In 4th edition, there's an almost legal (as is an alternate option) way to do it by rolling the dice. But that won't be considered legal elsewhere, even if it's inbook.
Why do some player would like to create a character with an intelligence score of 6 or a charisma score of 5? Because it might fit the ideas for the background, story, psychology & personality he/she has designed.
Of course, there's the issue that not every group will allow to have a low than average character in its table for mechanics purposes. But, for people who really enjoy roleplaying without second goals of a gamist orientation, i think it leaves them out or being forced to play an array scores that doesn't fit with his/her original idea.
I don't think there's a straightfoward answer to this issue... more even if it's an issue at all as only me can feel that way.
I thought on adding (un)feats named Handicapped [ability], but later i realized it wasn't really a solution. So that's why i finally registered to the fora in order to bring my troubles here.
Any thoughts?
But if you just really want your character to have a really low ability score, that cannot be generated via the point-buy system for ability scores, then just talk to your DM about letting you voluntarily reduce one (or more) ability score(s) after you've generated them.
If you have high intelligence you might just have good reasoning and know all sorts of math and such, but not have a clue what the proper way to milk a cow is. Alternately you could have grown up on a farm and not know any of that fancy calculus, but you pick it up pretty quick when you're exposed.
If a player wants to voluntarily lower an ability score as some kind of "reminder" to him or herself I guess I'd allow it as a DM (provided I trust the player to roleplay it well); but no trading down stats to get more points for point buy.
Part of the game 'insists' that all PCs are functional in a variety of ways -- so you don't get Rogues who can't sneak or pick locks for instance -- and also to not give an excuse for certain players to be uncooperative and blame it on some mechanical feature "I'm sorry, my INT is 4; I had to press the doomsday button -- it was shiny."
The limiting of stats to '8' minimum is somewhat to prevent hero adventurers from being disabled, but also has the side effect of keeping skill modifiers from going too far negative and making characters unplayable in mechanical terms. With Intelligence it's not so bad -- a score of 6 just mechanically would guarantee you're of absolutely no help during any kind of knowledge situation. But a Wisdom of 6 might be crippling.
I really appreciate your answers. It really helps me out.
I don't want to get an advantage in order to compensate for a handicapped ability. I'd just to find a way out of the minimum of 8. I'm not expecting a rogue that can't picklocks, but maybe one who has to get special tools in order to do so because he has a really low strength.
Honestly I think you are too focused on the mechanics. Having an 8 strength already means you are weaker than normal adults, any less than that is grounds for being a young child or having a muscle-wasting disease (which can be fixed with magic in D&D). An 8 strength means pretty much any commoner you grab off the street can beat you in arm wrestling (at least at low levels).
If you're using only the core PHB 1, then there is a dearth of feats. But, you should try working with the DM to come up with a custom feat to fit your character if you don't see anything in print.
I'd also say that you should be able to rationalize nearly any feat for any character with some slight additions to their life's history. Maybe they enjoyed a book once with a nearly invincible protagonist, and that got them thinking about how they can best use their armor (Armor Specialization).
If you intentionally handicap your character in multiple ways, you become a liability to your party of adventurers rather than simply a quirky fellow.
Having an 8 strength and roleplaying you have a 6 is easier to handle for everyone. Maybe you're not actually weak, you just got it into your head that if you push your already weak muscles to their limits, they might "break" and so you never exert more than "6" strength under normal conditions. Such a character might prove "allergic" to heavy lifting, and make excuses or put on a show of how weak they are in hopes that they'll just be asked to stop trying.
I don;t understand why an 8 isn't low enough. 8 is pretty bad. It means you are 5% worse than an average person. To me, that's low enough to play any reasonable "handicap" that an adventurer could get away with.
I think it would represent about 20% weaker than average folk, which means you'd have to strain a bit to do even routine things, like climb a flight of stairs or move a TV.
I think it would represent about 20% weaker than average folk, which means you'd have to strain a bit to do even routine things, like climb a flight of stairs or move a TV.
Well, it's hard to tell. It's a 5% extra chance of failure for all rolled situations, because of how d20s work. But then again, for, say, lifting, it brings you from 100 pounds to 80 pounds, which is a 20% reduction.
