POLL: Do you restrict yourself in any way when distributing your ability score points?

Remove all ads!

I do. These are the rules I use:

1. I never use rolls that are higher then 90. If I roll higher I may use that roll, but never distribute more than 90 points.
2. Only one ability score of 18 is allowed and only two scores of 17.
3. I may not distribute a small number of points to an ability, knowing a certain item will later increase that ability. For example: I may not place 3 points in charisma, knowing I will soon get a ring that significally increases my characters charisma.

The reason I use these rules? To prevent me from making an unrealistically powerful character. Since you have the blood of a god running through your veins, it makes sense to built a powerful character, but it takes all the fun out of the game to make him too powerful. With 90 points to distribute, it is still easy to make a 'godlike' character. If I'd play another rpg in which you aren't a sort of a demi-god, I would probably use rolls that are not higher than 85 or something.

I'm interested to know if more people restrict themselves when distributing ability points. Do you use any rules? Which rules do you use and why?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 45 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Do you restrict yourself in any way when distributing you ability score points? (45 votes.)

Do you restrict yourself in any way when distributing you ability score points? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 51% (23)
* No - 49% (22)

 

I restrict the other way kind of. I make sure that noe of my ability scores are below ten.

 

I typically restrict my ability scores in the same manner as Jaguar although I reduce my lower limit by any racial adjustments. I never take into account items that I know I will find, so my fighters will always start with high strength etc. The idea of placing high side limits on rolled ability scores never really occurred to me.

 

I maximise the key stats. For a fighter, that's str, dex, con. If need be I pull points from int and wis. I try not to let any score drop below 10, but I really like to have maxed out key stats.

 

Well, I do restrict myself, but it is usually to not make an overly weak character. For example, if I roll my stats and get a total of about 70, there is no doubt I'm rerolling. It also depends on the character class that I'm playing. If I'm playing a mage/cleric, well then it only makes sense to have high intelligence and wisdom, however, I cannot completely forget about constitution, strength, and dexterity, so in those instances I necessarily have higher ability scores than if I'm playing a fighter. I also rarely create a character with ability scores of under 10 to maintain realism.

 

I used to roll hours for one character, just to get total roll of 92 or more to get as good abilities as possible (Life is too short for that )

Nowadays I try to roleplay my characters and take reasonable ability scores. So, the most important ability could be 18, second 17, others something between 8 and 16. Total score is something between 85 and 90. I dislike powerplaying, for example putting 3 in charisma, just because you get Ring of Human influence very early.

 

Hmmm, I never realised that rerolling might get you more/less ability points.
I, however have been known to fall to the 'shameless powergaming' virus when creating a character, making improbable combinations of, say 6 WIS and 18 INT.
I don't ever take items into account.
fftopic: In my much more recent adventures in IWD2 though, I have tried to keep stuff balanced and believable

 

I do restrict myself to a degree.

1. I never have Int/Wis below 10 - I am the leader, so I wouldn't be stupid.
2. I never have Cha below 15 - again, I am the leader and wouldn't be uncharasmatic. How can the leader of the party only have Cha=3?
3. I do take books (in BG1) into account. If I use a bard I will have 17str (18 with book), as if I had 18str I would end up with 19str which would be totally unrealistic for a Bard.
4. If playing a fighter type, I never max out all 3 major stats. I might go 18str, 18dex and 17/16con if no shield, or 18str, 17dex and 17/16con if using a shield.

These aren't major restrictions, but they help keep my characters a bit more balanced and more realistic.

Example, Bard:
Str 17
Dex 18
Con 15
Int 15
Wis 10
Cha 18

Example, Ranger:
Str 18/xx
Dex 18
Con 17
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 15

Example, Druid:
Str 17
Dex 17
Con 15
Int 10
Wis 18
Cha 15

 

I avoid 3 or 5 in a stat just to improve others
I never give low Str to a warrior knowing of items to come. It's always 18 something.
Con 16 is well enough, especially if you play in normal mode (max HP) like I do. Don't get lower because the average Con in NPCs is high, you would get tired before them. (Well, as Vick would be tired too, you may sleep with her)
I'm happy with a Int 17 for a bard or even a F/M.
I don't play through BG1 just to have higher stats nor edit stats with SK to "compensate".
But
- I reroll a lot
- I find it impossible not to have 18 Dex.
- I tend to give prof. in powerful weapons (flail...)
On a side note, NPCs show us that you can be very powerful with imperfect stats: Minsc, Korgan, Vick or even Edwin.

 

Ninety Percent of the time, I just take the first or second roll. Why? Because I'm lazy and can't stand rerolling more then two or three times. I do try to keep each score above ten, twelve for Int and Cha, but otherwise, just basic class stats. Lately I've started playing Dex based characters. It's a heck of a lot harder then in 3ed, but I like it better.

 

I rarely go with any stat under 10, and never with strength over 17. Because I'm lazy. So I CTRL-8 and then throw away 15 to 25 points depending on the class/what mood I'm in/how many shredded wheat CHARNAME had for breakfast.

 

Realism, but that's it. It's only realistic that charname isn't your average Joe. Adventurers aren't peasants and that's it. Unless they actually are because you want them to be. However, even to make the first level in a PC class, some exceptionality is required.

It's unrealistic to impose strict numerical limitations - nature doesn't work like that.

There's some probability but probability doesn't make things any more or less real, per se.

