).

>>53044493
>shitty anime where increasingly desperate gril attempts to date a wizard she became infatuated with for literally no reason but he won't give her a second glance so she resorts to pretty much this exact set up to ask him out

fuck me I'm autistic

>>53057519
9 int is not low. 9 int is average.

>>53044049
>more damage
And more defense, HPs, means to do anything etc

I played a 20/18/16/16/14/10 monk once at char gen, I the next char was 8 total modifier below me and he still outclassed me (barb), imagine being a monk with a total modifier of 6 or 7, full dead weight useless comical relief

>>53044101
>monk
>able to trip or grapple
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Good luck with your MAD and medium bab and no feature to support that path

>>53057431
Several of the people I was playing with at the time also went on to rolling stats and also ended up preferring that way. I don't think any of us ever considered it "traditional", or in any way better because of that.

In fact, I believe that once you shed the notion of age and tradition and look at these things from an objective point of view, you can get a pretty good idea from both. I also think that a lot of people here have never tried rolling and are simply talking about what MIGHT happen, and how it totally isn't going to ever be fun to them if it does. They've never tried playing a game where stats aren't a be-all end-all, where you don't absolutely need to have a 15 or more in your prime requisite in order to function at all. They don't actually know, they just... think, imagine, fear.

If you've tried playing AD&D or Basic or something with 3d6 in order and still prefer point buy, more power for you. At least you're well informed on the matter. But personally I disagree.

Rolled 2, 1, 6 + 3 = 12 (3d6 + 3)

>>53057947
2d6+6 is king

>>53057977
I feel like this, or 3d4 drop lowest to a lesser extent, miss the whole point of rolling stats by using it as an excuse to get far more powerful characters than point-buy ever could get you.

>>53056365
>When 95% of your stats are in the 8-15 range, then there's actually no variety, no unusual strengths or flaws.
Low stats != Flaws, just mechanical deficiencies that may or may not even crop up depending on which class you choose to play.

>>53058125
In most systems, having a 7 in a stat doesn't hurt you mechanically at all, but it still gives you a tiny bit of extra fluff to think of the character, the sort that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise and that you need to now work your way with.

I find that a small random element in both character creation and worldbuilding gets my creative engines going far, far better than simply deciding everything on my own from the start.

>>53056461
There's no reason to ever play a Fighter with high INT and low STR because the game doesn't give you incentive that would utilize that INT in performing their job. At best, you might have higher than average abilities to use knowledge skills but as far as combat is concerned, he's fucking worthless.

It's not a system that rewards non-cookie cutter characters, only characters who are lucky enough to roll well on multiple stats, in addition to their bread and butter.

>>53056908
>Rolling for stats was a thing for two decades before point-buy was ever even suggested, so it's far more likely the rollfags know what they're talking about than pointbuyfags.
Conversely, how many games nowadays still make you roll for stats as opposed to making you use point buy?
>Having experienced both systems, I can safely say the latter is more often than not talking out of their asses.
As opposed to rollfags who have a compulsion to roll a low stat in order to play "memorable" characters?

>>53058198
Still talking about Pathfinder?

2nd edition AD&D has weapon proficiencies and grants you a great many additional ones if you have high intelligence. Such a fighter could pick himself up a lot of weapons and become a sort of a multiweapon master.

>>53058219
>doesn't actually address them being bad at all of the weapons specified

>>53058212
>Conversely, how many games nowadays still make you roll for stats as opposed to making you use point buy?

Some. It depends on the type of the game. Typically the grittier, less heroic games such as Warhammer RPGs and Call of Cthulhu do that. Meanwhile, games like Pathfinder and 5e almost invariably deal with point-buy, because you're supposed to be a hero there instead of die in a ditch. They've got different kind of play styles and both are quite valid.

>As opposed to rollfags who have a compulsion to roll a low stat in order to play "memorable" characters?

Again, I dont know where this strawman came from. As one of those "rollfags" myself, having to roll a low stat to create a memorable character is not really a thing, but as I've said a couple times already, getting some rolls where I don't expect them and having to now think about these things gets me into the character far better than knowing how he was going to turn out from the beginning.