I think that's the thing; It is an abstraction, like most things in the game. This is why I think an 8 is "low enough" to show you have a "handicap".
That and I would assume that 6 in a stat would be reserved for things like children.
You just choose a "dump stat" and can then boost your class's main stat for cheaper than most of point buy.
It's hard to say what's more dangerous: An orc barbarian with a 4 Intelligence, or an orc barbarian with a 22 Strength. Either way, an orc barbarian with a 4 Intelligence AND a 22 Strength can't be good news for anybody.
You could just use normal tools and make a production out of how strange they are and talk about the trouble you went through to get them :P
When i wrote special tools, i refered to the ones needed to help him/her out his lack of strength. They'll be much more longer & thicker than usual, harder to conceal, yet easier to grant a greater spin. In the hands of my character are nothing different than a set of normal tools in the hands of a stronger character. But my special tools in the hand of a stronger character will grant a +2 bonus to picking locks. Also, they're more expensive and hard to find. It's representing how difficult it was for him to work around his weakness.
Honestly I think you are too focused on the mechanics. Having an 8 strength already means you are weaker than normal adults, any less than that is grounds for being a young child or having a muscle-wasting disease (which can be fixed with magic in D&D). An 8 strength means pretty much any commoner you grab off the street can beat you in arm wrestling (at least at low levels).
As a rogue, he's not interested in going into arm wrestling. He has stealth and sneak attack to be more subtle. Or even, intimidation based on a really persuasive speech.
If you're using only the core PHB 1, then there is a dearth of feats. But, you should try working with the DM to come up with a custom feat to fit your character if you don't see anything in print.
I'd also say that you should be able to rationalize nearly any feat for any character with some slight additions to their life's history. Maybe they enjoyed a book once with a nearly invincible protagonist, and that got them thinking about how they can best use their armor (Armor Specialization).
Interesting ideas about armor. Maybe a different kind of feat to allow to get lighter armors with the same protection for not so much added price.
If you intentionally handicap your character in multiple ways, you become a liability to your party of adventurers rather than simply a quirky fellow.
Having an 8 strength and roleplaying you have a 6 is easier to handle for everyone. Maybe you're not actually weak, you just got it into your head that if you push your already weak muscles to their limits, they might "break" and so you never exert more than "6" strength under normal conditions. Such a character might prove "allergic" to heavy lifting, and make excuses or put on a show of how weak they are in hopes that they'll just be asked to stop trying.
It's just one handicap, i'm not intending to playing with a tetraplegic wheelchaired blind deaf person. He's just really weak and uses his wits to work around his disability.
It just one handicap, i'm not intending to playing with a tetraplegic wheelchaired blind deaf person. He's just really weak and uses his wits to work around his disability.
Then just roleplay it.
The reason there's no score below 8 is because it appears the default character creation method, regardless of what's listed, is point-buy/array. 4e has more analysis and attempts at balance than ever before. Consequently, it's (supposedly) balanced at 22 point buy.
This directly relates to why an 8 is minimum - any lower number produces no meaningful consequence compared to additional higher attributes.
A 4 compared to an 8 of course is -2 to a group of skills... but it would be skills irrelevant to the build. A character with 8 Cha won't be training Cha skills, so a penalty of -3 from 4 Cha compared to -1 from 8 Cha is inconsequential to him.
4 Str vs 8 Str is 40 pounds carrying capacity - and nothing else. No character reliant on Str for combat would have 4/8 Str, so there is no impact on combat, and Fort would be dependent on Con.
4 Con vs 8 Con is 4 HP and 2 Surges. Arguably, this makes the most difference while at the same time being the least likely stat to ever have a penalty. I'd say it's a non-issue.
4 Dex vs 8 Dex is -2 Init.
4 Int vs 8 Int, or Wis, or Cha has no further effect beyond a further -2 to skills.
Clearly, there is no penalty worth an extra 4 points to a build-relevant stat.
8 is fine, just roleplay - the system is abstract.
