One of my players rolled up a PC. I think she done well anyway. Rolled in front of me and I allow 1 roll tough luck if you roll bad.
13
14
14
14
17
17
She decided to play a Hill Dwarf Dragon Sorcerer as I told her I would prefer it if she did not go for a race with a charisma bonus or something like a half elf.
If it was my PC I would have gone for a mountain dwarf wild sorcerer- tank around in medium armor and hit stuff with your axe until level 5 or more. I would also consider a valor bard or bladelock or other gish type PC that kind of needs MAD more than other classes.
Zardnaar wrote:
Really that line up is pretty solid, I mean not only could you excel at any class, but all but the most MAD hungry multi-class combos would be easy to pull off. I mean with that and the right race choices you might even be able to pull off the dreaded paladin-wizard.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
rampant wrote:
Well basically it's the most MAD hungry build in the game. You need Int for wizard, and the paladin generally needs 2 of the following 3, wisdom, charisma, and strength to function in any given edition. Furthermore con, and dex never good choices for a dump stat becase of how important both are to a squishy wizard, and con especially helps compensate for those wizard HD. Now if you are armor compatible then dex isn't as big a deal, but even then the need to keep a hand free for spells means you can't use a shield. So basically you need great all around stats to even consider it.
if I have to keep the stats in the order rolled, and you said "I'd prefer you not powergame and play a half-elf" I'd have been persuaded against my initial thought (that being to play a default human fighter) and would play a half-elf fighter just to try and clue you in that having high scores isn't powergaming.
Of course, I'm just really wanting to be playing a fighter (I am my group's primary DM, so I don't get to play PCs as much), so I'm not really going to let a unique but still useful set of scores get in my way.
Where I particularly upset by the implication that using the scores I rolled to their obvious strong-point is powergaming (which, again, it is not) I would likely consider playing a half-elf cleric or warlock - right after seeing if you rejected my proposition to play a far-wandering monk.
rampant wrote:
Oh well another PC rolled 2 18s got a 3rd 18 via stat buff. the downside is he has a 4 as well. Dragonborn war cleric with 5 charisma.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Maybe I'm just more lenient than most DMs. I really wouldn't have a problem even if a player rolled straight 18s (which I very nearly did once as a player), but I would have a problem if a player rolled straight single-digits. The disparity between the single-digits character and the others would just be too great for me to want to work around when designing encounters. I think I'd much rather let players roll then take the better of the roll or the array.
Zardnaar wrote:
As a general rule I prefer point buy systems. Admittedly this comes from lots of personal experience with rolling poor or mediocre stats while the rest of the party rolls amazingly. I know one guy who played 3e for years and with our dm that meant quite a few characters rolled, never had anything less than a 14, and more than once rolled all 16s or higher. Yeah, I question the honesty of those rolls myself but, the other players also tended towards high rolls and I doubt all of them cheated every time, so it was a might frustrating and lead to a tendency to powergame in order to compensate. Anyway now that I DM more than play I prefer Point buy because it's generally fair.
On the other hand I do understand that some really interesting ideas come out of a character creation process you don't have complete control over. Thats why I liked the card based system from one of the last dragon magazines to appear in print. THey had a system that used the points from the 3e point buy but distrubeted them beased on an arrangements of cards drawn from a three dragon ante deck. It was very interesting and I always meant to incorporate that method into a sort of campaign intro.
So u force them to roll, get ur jollies off when they roll low, then when they roll high u come up with racial restrictions on the fly. You're basically a terrible DM.
Orethalion wrote:
For laughs I rolled the old school way - 3d6.
Got 11,11,8,8,9,8. I'd think Id play a farmer with those stats.
I'd play a half-elf bard.
Not in 5e you wouldn't, bards stopped being a joke class in 4e. You're expected to work for your share of the treasre these days..
What Would You Play With These Stats?
Can play just about anything with these stats. I'd may be play a multiclass Paladin or some other more MAD combination.
Zardnaar wrote:
I do not have an issue with a DM asking me not to optimize a character if it already has scores far better than other characters. I usually discuss my worries with the player if that happens, usually the players end up focusing more on survivability rather than offense. It hurts other players less that way.
Though I also always offer a back up, like point buy, so to reduce a big difference in power level between the weakest and strongest players. If you offer to roll with the involved risk of rolling a bad set of scores it wont go over well if you take away or diminish the reward of rolling high.
rampant wrote:
frothsof wrote:
DP
Ramzour wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The fact that you make them keep it if they roll low with a "tough luck" stance, but punish them for rolling high and taking an optimal race choice is disturbing.
frothsof wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
rampant wrote:
I would play and Enchanter with high Cha alongside the Int.
Reminds me of what my 13-year old nephew rolled (4d6, drop lowest) for a solo 2nd Age Middle-Earth campaign: 18, 15, 14, 14, 13, 11...in front of me, yeah, he's a paladin.
CCS wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
I'd play a halfling fighter or paladin. Just because that's what I want to play next anyway.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Nice rambling, Zardnaar.
