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

Remove all ads!

@ Aldeth

I understand and, in fact, agree with Chev's skill calculations, if you want to create a character that reflects how you would score by D&D standards. I juggle and have a very good balance, so I wouldn't consider having 13-14 DEX as too much for me

Still, my own reasoning comes from what I could see in the game's NPCs. In RPG that allows you to allocate stats, I normally play a test game with an average Joe for 1-2 hours, so that I can see what the stats of other characters and NPCs are. Then, I start over adjusting what those stats mean "in the game" to my own character. There is no fun in having an all 18 character, true, but there is no fun either is being less resilient to damage and exertion than Imoen or Edwin (CON 16), if you are roleplaying a fighter and your own CON should be 12, for example.

 

I try not to put to many points into stats that aren't usefull for my character. For example: I will never give a mage high constitution.

 

Aside from the topic a bit, yall keep talking about rolls of 90 and 92? I never get those, the best I've ever gotten is 86.

 

Then you have to roll for longer then 5 minutes

 

The stats have very little relevance with regard to how powerful a character is in SoA.

In SoA I bet you could play a 70-point character and a 90-point character and not notice any difference.

Stats have a huge impact at very low levels, say level 1-5 or so, but in SoA there are hoardes of items and besides the class abilities have improved enough to be the overwhelmingly most important factor in determining character power.

I still like to make my character have 90+ points, but I realize that it is cosmetic and it makes me feel happy and content playing that character.

 

I see it like Chev. Only a *huge* character like Minsc or Wulfgar could ever have 18 Strength *Cough* Kivan *cough*

The next time I play, I'm going to edit the NPCs insane stats.

 

I like to restrict stats from going to high (like the person in Post #1), but I also have a low-end "restriction" like this:

LOW SCORES ARE ALLOWED, but anything under 8 must have an "explanation of disability" as part of the character personality, or role.

For example, DEX 7 or less, means somewhat clumsy. WIS 7 or less means makes bad decisions without forethought. CHA 7 or less means ugly, mean, or hard to get along with.

CHA of 3,4,5 cannot be allowed in my party, they simply would not get along with such a jerk. Even a CHA of 6,7 is reserved only for Half-Orcs and other grunt-followers, never a party-leader.

 

i take the first role i get and dont modify it at all except to get the prime requisite of the class to at least 14

 

Did you really say "unrealistically powerful"? This is a frickin' fantasy computer game!

 

I usually don't limit my points too much but I, however, never use stat-boosting items. No ring of Charisma, no Belt of Giant strengh, no nothing.

 

I really don't see what people have against the re-rolling of stats to boost your character right from the start. The rolls are completely legitimate and are allowed without any kind of cheating in the least. Plus the stats are already limited anyway as you can't go over 19. I really don't see the problem.

 

In Planescape torment the value of stats are described. 9-12 Points means avarage, 13-14 means above average, 15-16 means exceptional, 17-18 means genius like. Anything above 18 is practically impossible to have for mortals.

I agree with these descriptions and use them when rolling my character. What I meant by 'unrealistic' is that is is ridiculous for a character, even for a godlike one, to have exceptional stats or above in too many abilities, especially when he doesn't need them. For example: a mage with high strenght.

 

I almost everytime use a fighter and max out str con and dex. Seeing as I know about the ring of influence (puts cha to 18) I drop that to 3 at the start, I did the same with BG I with the gaunlets of dexterity, I dont bother waiting around for the Belt of Hill Giant Strength, it can get a bit tricky if you start with a fighter with a strength less than 10 .

After picking through this thread (Earl Grey's comment especially), I think from now on I will try a chacter with more realistic stats (nothing lower than 6, nothing higher than 16, regardless of class) and not allow knowledge of certain magical items to influence my choice.

 

Low stats can make the game more challenging for a while... with the ring for CHA, the bracers for DEX and the belt for STR... (and I don't even consider the books which gave you extra points in BG1)

When I get a really good character, I compensate in some other way: I keep only one save. I don't reload to avoid losing (definitely) a NPC (with the major exception of any on-going romance)...
I avoid cheesing tactics (the one that exploits the weaknesses of the system: duplicating items, allowing anybody to use scrolls and so on, using spells on remote targets after dropping something to mark their location, etc.)