For example, suppose a player is creating a Warlock and wants to lower his Strength to 6. As DM, you tell him it's fine but he cannot use the resulting points to improve his Con, Int, or Cha. He improves his Dex and ends up with a better Initiative score.
For example, suppose a player is creating a Warlock and wants to lower his Strength to 6. As DM, you tell him it's fine but he cannot use the resulting points to improve his Con, Int, or Cha. He improves his Dex and ends up with a better Initiative score.
That's exactly what i'm longing for: to be allowed to have a lower than 8 ability score. I'm not asking for any compensation, i don't wan't to raise any other ability score. I just want to lower one, just one. But that, rulewise, is illegal... or semilegal counting on optional dice rolling, where i have to get a 6.
That's exactly what i'm longing for: to be allowed to have a lower than 8 ability score. I'm not asking for any compensation, i don't wan't to raise any other ability score. I just want to lower one, just one. But that, rulewise, is illegal... or semilegal counting on optional dice rolling, where i have to get a 6.
If you want no other compensation, then just start with a 6 instead of an 8, or just act as though you have a 6. Yes, there is no rule written in the book that allows this, but I don't blame the writers for not spending the ink on this sentence "you may elect to start with a lower score than your points would otherwise purchase".
Of course, i can just start at 6 instead of 8, or act as having 6. How many DM's out there would allow me to legally have a handicapped ability score (and just one and without asking any compensation)?
That's why i'm i asking for a viable houserule. One that can be accepted by as many DM's as possible in order to have an abililty score that better represents my character's background. Maybe i'm asking too little... i'm forced to accept at least the average.
Your DM can make anything go. There is no "legal" or "illegal." Or rather, what constitutes "legal" is purely to domain of that table. The RPGA has many tables, but maybe an RPGA-legal character isn't allowed at my table.
As for ability scores... they're just numbers. If you don't use STR for anything, your score could be 0 or 999 or 'cat' and it would have the same impact. So stop worrying about it, and fill in your STR as 'cat'. If anybody asks, tell them it's because he's as strong as a cat. Which can actually kill a 1st-level commoner, in some editions... God bless ability scores. They make such perfect sense, don't they?
Addendum: To answer your question, if you were one of my players and we'd reached this point, I would accept 'cat'. If we were just starting to talk, I'd probably have said, "sure" or something, and maybe given you a funny look.
Certainly there's almost little to none sense at all on them. ;)
I'd already had finished a 6, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 array with 44 point-buy and raised costs. I'm proceding to post it here and then throw it to the garbage can.
I'm glad to read your answer, ascottbay. Are there any other DM's with your thoughts about abilty scores? :D
Certainly there's almost little to none sense at all on them. ;)
I'd already had finished a 6, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 array with 44 point-buy and raised costs. I'm proceding to post it here and then throw it to the garbage can.
Even your example thieves tools sounds like stealth power-gaming. "When i wrote special tools, i refered to the ones needed to help him/her out his lack of strength. They'll be much more longer & thicker than usual, harder to conceal, yet easier to grant a greater spin. In the hands of my character are nothing different than a set of normal tools in the hands of a stronger character. But my special tools in the hand of a stronger character will grant a +2 bonus to picking locks. Also, they're more expensive and hard to find. It's representing how difficult it was for him to work around his weakness."
So basically you're making up some kind of masterwork thieves tools (-2 to hide (rarely used in my experience), +2 to pick locks (used much more)) and just declining the +2 for your own use.. but if you've got a buddy with Thievery that borrows them... if it's +2 to pick locks for everyone not weak like you then they would be quite popular among thieves for picking those hard-to-work locks.
In my experience it's fairly common for people to take an 8 on thier sheet (sometimes even a 10) and play up how low it is in RP. For my own part, for mental stats especially, I will sometimes roleplay even a higher stat as decidedly low. Sin the Librarian is 18 int, 13 cha, 8 wis; this has mechanical effects but I generally concider him gruff and uncharismatic, a terrible liar, but exceptionally intimidating (+2 race, +1 cha, +5 training and +4 level; it's easily one of his best skills). He won't ever be leading anyone, except under duress. If you let the numbers on the page shackle you in terms of characterization, you could miss out on some good RP options.
