|
Rolling down the line is the worst, most stupid way to create a D&D character. Your DM is bad and you should explain to him why. Just say you're using the stat spread in the PHB and make a sensible character.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Arthil posted:I can't swap my stats around, these were rolled in order of the stats. So the STR got a 13, the DEX got a 12 etc etc so it looked like: 13 STR 12 DEX 11 CON 10 INT 15 WIS 15 CHA before adding my Goliath stats. Didn't know what I wanted to play, DM rolled up three sets of stats and this one had the highest CHA out of them all with none having particularly high CON. lol have fun. Play a sorcerer or bard and be a human who is very very large and tall and muscled and stuff but not a goliath he just looks like one in every physical and social way but hes totally a human.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
Get a functional DM. Or like a cardboard standee. Something. Anything but that poo poo unless you're traveling from 1976.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Rolling down the line is the worst, most stupid way to create a D&D character. Your DM is bad and you should explain to him why. Just say you're using the stat spread in the PHB and make a sensible character. He didn't force me to have him roll for the stats, he asked "So I'm having you guys do standard/point-buy or [this way to roll] whatcha wanna do?" And I went for it cause I had no idea what I wanted to play. I'd have been flat out worse stat-wise if I'd gone point buy anyway, cause I knew I wanted to be subversive and play your usual 'big guy' choice as a caster. The character won't be useless in the slightest, just not minmaxed out the butt which will be kind of refreshing compared to my barbarian who's popping heads left and right. Arthil fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
D&D isn't some nuanced storygame. Its systems are about accomplishing goals, and a suboptimal character doesn't facilitate that for the party. It's designed around PCs being really good at what they're supposed to do (maximizing their primary stat.) Your character is likely to be worse at any given task that another character. Casters with low casting stats usually make up for it somewhere else like multiclassing, and focus their casting on buff spells that don't require attacks/savings throws. With a low con score, you're vulnerable to being ineffective even with those. If you like Goliath Sorceror, sit down and do a point buy to give yourself a proper stat spread. You're still suboptimal for not taking Half Elf or Variant Human, but your character will actually be good at something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:D&D isn't some nuanced storygame. Its systems are about accomplishing goals, and a suboptimal character doesn't facilitate that for the party. It's designed around PCs being really good at what they're supposed to do (maximizing their primary stat.) Your character is likely to be worse at any given task that another character. Casters with low casting stats usually make up for it somewhere else like multiclassing, and focus their casting on buff spells that don't require attacks/savings throws. With a low con score, you're vulnerable to being ineffective even with those. If you like Goliath Sorceror, sit down and do a point buy to give yourself a proper stat spread. You're still suboptimal for not taking Half Elf or Variant Human, but your character will actually be good at something. I couldn't disagree with this more. Some of my best D&D experiences are because of characters that are suboptimal. D&D isn't some rigid thing that has to be played a certain way to be enjoyed, you and your group should dictate how you play. You will absolutely be fine with the ability scores, class, and race you have chosen, and anyone who says otherwise has lost themselves to the pursuit of raw efficiency. Figure out your flaws, play around them. It will make it all the better when you do succeed at the things you're bad at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Arthil posted:He didn't force me to have him roll for the stats, he asked "So I'm having you guys do standard/point-buy or [this way to roll] whatcha wanna do?" And I went for it cause I had no idea what I wanted to play. I'd have been flat out worse stat-wise if I'd gone point buy anyway, cause I knew I wanted to be subversive and play your usual 'big guy' choice as a caster. You'd have had lower numbers, but being able to actually pick where they go is much stronger. Sorry, but the stats you have just aren't a great spread. You can make this character about 500% better by changing to a Cha race instead, though, if you want to stick with Sorceror. Also, agree with the others, the roll down the line style is stupid as hell, and is used by bad DM's to make things "interesting" because they're too lazy to come up with actually interesting things so they do weird poo poo to characters instead. CubeTheory posted:Figure out your flaws, play around them. It will make it all the better when you do succeed at the things you're bad at. ProTip: Characters that are competent at poo poo can have interesting flaws too. In fact, well thought out characters with strong areas of expertise tend to be far more interesting that "lol guise my fighter has 10 Str and uses a greataxe XD" poo poo that random stat rolling comes up with. Usually if you're actually good at filling a role, you'll have areas you're bad at. Specializing in DnD in usually more fun than not, unless you have a very small party. Being the best at a thing or two means you get your time to shine. Being okay at lots of things just means that most of the time someone else will attempt the same thing as you, and do it better, leaving you feeling useless quite often. Slab Squatthrust fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
