This is why I run OD&D. The -3 to +3 of Red Book meant that you didn't need a 16. A 13 gave you +1. Depending on which version of S&W you use, the range is -1 to +1 so having a +0 isn't a big deal.

The 4e Gamma World had a nice compromise. Put 18 in one stat, put 16 in another and roll 3D6 for the rest. You got your superhero competency for your core and then who knows what happened next which added some variety.

Quote from: cranebump;822658Curious. For those playing 5E, how many of the characters have a single stat under 10?  How about 2 stats? 3?

We're running BFRPG and every character has at least one stat below the norm. Half the characters have 3 stats that are 10 or less. Pretty sure the same numbers would cause them to be thrown away in 5E.

My Warlock I am playing is Str 10, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 16 Human(took the +1 to all stats). In the same group the Rogue/Monk player has no stat below 16. We rolled stats.  He rolled very well, with my dice no less.

I find it odd that here(for the most part) the concept of optimization starts and stops with stats.

Quote from: Sommerjon;822683I find it odd that here the concept of optimization starts and stops with stats.

That's been the trend of the thread thus far, but not everyone has agreed with it.

I think I like the surprise of the die. I like seeing a character take shape that I wouldn't naturally create if I were doing point buy. So I do like that low stat that forces me to deal with a 6 CON or STR. That challenge can be a lot of fun. But I'll happily take those 18s when I roll them.

Quote from: Bren;822684That's been the trend of the thread thus far, but not everyone has agreed with it.

Well, since our game has rolled stats and rolled race,
the best use of optimization comes from picking the right combination of guilds.    So we have some guys who pick the guilds that would be the right mesh and fit for the character they are trying to create, and then we have this one guy who thinks he's hit on the perfect combat/bow monster set of guilds....

Yes.

I would ruminate further, but others above have explained it pretty damn well already.

Quote from: Sommerjon;822683My Warlock I am playing is Str 10, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 16 Human(took the +1 to all stats). In the same group the Rogue/Monk player has no stat below 16. We rolled stats.  He rolled very well, with my dice no less.

I find it odd that here(for the most part) the concept of optimization starts and stops with stats.

Ooh, that's another matter entirely, isn't it? Of course, you get a ton of min-maxing when you have more widgets (more races, feats, skills, etc.).

Quote from: cranebump;822706Ooh, that's another matter entirely, isn't it? Of course, you get a ton of min-maxing when you have more widgets (more races, feats, skills, etc.).

With my 5e Warlock Im using shield as my weapon. Not much damage, but fit the idea I wanted to play with.

Quote from: cranebump;822658Curious. For those playing 5E, how many of the characters have a single stat under 10?  How about 2 stats? 3?

Two of the players in my game have one stat under ten, the other two players have two stats under 10. All four randomly rolled although I offered them standard array and point buy as options as well.

Quote from: cranebump;822658Curious. For those playing 5E, how many of the characters have a single stat under 10?  How about 2 stats? 3?

We're running BFRPG and every character has at least one stat below the norm. Half the characters have 3 stats that are 10 or less. Pretty sure the same numbers would cause them to be thrown away in 5E.

Depends on your stat generation method. Even in Point Buy it is not uncommon to see at least one or two stats below ten. I've seen my share of three stats below 10 in point buy as everything else went into buying up 15s and stacking racial bonuses atop.

Also in Standard Array people don't often bother using racial bonuses to erase that 8. (Standard Array being 15,14,13,12,10,8.) They stack up to get another +3 or +2. With that almost everyone has at least one stat below 10.

Rolling is actually the most exciting one because you get those moments of nothing below 10, or 3+ stats below 10. But in terms of reliably providing at least one stat under 10 I would, interestingly, put it last of the three methods. Most people can mitigate around average, it is only the outer range of rolls that gets too many below 10 stats. By far, you'll see the other stat methods generate more "under 10" stat presence.

I'm currently playing a 5E warlock without the "agonizing blast" invocation. I'm pretty sure that counts as a "sub optimal" character, but I don't really care.

I care more about competency than if they are optimal. I want my character to contribute, but I'm not interested in spending a lot of time on it.

If I happen to get the short end of the stick on part of char gen, again, as long as I come out the other side with a competent character, I'm good.

Quote from: cranebump;822706Ooh, that's another matter entirely, isn't it? Of course, you get a ton of min-maxing when you have more widgets (more races, feats, skills, etc.).

Kinda sorta.  Important stats for a Rogue is Dex and Wisdom, important stats for a Monk is....Dex and Wisdom.

Could do the same thing with Paladin and Warlock if you were so inclined.

Quote from: Batman;822653Except the designers aren't there, running your games or forcing you to adhere strictly to the rules.

No, of course they're not.  But if the rules say "assume characters are competent and will never fail without an outside factor interfering", then that assumption is originating with the designer, even if it's the GM or other players who enforce (or ignore) it.

Quote from: Batman;822653First,  fail forward is merely a tool for DMs to use. It's not an always on sort of thing that's used 100% of the time (at least, that's the way it's always come across to me).

Your experience differs from mine, then.  From what I've seen of the "fail forward" crowd, they preach that you are absolutely never, ever, ever allowed to tell a player "you flat-out failed".

Quote from: Batman;822653Second, it's an alternative to failure= death. For some, TPKs ruin the game and if a DM doesn't want the game to come to a screeching halt, you fail forward. The consequences don't always have to be death.

I don't think I've ever seen potential character death used as an example of when to use fail-forward.  Picking locks seems to be the canonical case.  "Saying the PC failed to pick a lock is BAD!  It makes him look incompetent!  Instead, if the player rolls a critical failure, tell him he succeeded in picking the lock, but the guards arrived just as he finished."

Now, yes, that example is often justified with an assertion that the story (always "story"! never "game"!) comes to a screeching halt if they can't pass the locked door, but my position on that is that, if you set things up so that there is only one path that the PCs must follow, then you're Doing It Wrong from the start, regardless of whether they successfully pick the lock or not.

Quote from: Sommerjon;822777Kinda sorta.  Important stats for a Rogue is Dex and Wisdom, important stats for a Monk is....Dex and Wisdom.

Could do the same thing with Paladin and Warlock if you were so inclined.

...Dex and what now? I'd honestly put Wis dead last in order of importance for rogues (yes, even behind Cha). Granted, I'm of the opinion virtually all adventurers should necessarily have low Wis scores. People with high Wis open a shop to sell gear and supplies to stupid adventurers.