I'll take that as a "No" to the question of if you plan on answering my earlier questions or at least telling me why you aren't going answer them.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
What you could do Zard is not allow anything higher than 15, and let her redistribute the higher points.
Then you still have capped stats but reward her for rolling well.
That feels unsatisfying to me. I'd rather get to keep the 17 and be encouraged not to choose a race that I might not be interested in anyway.
Satyrn wrote:
Goblin Bard!
Orcish Sorcerer?
Hobgoblin Cleric?
Or.. Kobold Warlock!
Or.... hmm... Be a human, Take Inspiring Leader at level 1.
And then... maybe a Paladin.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
High stats don't equate to an overpowered character. I don't understand this desire to reign in people who happened to roll well. I mean heck, if I walked into it thinking "I want to play a half elf" but was told I couldn't because I had rolled too well, I'd be sorely tempted to leave. But hey, if your players are all for it, it's not really any of my business.
As for that array in the OP... heck, what couldn't you play? If I wasn't allowed to rearrange stats I would probably go cleric, druid, bard, warlock, or sorc. Heck, if I took a +str race even that ugly 13 Str could make a fine paladin. Seriously, though, those stats are bonkers and you'd almost have to actively try to make a weak character out of it (intentionally putting your lowest scores in prime stats, not taking a race that bumped those stats, etc).
I see no point in restricting a player's choice in race or class based on good rolls. The game caps stats at 20 for a reason... so what if the character manages to hit 20 in their primary stat at 1st or 4th level. The stat cap exists for a reason... the DM doesn't need to add in secondary stat caps like "can't have a 20 at 1st lvl" or "can't have above a 16 at 1st lvl"... Keep in mind, there is a stat cap, and rolling is the standard for character generation, not an optional rule.
I'd probably make a half-orc barbarian.
str 17 +2= 19
Con 17 +1 = 18
Dex 14
Int 13
Wis 14
Cha 14
First lvl would have 16 hp, 16 AC with no armor, 18 if using a shield. Racial abilities relentless endurance helping me stay in the fight a little longer and savage attacks pumping out a little more damage whenever I crit. Str and Con would get maxed quickly, followed by dex.. possibly using one of the ASI to get the great weapon master feat if feats are available.
With a greataxe, +6 to hit, 1d12+4, 3d12+4 on a crit.
With a battleaxe and shield, +6 to hit, 1d8+4 damage, 3d8+4 on a crit. 18 AC.
And that's without raging.
24 str and con at 20th lvl if they make it that far. Oh yes. Now we're talking about a +13 to hit, and +7 to damage, and hp in the range of 250-285, and AC (with no armor) of 21-22, 23-24 with a shield... and that's without any magical armor or weapons.
Of course, I could go with a mountain dwarf instead and start with 19 str AND 19 con, which would allow the character to max both stats at 4th lvl, maxing dex by 19th lvl and having 1 ASI left to either get a feat or boost one of the other stats for saving throw purposes if feats aren't available.
Zardnaar wrote:
You guys need to back off over the feigned and not so feigned attacks on Zard as a DM.
You may not like it, I certainly don't agree with his methods, but it's his game and he can run it the way he likes. We also don't have any context, and he certainly isn't under any obligation to partake in question time from anyone here.
Ramzour aren't you all about making a "better community for 5e"? Smile, nod, and move on.
Ramzour wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Varient human or elf enchanter/divination wizard (or envocation depending on the DM).
It is to reflect powerposting. 
Miladoon wrote:
Well next time, you will need a little bit more, cuz arms race!
Zardnaar wrote:
Regardless, I really did agree completely with Aaron. Maybe one day I will write my gaming autobiography and entitle it:
"I Got Over Being A Power Gamer And You Can Too; Or How My DM Ran An Internally Consistant World And I Got Tired of Pwning It!"
CCS wrote:
Right. I would probably not agree because my goal is not to cure powergamers. It is to provide an experience that the majority of players will appreciate. That usually means a little extra work for me, like having a matrix of damage output for the characters, but that is easier than trying to change a way a player plays.
I think a better title would be..."5E changed the way I pwnt BBEG and mooks"
Orethalion wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Exactly. If I watched a buddy roll those stats I would be glad for them. I will eventually out play him anyway with my ho hum rolls. 
ankiyavon wrote:
I am currently working a Glaive wielding Divination Wizard. I eeked out about 40 DPR in melee. That is not too bad for a melee wizard. Let people play what they want, I say.
Miladoon wrote:
Congrats on those rolls...I may of only done that one time in 3 decades of play. Let us know what you create.
Miladoon wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
...or when a player gets "shamed" into taking certain feats or build options by other "more power oriented" players. That's honked up too.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
CCS wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Going with life cleriuc 1/ Land Druid X with these stats.
16
16
15
14
12
11
The
13,
14,
14,
14,
17,
17.
PC is probably going to be a FIghter1.WarlockX (bladelock) prbably half elf with 16 cha, 18 str and con.
ankiyavon wrote:
Halfling Paladin riding war dogs ands smiting with lances/scimiatars right?