The Gate posted:You'd have had lower numbers, but being able to actually pick where they go is much stronger. Sorry, but the stats you have just aren't a great spread. You can make this character about 500% better by changing to a Cha race instead, though, if you want to stick with Sorceror. Matt Colville is a great DM and uses the roll down the line system. I like it because it forces players out of their comfort zone and encourages them to create characters they never would have. One of my favorite characters ever was made this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:I couldn't disagree with this more. Some of my best D&D experiences are because of characters that are suboptimal. D&D isn't some rigid thing that has to be played a certain way to be enjoyed, you and your group should dictate how you play. You will absolutely be fine with the ability scores, class, and race you have chosen, and anyone who says otherwise has lost themselves to the pursuit of raw efficiency. Figure out your flaws, play around them. It will make it all the better when you do succeed at the things you're bad at. Okay sure I get that but the original question was asking for build advice and the first response was 'dont play a melee character with a d6 class and low con'. The post was asking for build advice and people said that stat spread is a mess don't do that. I'm not sure what the question is now. Do they just want a the concept of a class combo? If so they should try wizard/fight that could be fun. Do they want bad build advice? CubeTheory posted:Matt Colville is a great DM and uses the roll down the line system. I like it because it forces players out of their comfort zone and encourages them to create characters they never would have. One of my favorite characters ever was made this way. Well he also does 'two stats need to be 15+ or you reroll' . I mean that still creates issues in and of itself but its always different to what you are describing. On top of that, I like many of his opinions and stuff but hes still pointed out issues hes had down the line and some of the ironically stem from his dice rolling method making some all over the place characters. Watching his games you can see how some stuff works and he floods his players with magic items on top so many of those issues are both disappeared and enhanced in crazy ways (like his paladin player basically making saves auto-pass for the whole party and breaking the game). Down the line creates a very risky dynamic, if the rolls are all comparable and everyone makes a decision to be on class or off class based on what stats are good it works. If some people break pattern with the group, stuff goes sideways fast and tends to result in either a) a tonne of extra GM work to keep people level and all functional, or b) people outshine other rather dramatically. Its adding extra risk for...what? Hoping that your flaw is memorable because it was random rather than something you chose? EDIT: To go on, you are making lots of assumptions about things going right. What if a player gets something they really dont enjoy? Be it a caster when they want to be a martial and that person is bored the entire time or worse, they are actively frustrated by stuff and envious of other people doing the things they want? What if you get a specific combination from the group where everyone is filling similiar roles and your are reinforcing people being out shined? What happens if the player doesnt like that roll and gets himself killed in the first fight so he can play something else, whats you're response to that? The alternative is to let people play what they would like. Matt's idea is to remove preconceived notions of behaviour and character concepts but removing everything to be something you dont want to be is just a big a risk. kingcom fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:Matt Colville is a great DM and uses the roll down the line system. I like it because it forces players out of their comfort zone and encourages them to create characters they never would have. One of my favorite characters ever was made this way. Matt Colville is a garbage bad design apologist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
kingcom posted:
To be fair, the character in question did get two 15+ stats. Also I think I've kind of lost the thread in this argument. I think I mostly just posted because of mango sentinel's making GBS threads on rolling down the line so completely. He has declared this DM bad despite the DM allowing point buy, and providing three sets of down the line ability scores. It drives me crazy when people tell other people how to play D&D 'right', that the way they are playing is wrong. It's literally the most fluid and open game that exists and we don't all need to be turbonerds and game the system. I mean, that's fine if that's what you come to D&D for, but the game is many different things to many different people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Matt Colville is a garbage bad design apologist. If people can play the game and have fun, who cares if it's not perfect and I'm not going to invalidate all of a persons ideas and opinions because they like something I don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:It's literally the most fluid and open game that exists and we don't all need to be turbonerds and game the system. D&D isn't synonymous with tabletop roleplaying games. CubeTheory posted:If people can play the game and have fun, who cares if it's not perfect and I'm not going to invalidate all of a persons ideas and opinions because they like something I don't. https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:If people can play the game and have fun, who cares if it's not perfect and I'm not going to invalidate all of a persons ideas and opinions because they like something I don't. Because you would have more fun playing the game as intended. I can play basketball where after every time I score a basket I punch myself in the head, and still have fun. However I would enjoy myself more if I played the game as intended and did not punch myself in the head. Different games are good for different things. DnD is for being people who head into danger and do their best to beat that danger. If your character is not built to be a competent danger-beater, or you are not interested in playing a game about danger-beating, you should be playing a different game. Much like, I can try to pretend Counter-Strike is a swordfighting simulator and have everyone play knives-only, or I could just not be an idiot and play Chivalry instead. Can you imagine how dumb it would be if DnD was the only tabletop game someone ever played? That would be like having Call of Duty be the only video game someone ever played. bewilderment fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
To be perfectly honest I'm fine with not being min-maxed up to my ears. The game isn't balanced around maxing out your main stats, it's just a good thing to aim for. It'll be a nice change of pace compared to the barbarian I'm playing at physical tables who is Walking Death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:It's literally the most fluid and open game that exists loving lol no it isn't it's not even close
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:Because you would have more fun playing the game as intended. This is what I'm disagreeing with. D&D is a game where beating up guys to get stuff is it's primary focus, but skirting that focus and being the guy in the group that doesn't do that can be just as fun. My last two characters have been absolutely abysmal at combat, but everyone else in the party is great at combat, so why do we need a 4th or 5th guy that is good at stabbing? My last character was a low con, low dex rogue that just tried to smooth talk his way through situations and my weakness created multiple situations where I was in real peril and all the fightmans in my party had to save me. I got enjoyment from creating the situations, not just from defeating the bad guys. I would most definitely not had more fun if I just had 14 con and tanked a couple of hits no problem, I would have just been another stabby guy that did some damage. I don't need to be the one to kill the monsters to have fun, but being in a group that does fight monsters and trying to figure out what to do when I can't is really interesting. I wouldn't want a more RP focused game, I like being the little bit of flavor in a straightforward system. Because people enjoy games differently and aren't wrong for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
The Gate posted:loving lol no it isn't it's not even close Yeah, I misspoke there typing quickly. It's a very open game compared to the games a lot of new players come from though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Personally, I like to contribute positively to the things the group is doing rather than force the more competent party members to bail me out constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Emy posted:Personally, I like to contribute positively to the things the group is doing rather than force the more competent party members to bail me out constantly. Then we have different friends? My friends enjoy the dumb situations I create because it adds tension and flavor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
Arthil posted:To be perfectly honest I'm fine with not being min-maxed up to my ears. The game isn't balanced around maxing out your main stats, it's just a good thing to aim for. It'll be a nice change of pace compared to the barbarian I'm playing at physical tables who is Walking Death. I wouldn't be worried about being too min-maxed with a Sorcerer. The class' focus is buffing with a side dish of blasting, with the former just helping the team and the latter only situationally outshining martials. Having better concentration checks to keep Fly or Haste on your party members isn't going to make you feel like a badass, it'll just lower your chances of being a disappointment to the team when you fail and they lose it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