Like I was doing a wizard and suddenly got him an above average strength? I wouldn't have put any points to strength for him in point-buy, let alone started to think about how he got it and what implications it has in his backstory. It does bring him to life a good deal more.

>>53058188
>In most systems, having a 7 in a stat doesn't hurt you mechanically at all, but it still gives you a tiny bit of extra fluff to think of the character, the sort that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise and that you need to now work your way with.

>"Why does you character have 7 DEX?
>"He has a limp."
Ooh, so compelling.
>I find that a small random element in both character creation and worldbuilding gets my creative engines going far, far better than simply deciding everything on my own from the start.
Then you're a rollplayer in denial.

>>53057947
>>53057977
If you're playing around with alternative rolls, why not 7x3d6 or 8x3d6 straight, where you get one/two extra rolls, and you have to remove 1/2 of the the rolls, moving everything bellow it up one, until you've got all 6 stats?

>>53058237
Pardon?

He's perfectly proficient in all those weapons. That's what proficiency means.

Meanwhile, a lower-intelligence fighter would be able to handle far fewer weapons without a penalty.

>>53058219
>>53058260
K, and with his shitty STR, his THAC0 is going to be shite and the damage he deals is going to be pitiful as well.

>>53058260
>proficient is the same thing as good at
Not when it comes to D&D, no.

>>53058247
>Ooh, so compelling.

What happened to him in the past to get him that limp? How does he need to deal with it in the present to get around it?

You may not think it's much but I personally do find it to add plenty. It's just different types of gaming: you may not see much of worth in how I do things, but do at least try to keep an open mind.

>Then you're a rollplayer in denial.

Are you saying that because I find something compelling in random rolls, I'm a rollplayer, i.e. a powergamer that cares nothing of roleplay? I don't really see how you came to that conclusion.

My players roll 2d4+6 for stats. They get one stat point every level though, and no stat may be increased higher than 4 from the lowest stat.

>>53058274
You'd need to have 17 strength or more in order to have any better attack rolls. Odds for that, on 3d6 in order, are quite low. You don't know what you're talking about at all.

>>53058276
It is in 2e, though.

Nonproficiency for a fighter means -2 penalty when attacking with that weapon. Proficiency means no penalty. Specialization (the actual "being good at" bit) gets you some bonuses, yeah, but you can only start with one of those regardless of your intelligence, so again, having high intelligence isn't hurting you one bit.

>>53058292
>Proficiency means no penalty
That doesn't mean they are good at it though.
You can be proficient in a thing and be complete garbage at it in 2e.
That you don't know this leads me to understand that you have never played 2e in your life and are talking out your ass.

>>53058277
>What happened to him in the past to get him that limp?
He fell.
>How does he need to deal with it in the present to get around it?
He deals with it.
> It's just different types of gaming: you may not see much of worth in how I do things, but do at least try to keep an open mind.
I'm not the type of person who needs to roll to determine their backstory.
>Are you saying that because I find something compelling in random rolls, I'm a rollplayer, i.e. a powergamer that cares nothing of roleplay?
Yes, because rather than creating a character that you could see yourself playing and figuring out why they're the way they are independent of the mechanics, you require the mechanics to tell you what you should play and how they got to be the way they are. It's no different than the guy who an heroes characters just to make sure that he gets the best possible spread for his concept.

>>53058302
I still have no fucking idea what you're trying to tell me. What's your point and what exactly are you trying to argue? Can you give me a practical example of someone being proficient at a weapon, yet also be complete garbage at wielding it, and also tell me where you're going with this argument to begin with?

>>53058320
A person with shit stats other than int, for instance, would be able to be proficient in a weapon but also be laughably terrible at it.

You know, like if you had to roll stats or something godawful like that.

>>53058313
>He fell.

Sure, or he was in a fight with some guy that is now his nemesis, who hamstrung him in an unfair fight.
>He deals with it.
Or he has a crutch or something.
>who needs to roll to determine their backstory
>you require the mechanics to tell you what you should play and how they got to be the way they are
Again with this bullshit. Don't tell me what I "need" or "require". Don't tell me I can't make a compelling character with point-buy when I already told you that's not the case. Don't put words in my mouth to make this argument easier for you.