Most people will agree that NPC have higher stats than average characters (take Imoen or Sarevok!) so there is no real shame about PCs having good stats, provided they have not been tampered with?

[sorry just mentioned Sarevok and it's BG2 SoA ]

[ August 13, 2004, 15:07: Message edited by: Caradhras ]

 

Completely depends on the character concept i'm roleplaying.

If i create a sickly assassin then i'll give him about 80 points total, low con (8-12)

But if a want a talented F/M/T then i'll give him 90 points at least, maxing charisma, high intelligence and decent wisdom, reflecting his talent to keep up such diverse training. Physical stats wont be lacking much either.

Completely up to the character concept for me, really.

 

A technique i like is to roll once, dont modify it. Write it down, then start again. I then choose a class based on those stats. So if i roll high wis, i'll be a cleric or druid. (druid if higher con, cleric if higher str.)

The way i see it, those stats are what influences your character to choos his particluar class.

 

IQ tests will never be accurate because they test you on education, not intelligence. When I was 5 I wouldn't have gotten above 100, now I do. This proves it to be pointless, because your IQ does not change, unless you get brain damage, in which case it goes down. Therefore, you can only judge intelligence by memory, resourcefulness, and how you perform in new areas. Basically, unpredictable.

As for stats, 18 is the highest a HUMAN can get. Therefore elves having 19-20 dex and dwarves having 19-20 con is realistic, because they are known for that. Einstein had 18 intelligence, Arnold Schwarzeneggar has 18 strength. Jet Li likely has 18 dexterity. That's the way it goes. Jesus Christ had 25 wisdom (or higher). Korgan's 19 con is perfectly reasonable.

 

I don't believe in restricting stats. I think pleas for greater realism in a fantasy game are rather silly at best.

Adventurers are not 0-level peasants. They're adventurers--by definition, they are not the norm, and I believe there is nothing wrong whatsoever in a PC's stats reflecting that. This is why I allow 4d6, drop the lowest die stat rolling in my 2E PnP games. Of course, when you start getting into multiple 18s and everything, a case can be made for some restraint. On the off chance a PnP player of mine gets several lucky rolls, I don't penalize them, but I do make them come up with a plausible explanation for such things, the more fantastical the better. Which brings me to BG...

...The protagonist is the *spawn of a god*, for crying out loud. In my view, the idea he/she should be on par with your average broccoli farmer in the Dalelands is patently absurd. There is some powerful blood/spiritual energy/whatever running through his/her veins. So powerful that ordinary people *fear* it, regardless of Charname's alignment. So I always try to have my PC's stats reflect that.

This often means I roll for a good couple of hours. So be it--IMO, roleplaying demands it. I also don't engage in any sort of min-maxing, so what I roll is generally what I keep.

But, I also don't fire up the character generator until I develop a good character concept: race, personality, quirks. So, in a bizarre kind of way, powergaming actually serves my roleplaying in this game. (Nuts, I know!)

 

What IQ test did you take? Ones that are published on tv etc are not 'proper' tests. The real thing is purely intelligence, education or knowledge makes NO difference.

 

Totaly depends on what type of character I'm playing. This very moment, I'm playing a gnomish fighter/cleric (yea I know, wisdom penalty, though I just felt like playing as gnome), and got a super roll.

Any fighter would be strong and tough, so 16+ str/con. Dexterity, however, isn't a gnomes strongest attribute IMO, so a quite low dex, mayby 12-15 (well, he IS a fighter as well).
Hm, medium intelligence - who can honestly say that priests are smart? Around 10.
Wisdom and Charisma should be quite high though. First off, I'm a priest, priests are wise (or so they say). A roleplaying leader must've a high charisma IMO, and since I'm a big roleplayer, well, you do the math.

Off to the circus.