I missed that part originally. The blame didn't lie in the DM enforcing a bad decision but a player making one. I'll stand by DMs forcing players to roll down the line is bad. They may be incredibly talented otherwise that more than make up for that bad decision, or altering rules elsewhere. Rolling down the line in 5e is a fundamentally bad decision because it can lead to overpowered characters, suboptimal characters, and party strife as both ends show up in the same party. I'm glad that Colville is a very talented DM and you were able to have fun under a bad constraint, but it's not supported by the core game design. Most DMs aren't as talented as Colville or familiar enough with how to fudge to fix the problems doing this. RPG books are suggestions, not laws, but a party full of Arthils is going to make very slow headway in a published adventure. If a DM wants you to "discover your character" there are better ways to do it than assigning you random stats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:Then we have different friends? My friends enjoy the dumb situations I create because it adds tension and flavor. There's better games for that which you would enjoy more. e: If you want to 'discover your character' then make someone competent but then roll for your personality, or even your background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:There's better games for that which you would enjoy more. I wish people would stop telling me this. My friends enjoy combat without much roleplaying. I enjoy roleplaying around the edges. I play with my friends, they want to play D&D, and we all have fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:I missed that part originally. The blame didn't lie in the DM enforcing a bad decision but a player making one. I'll stand by DMs forcing players to roll down the line is bad. They may be incredibly talented otherwise that more than make up for that bad decision, or altering rules elsewhere. This was much more even handed then the posts I got mad about, sorry I got mad it's been a long day. I understand what you're saying completely. I actually don't think DMs should force players to roll down the line, but I do encourage my players to consider it because I think making a character to the stats you get is a lot of fun 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
Arthil posted:To be perfectly honest I'm fine with not being min-maxed up to my ears. The game isn't balanced around maxing out your main stats, it's just a good thing to aim for. It'll be a nice change of pace compared to the barbarian I'm playing at physical tables who is Walking Death. Encounter and class design is literally balanced around maxing your main stat. The only time you don't is as a tax to get an even more powerful feat. Optimal characters are what the designers expected. What does your character bring to the table for your party?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:What does your character bring to the table for your party? In our case, which is admittedly a relative argument, my character provides tension and flavor. Because my fellow players are fine with my character not being a murder machine. That may not be the case for you though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
One of the things that makes the "bad stats = good RP" argument especially stupid in D&D encounters are based off of the party. It's right there in the rules for building the combats. It requires more system mastery to account for, and that's by default a bad thing. There's also the reason that it's utterly idiotic to imply that what's on your paper in D&D is in any way equivalent to how well you as a person RP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:40
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:Then we have different friends? My friends enjoy the dumb situations I create because it adds tension and flavor. Every group is different. What works for some groups doesn't work for others. Some people derive grim satisfaction out of playing mechanically terrible characters. Others may enjoy this kind of buffoonery in their games. But your personal tastes mean jackshit because most people enjoy being able to succeed at tasks and contribute in a cooperative challenge-resolution game such as what D&D is purportedly designed to provide. You're not the exception that makes the loving rule so pull your head out of your rear end in a top hat - suggesting that mechanically incompetent characters are equally valid gameplay choices without any context is a terrible idea. It's like leaving rat poison within reach of toddlers. If you have experience with the game, if you know what you like, if you know what your group likes, sure you do you. But leaving the idea that playing bad characters is OK out in the open where newbies can see it is toxic. You loving put a big red disclaimer on that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Every group is different. My entire argument was that if it works and is fun, then it is good, that every group is different and literally in the first thing I posted I said "you and your group should dictate how you play." Honestly this whole argument is probably doing the best job we could of at showing him all sides of the issue, so this actually been really productive
CubeTheory fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:
Yeah, but tension is a very real thing that is hard to just roleplay into existence in a battle without purposely making really dumb decisions. If I have really low constitution, however, then I am by default a weak character and every threatening situation has heightened tension for me and my group. edit: I've actually got to get to bed for work now, but I'll say this: I'm not saying making a bad character is good, especially for a new player. The stats he posted aren't for a bad character. They're just not optimal stats. They're somewhere in between, and the differences are small enough that I find it hard to believe it will take that much enjoyment way from him. CubeTheory fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