All I'm saying is that rolling gives them a bit of an extra life point-buy doesn't. You don't seem to see the appeal in this, but don't put me down because of that. We just like different sorts. It's okay.

>>53038587
I hope you give them some customization, or at least let them choose which premade to use...

>>53058342
Oh, you mean like if you roll 7 in strength - when a fighter needs at least 9 to be a fighter at all?

No fighter can have low enough strength to be laughably terrible at a weapon, and any fighter with strength of 15 or less is entirely average at it.

That you don't know this leads me to understand that you have never played 2e in your life and are talking out your ass.

File: 1468288071728.jpg (29KB, 412x430px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 412x430px

>>53056360
it's not a fucking BUILD you fucking mong it's a CHARACTER

>>53058344
>All I'm saying is that rolling gives them a bit of an extra life point-buy doesn't
But it doesn't. You could just as easily assign some random flaw to a point-bought low attribute.

>>53058344
>Rolling gives them a bit of extra life
Sure it does, if you need rolls to determine when to put life into something.

There's no putting words in your mouth. You are saying that there is life there you would not be able to access without this utility.

That means, in a literalistic sense, that you need it if you want to perform this function.

>>53058367
But you know from the start which attribute was going to be the low one. There are no surprises there.

>>53058369
>There's no putting words in your mouth. You are saying that there is life there you would not be able to access without this utility.
>That means, in a literalistic sense, that you need it if you want to perform this function.

No, it just means it's easier and more fun that way. You make it sound like I was addicted to it or something and can't function without it at all.

>>53058362
Yeah, that's pretty laughably terrible.

>>53058364
>he thinks the entirety of a character is encompassed by the relative pittance of quantitative descriptors his sheet has
Shitty roleplayer detected.

>>53058344
>Sure, or he was in a fight with some guy that is now his nemesis, who hamstrung him in an unfair fight.
No, he quite clearly fell. It says so in my backstory.
>Or he has a crutch or something.
He has like 14 CON, he ain't no bitch.
>Don't put words in my mouth to make this argument easier for you.
I'm responding to what you clearly said. If you're going to get butthurt about it then stop saying stupid shit m'boy.

>>53058383
YOU make it sound like you can't function without it, as per
>>53058344
when you say it gives extra life that point buy doesn't. This LITERALLY MEANS that you cannot access the same amount of life with point buy as rolling, which LITERALLY MEANS you need it to accomplish this goal.

>>53058388
What's pretty laughably terrible? That you don't hit the upper 5% needed to get an extra +1 to your damage rolls?

>>53058383
>There are no surprises there.
The surprise is there for like five seconds. You might as well be advocating for the DM to randomly yell "BOO" at you during character gen.

>>53058409
A fighter with 9 str.

>>53058395
Hey, I'm not telling you how to create your character's backstory. Just that I could get more out of the stuff.

>>53058407
>This LITERALLY MEANS that you cannot access the same amount of life with point buy as rolling, which LITERALLY MEANS you need it to accomplish this goal.
I... no, it doesn't. At most it means that I could get a bit more out of it. That doesn't translate to absolutely needing it to make a compelling character.

>>53058422
A fighter with 9 str is, from mechanical standpoint, literally the same as a fighter with 16 str.

>>53058364
If the game supports it then
>Well said, this is exactly what pointbuy suppresses.

is false.

>>53058430
>literally the same as a fighter with 16 str.

Goddammit, I meant 15. I was even thinking of 15 while I wrote that. Just how the hell do I...? Whatever.

16 str gets you +1 to damage and some more experience points.

>>53058430
Actually that is quite literally what it means when you say it gives something life. That means that, without that thing, it by definition has less life, which means you by definition cannot produce as much life without that thing.

>>53058430
>A fighter with 9 str is, from mechanical standpoint, literally the same as a fighter with 16 str.
That's... not actually true for a large variety of things, anon.

>>53058252
Because that's more complicated than 2d6+6
Fuck, mine is "2d6+6", yours is 5 lines in the chat box

>>53058448
Maybe if you use nonweapon proficiencies. And even if you do, they don't come up as much as trying to hit a guy with your sword.