I would also say that if it's about roleplaying you can easily roleplay your character as weak without worrying about what the number says.
# =/ roleplay
I'm on the narrativist/roleplayist team... even to the point of asking my DM to allow me to not choose a feat if i find none that fits my character's background.
I really appreciate your answers. It really helps me out.
I don't want to get an advantage in order to compensate for a handicapped ability. I'd just to find a way out of the minimum of 8. I'm not expecting a rogue that can't picklocks, but maybe one who has to get special tools in order to do so because he has a really low strength.
If your games involve a high level of narative and role playing, then having a minimum ability score of 8 written on your character sheet should in no way hinder your ability to role play. The heavy role playing groups I have been a part of do not even need their character sheets to role play. There have been many sessions where we didn't even roll a die. I think your efforts are better spent on developing your character rather than finding a house rule that would have very minimal impact on your game. Just put a Str (or whatever ability score) at 8 and be done with it.
I'd let you lower the stat for no gain sure, as long as there weren't any real complaints from the other players. The reasons some might object is because your character would be essentially weaker (not in the sense of Strength score, but mechanics) than any other "adventurer" they could pull off the street. You're conceivably less able to assist in skill use, less capable of doing simple things like climbing, etc.
60 lbs of normal carrying capacity is practically nothing, so your armor choices might be limited as well. You'd also have to borrow gear practically any time you wanted something like a rope, at least until you get a bag of holding.
But anyway, if the table was fine with it I'd let you try. I'd also work with you to make custom rules to eliminate the hindrance. On the face of things, -1 isn't a ton of difference, I know. We could bring back materials like mithral for normal construction, a bit more cash for less weight, and possibly say "Feyweave" is lighter than normal leather, etc.
So - Whatever
I'm sorry. I tried to put [ spoiler] [ /spoiler] around the image and it didn't work.
That's because Spoiler is used only for text. you need to use sblock to hide images.
Normal thieves' tools already give a +2, so special tools made for your character should still grant a +2. And in the hands of normal-strengthed PCs, still +2.
Thank you. That was going to be my defense against the accusation of stealth power play.
I'd let you lower the stat for no gain sure, as long as there weren't any real complaints from the other players. The reasons some might object is because your character would be essentially weaker (not in the sense of Strength score, but mechanics) than any other "adventurer" they could pull off the street. You're conceivably less able to assist in skill use, less capable of doing simple things like climbing, etc.
As far as i'm on the narrativist/roleplayist team, i've hit myself many times with the wall of strict lawyist DM's who rely heavily on written rules.
Of course, the party has to get better in-game reasons to count on my character than anyone else: that should be the wits and connections which he had weaved in the underworld.
60 lbs of normal carrying capacity is practically nothing, so your armor choices might be limited as well. You'd also have to borrow gear practically any time you wanted something like a rope, at least until you get a bag of holding.
That could be a hindrance to the rest of the party, i admit. But the trade-off factor of my character's other advantages should be worth of counting on me.
Maybe it'll be hard for the DM to adjust his/her written story to fit a small difference in the party configuration provoked by a lower than average (which could be fixed by my house rule proposal of new array and point buy) character.
But anyway, if the table was fine with it I'd let you try. I'd also work with you to make custom rules to eliminate the hindrance. On the face of things, -1 isn't a ton of difference, I know. We could bring back materials like mithral for normal construction, a bit more cash for less weight, and possibly say "Feyweave" is lighter than normal leather, etc.
I'll really appreciate DM-player cooperation. I'm really longing many DM's should have that spirit.
I have to work twice to make a persuasive in-game argument of why my character is a great asset, no matter how muscular weak he might be. And the out-game argument to bet on me for the roleplaying experience to be enriched.
Thanks for the clarifying on the use of spoiler and sblock.
Now that's done. I'd like to state that i made the new house rule by taking the standard array and following the same cost progression, so with different arrays and cost-buy is possible to get the same results. Of course, there are variations at the extreme, but looking at the total bonus the house rules gives a lower value for similar configuration of abilities scores.