Therefore, I don't really create characters with overblown stats, and I might get some below average scores, but it's all fluctuating and depends much on the roleplaying side of the character.

When the character is based on myself, it gets my results from some online test taken with a pinch of salt. If the scores are lower than I would like them to be, I might just maintain the right proportions when distributing them, and go ahead.

Here are some guidelines I use:

Strength: there's no way to have more than 14 without muscles showing readily. If you're slim and all, you probably don't even have 14 unless you're very tall or have little but rock hard muscles (as I would see the stronger of the elves, for one). For females, this is even lower. You shouldn't armwrestle little girls if you have 6.

Dexterity: most elves don't have 15, let alone some human fighter with no exceptional history in marksmanship or whatever. You need to be really clumsy to score 6 and lower.

Constitution: 12 is already tough and 14 is one tough bastard. Above that are survivalists, meatshields and those who won't just die already.

Intelligence: the IQ/10 formula won't work simply because of the difference between devations in IQ scores and differences between various methods of calculation or brain areas being tested, whatever. But it's a nice approximate measure. 14 is very, very smart and 16 borders on genius, which 17 and 18 is. WIS 18 is needed for spells for a wizard, so I assume him to behave in accordance with these guidelines, but with other classes I apply the guidelines first.

Wisdom: a very hard one to measure. There's no universal, neither a fully reliable way. Someone with 8 will be a little bit immature or unstable or similar, someone with 6 will be childish. Those with 12 have some good common sense and maybe somewhat better senses. From 14-15 on, it gets very special and the character is bound to have some reputation for being particularly wise. People ask his advice often, he easily sees through lies and intrigues, he can filter the information and sensory data he receives to focus on the relevant ones... and so on. Bigger scores grant abilities that sometimes may seem to be extra-sensory or paranormal. While high wisdom is typically associated with good street smarts and exceptional awareness of one's surroundings, characters with WIS 16+ aren't really of this world, so to say. WIS 18 is needed for spells for a priest, so I assume him to behave in accordance with these guidelines, but with other classes I apply the guidelines first.

CHA: 8 is ugly or socially inept, 6 is repulsive. On the other hand, being simply handsome doesn't make it and won't place you in excess of 12. It takes some charm to have 14. A paladin is sort of a Prince Charming, so that's why he gets 17-18. A bard with 15 required is already a captivating artist, skilled conversationalist, and whatever else. If a fighter can lead a squad or make townsfolk obey without the use of force, this doesn't really put him this high.

 

On my legit chars? yah. Nothing is ever under nine. But I found an edit I often use when making duel chars. It lets you max everything.

 

I don't roll longer than 30 minutes.

If a good roll comes, lucky me; usually it's something like 3x17 and 3x12. Maybe I usually snatch a few points to charisma just because of role-playing reasons...

 

@ Chevalier

So your characters seldom have stats that are higher than 15, except maybe your primary stats?

 

Never any score below 10 if it's unmodified by race, never below 9 if it is.

Usually no rolls below 90 total.

If I'm really powergaming, no score below 13.

 

@ Chev

You have a very good way of looking at ability scores. I have tried explaining it to people, but most simply won't agree. There was a thread a started some months ago, asking people to predict their own stats. Almost everyone had two or three stats in excess of 15, which is extremely unlikely. I myself and much stronger and more intelligent thant he average person, but I probably am not in excess of 15 in either. Most people have a very black and white vision of the stats. For example, in looking at strength, they just say 3 is really weak and 18 is really strong. When in fact, you've probably never met or seen anyone with either a 3 or a 18 in strength - ever. 18 isn't just really strong, it's practically superhuman.

 

I never impose restrictions to a good roll. By comparing NPCs' stats with what you say, I don't think that the game developers cared too much about D&D skill numbers other than deciding what stats needed to be maxed to be effective (i.e. INT for mages), so why should I abide to some rules the game is not following?

- Imoen 18 DEX, 16 CON (way higher than any human, then)
- Anomen 18/52 STR
- Minsc 18/93 STR 16 CON
- Edwin 16 CON (he would give sickly Raistlin a run for his money, but I wouldn't consider him a meatshield)
- Nalia 18 DEX, 16 CON
- Yoshimo 18 DEX, 16 CON
- Keldorn 17 CON (and he keeps calling himself "old")
- Valygar 18 DEX, 16 CON (not bad for a city ranger)
- Jaheira 17 DEX, 17 CON (how come she dies so often in my party?)
- Aerie 17 DEX
- Jan 17 DEX, 15 CON
- Mazzy 18 DEX, 16 CON
- Korgan 15 DEX, 19 CON (dwarves are tough ones, but 19 is a bit too much)
- Haer Dalis 17 DEX, (well, he is half demon anyway)

As a matter of curiosity, those of you who restrict the character stats, do you also SK the NPCs to lower "unnatural" stats?


EDIT: Added Anomen and Minsc STR

 

@ Colthrun:

I think chev was trying to say that aveage people don't have stas like that. He also said the adventurers are not average people. Still, I agree that it is very odd that the vast majority of NPCs have Constitution scores of 16 or more.

 

Although not strictly a limit on ability roles, I always use core rules. I never use normal, so my characters never start on maximum hitpoints - this is when having CON=16+ becomes unrealistic, as you could have a Bard starting out with more hps than most of the fighters in the game.