>>53058455
Why do you keep talking in absolutes then backing off when someone points out that you are incorrect over and over?

>>53058440
It does give them a small additional spark, yes. You make it sound like I was retarded for that, though, where I still think it's just a different way of doing things.

Have you ever tried rolling for an extended period of time, over the course of several campaigns or characters?

File: fucker.jpg (41KB, 340x429px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 340x429px

>>53058468
You're the one that went on about how a fighter with 9 strength is really bad at fighting. I pointed out that he's literally the exact same at fighting as a fighter with 15 strength, and now you start to bring up whole other bullshit that doesn't actually mean anything for the argument at hand?

Stick to the subject, don't move the goalposts.

>>53058469
You're the one who's taking it as you have to be retarded. I'm just telling you what the thing you said means in english.
Stop insisting that everyone who has any kind of problem with what you are saying isn't educated in the subject matter at hand.

>>53058502
>Stop insisting that everyone who has any kind of problem with what you are saying isn't educated in the subject matter at hand.

I'm neither insisting nor assuming. I asked whether you've got any experience with rolling your characters.

Do you?

>>53058529
Yes. Everyone involved in this conversation does.

>>53058495
Actually, you're was talking about fighters, he was talking almost exclusively about proficiencies.
The only mention I can track of him even talking about fighters was to laugh at one with 9 strength.

Earliest detectable response in the chain I can find is
>>53058276

Tried both
For the kind of games we play point buy seems to be more fitting yet most GMs still enforce rolling and complain when the problems of rolling chars appear, retards I tell you

>>53058575
It's because they want to appear hard, but don't realize rolling characters is almost exclusively for gamier, higher death, more war-game like games.
Trying to roleplay while also using rolled characters is a recipe for joke characters dying comedic deaths.

So, like, good for some kind of monty python roleplay scenario, but that's kind of specific.

I have yet to meet a group that can take rolled dudes seriously for more than two sessions.

>>53058574
>he was talking almost exclusively about proficiencies.

Fairly sure he was talking about weapon proficiencies, because the post he was answering to was talking about those.

Weapon proficiencies don't care for your ability scores. They're just about what weapons you can wield in a fight without a penalty. Having a strength of 9 won't make you any worse with them.

If he were talking about NONweapon proficiencies this whole time, then I apologise, though I'd like to point out that once those come to picture your class doesn't really matter. A fighter with 9 in strength but 14 in intelligence, for instance, would naturally have many more intelligence-based nonweapon proficiencies than strength-based ones. He'd end up with quite a strange but potentially very useful career choices for a warrior.

Point-buy probably wouldn't have ended up with that either. You would've just had a high-strength fighter with blacksmithing proficiency and stuff, instead of a warrior scholar that can read.

>>53058606
It's weird that you apply fantastic logic to your own arguments, acting like the high int fighter will be useful, while at the same time require grim pessimism of point buy characters, assuming that they'll never deviate from minmax.

>>53058631
>acting like the high int fighter will be useful

If he had that 14 in strength instead, he would be almost exactly as useful. He'd just be slightly more capable of opening doors and with a couple less nonweapon proficiency slots.

I believe we already established this.

>>53058606
I think he was talking about how having proficiencies doesn't actually mean you are good or even OK at a thing.
Which is entirely true. You can be a 1st level asswipe with no stats that's proficient in a thing, and you are by all rights awful at it.

>>53058649
We also have already established that you don't have to be 100% minmax with point buy, but you are ignoring that for some reason too.

>>53058652
Again, if we're talking about weapon proficiencies, the difference is almost nonexistent unless we go to percentile strengths, and managing to get those with a randomly rolled character is pretty unlikely.

>>53058661
I dunno, I think the difference between any two people with the same proficiency can be extraordinarily huge in D&D, to the point where it hardly matters compared to any other factor.

That's kind of a pet peeve of mine though.

>>53058660
But being 100% minmax with point buy is literally the only way the point bought fighter would be any better than the randomly rolled fighter in this scenario. You'd need to pile up at least 16 points in strength to be any better at fighting than the randomly rolled 9 strength fighter.

So if you don't have to be 100% minmax with point buy, then there's not much for me there to ignore, is there?