CubeTheory posted:My entire argument was that if it works and is fun, then it is good, that every group is different and literally in the first thing I posted I said "you and your group should dictate how you play." This is not OK to tell to people asking for build advice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
To be honest it's more constructive than most of the responses I've received. Thankfully I didn't only seek help here, so I've got a general idea of what I'm going to do with the character now rather than walking away with only having my DM called an idiot and being told the character is hot trash cause he doesn't start with a +3. You guys put far too much focus on stats and min-maxing for a game that can easily be 70% talking. Arthil fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:This is not OK to tell to people asking for build advice. Again, the argument has kind of swayed a little bit. My first post was telling him that his stats were fine, and his build would be fine, and my other arguments were directed more at people saying his DM was bad and down the line rolling was bad. The two arguments are getting muddled here. Arthil posted:To be honest it's more constructive than most of the responses I've received. Thankfully I didn't only seek help here, so I've got a general idea of what I'm going to do with the character now rather than having my DM called an idiot and being told the character is hot trash cause he doesn't start with a +3. Just have fun. If you're not having fun, tell your DM and friends that you're not having fun and change your character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Hot Take: whatever roleplaying utility you get from having a character that's "weak" in one or more aspects can still be generated by methods that don't involve down-the-line randomly rolled stats. At the very minimum, you roll a d6, whichever number corresponds to which stat gets the 8 in a standard array, and you use the standard array.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Why not just make up a cool flaw for your character, like a club foot or whatever, but actually have good stats so the game doesn't become about protecting the feeble one? Like you can still roleplay, and play a good character. If you get off on making the competent players carry you, that's fine, you can still have stats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
"I care about the numbers" is implicit in the "critique this build" request, isn't it? If not then sure, do whatever and it'll be fine because fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:"I care about the numbers" is implicit in the "critique this build" request, isn't it? I think the main issue is people just not bothering to give thoughts on how to make the class/race/stats work which is what I asked in the first place. It was "Hey any build ideas for this?" Not "Is this Hyper-Optimal?" Just seems pretty clear min-maxing isn't required for something to work and not be bad. And if it does become a real problem, which I doubt it will with a party of eight people. I can ask the DM if my character could commission an Amulet of Health or something. Arthil fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:25
|
|
|
I think this actually points out a pretty significant flaw with the system because the game actually poorly supports 'weak guy who's fun to be around'. Most 'weak characters' in fiction are actually pretty strong because often they're underdog characters who manage to pull out all the stops when it finally matters and turn the ship around. I'm looking at you, Samwise. The issue is that 'when it really matters' is the time your party doesn't want you to try, because you'll probably fail, and if you fail, you just kind of shrug at the non-impact you had on the game. 'Being competent' doesn't always mean building the strongest character - it means a character who can reliably accomplish what he's 'supposed' to accomplish within the niche assigned to him. It can be pretty disheartening when your goofy bard who is supposed to be a light-hearted comic relief finally has his chance to shine - the party is unconscious and the arch-Goblin will slay them all unless you can make him laugh, a chance that will come up like once in a campaign for this character - and he didn't pass because nothing below a 13 will get him something like passing grade. Of course something this character-affirming probably shouldn't come down to rolls anyway, but then it didn't really matter how you built him, did it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
I think you'd just focus on the "fun to be around" part, because you don't need mechanical support to be bad at things. Reskin your successes as comic pratfalls and "accidentally" screwing over your opponents. It's harder to pretend to be good at something you mechanically suck at. Play a cleric, cast bless on the party, but roleplay it as you making GBS threads your pants and passing out as your teammates did better than you if being bad at your job is such a fantasy.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:40
|
|