>>53058677
>coming at everything from a stance of what's better
Fucking rollplayers

>>53058594
>It's because they want to appear hard, but don't realize rolling characters is almost exclusively for gamier, higher death, more war-game like games.
>Trying to roleplay while also using rolled characters is a recipe for joke characters dying comedic deaths.
Not saying that can't happen, because I saw it happen, but I just as well saw someone who originally wanted to be a Paladin-like roll terrible Wisdom and Charisma, only to go on to become instead a deeply religious Fighter Actually he wasn't a fighter I just can't remember what exact martial class he took, this was many years ago whose one purpose in life was to prove himself before the gods worthy of them, even though both Paladin and Clerical orders turned him away because he just "wasn't cut out to serve the gods directly".

Near the end of the campaign died heroically protecting the rest of the group and a group of innocents, after which Archons descended from the heavens and personally carried him off to Arcadia, having lived a life worthy of Heironeous, even without the god's gifts.

It depends very much on the player's willingness to sit down and think about where what he wants to play and what he rolled come together, but if the player's good and the DM knows how to work with what's given to him, there's nothing ridiculous about rolled characters.

(That being said in purely dungeon-crawl based games it doesn't really work, because that's not the time when you should be doing personal and party story arcs.)

File: boulder.jpg (58KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x480px

>>53058694
Wait, so you're saying me you're going to make a fighter, get to point-buy their stats, then only put like 13 or something to their strength?

I'm sorry, but this changes everything. This is alien. Why would anyone do that?

Or are you just fucking with me?

>>53058707
Look anon, I can't help it that your DM doesn't play dice as falled and lets guys live longer than they should.
That's usually a pretty big mental split from the rolling characters crowd, and they usually don't have much intersection.

>>53058594
>I have yet to meet a group that can take rolled dudes seriously for more than two sessions.

Party rolled 3d6 in order, seven sessions and counting. No one has died yet.

>>53058717
>Why would anyone do that?
If I wanted, say, a smart fighter but I didn't want to have to mill through 8 other characters to get one.

>>53058722
>Guy got stats bad for holy warriors but good for another figther
>Somehow your take away from his is that the DM must have fudged the dice because [insert some semblance of logic or lack thereof here]
Did you even read what was said or are you so far up your own ass about how you are right and no possible scenario exists where someone can take something you don't like to do and make it work, that you just automatically assume everyone who disagrees with you is cheating somehow without being presented even a hint of evidence towards it?

>>53058756
No, I just recognize the catastrophically low chances of a randomly rolled character also surviving through a randomly rolled campaign of a relatively long length and moderate to high difficulty while also being online at the same time as me at 6:30 AM while also having no way of providing evidence of backing witnesses.

It's a confluence of long odds that piles together into doubt. Like when someone tells you about that time they caught you a real big fish. They, indeed, COULD have caught that big fish, but you don't believe them.

>>53058735
Well, then you've got some respect from me. I've never seen anyone given the point-buy option and not instantly go for what gives them the best mechanical array.

>>53058774
>6:30 AM
My man.
Are you aware that the Earth is round, and different time zones from you exist?

Also every time you imply that a randomly rolled character is going to be comically bad at things makes me think you're either 1) Trolling. 2) Have no understanding of probability which. 3) Don't actually play games (which would to a degree explain and imply 2).

>>53058774
It's not that low odds. Characters in such games survive at first by being smart, then later by the means of their levels powering them up much more than ability scores could. Higher-level characters actually die very rarely, 3d6 in order or not.

I find the story perfectly plausible myself.

>>53058804
psst, smart fighters still aren't sub-optimal in every game.

If your array/pointbuy strawman only played optimally, he'd play nothing but wizards and CoDzillas in 3rd edition and spinoffs anyway.

>>53058838
The only editions where I've seen smart fighters be genuinely supported are 2e and maybe some of the retroclones, such as ACKS.

>>53058855
4e has INT primary fighters in the form of Eladrin Knights.

3.5 has knowledge devotion, Warblade and Ancestral Champion.

3.PF I'm not sure.

5e, I guess you can dip a level in bladesinger.

>>53058823
>Characters in such games survive at first by being smart
"Playing smart" will only work so long as you never touch your dice to resolve an outcome, because the moment you do, you're fucked.

>>53058717
Because I'm going to play a Dex fighter? or a Wis fighter?, dunno if you can find feats to make an Int fighter, if there're, maybe i go Int fighter

>>53058823
>Playing smart
Is this what is commonly known as metagaming?

>>53058952
>>53058995
Aren't those systems full of kinda-fighters with far more intelligence-based stuff to go for? Why not play one of those?

>>53059073
No, it's known as not touching anything if you don't know how it works, poking the corridor with a ten-foot pole before moving in, and backing away whenever the wizard is about to do something stupid.

>>53059116
So metagaming...

>>53059085
Not sure about the rest, but Eladrin Knight is one of my favorite things ever, mostly because it's "nothing personel, kid" personified.

>>53059136
How's that metagaming? Are you saying you wouldn't do those things if you were tossed in a dungeon?

It's got really weird shit out there.

>>53059116
>poking the corridor with a ten-foot pole before moving in
I knew you were going to say this because that literally happened to me the last session
Room is full of blades pointing upwards but you can still walk among them without problems
Roll perception says nothing
Throw stuff in the room trying to trigger any possible trap
Me thinking "Fucking gravitation room for fucking sure" but me thinking =/= dumb chars thinking because nobody rolled above 11 in Int and the only with Arcane Knowledge has like a +3 to it and the DC is around 20
Well, I walk in, oh look, gravitational room, I hit the ceiling instantly (3d6) and then fall into the blades, (3d6+ whatever) instant dead because we're 3rd level group

No Int or Cha casters for feather fall because none of us rolled above 11 in Int or Cha, GM gets ubermad because nobody rolled decent Int or Cha (even though he forced us to roll stats), god bless rolled stats

>>53059190
Btw, I entered because I had the macguffing and i knew the game was going to end if i died there, GM was laughing till he realized that. That will show him to putting traps we can't avoid nor pass that will instantly kill us, his precious game pretty much ended

Not really, he's going to retcon all

>>53059171
How do you know there are traps? How do you know the traps are active? How do you know the wizard is doing something stupid? How do you know that the thing is something that shouldn't be touched?

Oh right, because you're a metagaming faggot operating off of OoC information the rollplaying plebian that you are.

>>53059239
>How do you know there are traps? How do you know the traps are active? How do you know the wizard is doing something stupid? How do you know that the thing is something that shouldn't be touched?

You don't, but you really don't want to take chances because if you take chances you might die.

What exactly is the OOC information you think has been fed here? Why do you think I would know there are active traps in the area?

>>53059190
>>53059233
11 int doesn't mean you're a fucking moron. It probably means your character was smarter than anyone involved in this entire fucking debate.

He certainly could've come to the same conclusion as you did.

>>53059285
the OOC information is you played other games, had in /tg/ for long and knowing how this goes.

When I started playing D&D like games i never thought about the 10ft conga of death (move 10ft, roll perception and search in the next two squares in front of me, poke with stick, move 10ft if everything is ok) that's something I learned from many games and being on the internet

>>53059239
>How do you know there are traps? How do you know the traps are active?
Well, if you're in a dungeon, there's two reasons to be there:
1) There is someone there who is hiding out there (So there's a decent chance he laid some traps and they're active)
2) There is some treasure or whatnot down there that you want (And since it's still there, that means no one took it. And if no one took it, then something stopped them from taking it. Now what would be something which exists to stop people from taking things?)

>How do you know the wizard is doing something stupid?
You're an average schmuck in a universe where (since D&D is the basic go-to setting) Vecna is a thing.
Conversely, most wizards you heard of are either extremely powerful (which your buddy over there at level 1-4 isn't), or the kind of Idiot that blew up a town either by accident spawning scary bedtime stories you heard growing up, or got even more famous by thinking he can come out on top while making deals with Vecna.

>How do you know that the thing is something that shouldn't be touched?
You found it in a Dungeon and apparently it's some random magic thingamabob that has your robe-bound buddy all excited and twitchy.
Either that, or it's something entirely mundane, in which case you would probably touch it and end up in just as shitty a situation as the guy with marginally better stats than you.