I like to have 1 fairly crappy stat and another fairly low stat.
It gives colour to the character and helps visualise what it's going to be like in various ways.

Still, I'm not opposed to nice high stats as well, which also helps fill out the characters.

Quote from: woodsmoke;822914...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.

Guess it depends on how you like to play Rogues.

Quote from: woodsmoke;822914...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.

If the game didn't tie basic observational skills to WIS then I would agree. There isn't a way in game to model a character who is very aware of their surroundings without a connection to having common sense.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;823035If the game didn't tie basic observational skills to WIS then I would agree. There isn't a way in game to model a character who is very aware of their surroundings without a connection to having common sense.

Yet another reason I like Earthdawn: it subs out Wisdom as a stat for Willpower and just lets perception be its own thing. So I can have an adept who's fairly perceptive and will generally see surreptitious actions but doesn't necessarily think to put 2 and 2 together.

With D&D I generally just do my best to ignore the fact Wisdom is supposed to dictate common sense and perception, slot in the available number I want for the skill bonus and play my character as senseless or savvy as I think s/he should be. It's far from perfect, but what are you gonna' do?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;823035If the game didn't tie basic observational skills to WIS then I would agree. There isn't a way in game to model a character who is very aware of their surroundings without a connection to having common sense.

Except that alot of animals in 5e have some pretty good WIS scores.

Yes, was never fond of the "wise bears" trope. Mercifully they created a special effect template that helps mitigate it somewhat with Keen Senses. That says the creature has Adv on Perception (WIS) checks about XYZ (usually hearing and smell). Basically ups their Passive Perception +5 for such senses without having to make animals too wise.

If I were to house rule it I am thinking I would invoke both Keen Senses (Adv on XYZ senses) and Expertise (double Proficiency Bonus) for the perception of beasts. Should be a +9 start to Passive Perception (+5 from Adv and +4 from PB (PB starts at +2, times 2 for Expertise)). Challenge is then now shape-changing druids have access to ridiculous levels of perception, but it caps soon enough. And thankfully Perception is not Investigation, sensing something present is not the same as making sense of it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;823206Yes, was never fond of the "wise bears" trope. Mercifully they created a special effect template that helps mitigate it somewhat with Keen Senses. That says the creature has Adv on Perception (WIS) checks about XYZ (usually hearing and smell). Basically ups their Passive Perception +5 for such senses without having to make animals too wise.

I just view it as how versatile the stat is and how you can play it different ways. Same as the other stats really. Wisdom could be just keen senses, could be common sense, could be worldly knowledge, whatever.

And honestly most real animals are the equivalent of wise. Often moreso than humans. Unless its a fish or a crawdad... Just in a very different manner and geared to the environment and survival. Combined with senses far advanced to what we have.

Y'know, it's odd.  I've played point-buy systems exclusively for many years.  A majority of the other campaigns in my gaming circles over the years have been point-buy of one flavor or another.

Very, very, very seldom have I ever seen a player deliberately choose a sub-optimal character in a point-buy system.

The most I've ever seen are the characters who are seriously impaired in one way or another but who otherwise have uses -- the IQ 8 dumb-as-a-post dwarf who can nonetheless kick ass in battle, the stereotypical wizard who can't walk a straight line without stumbling, that sort of thing.

If playing a sub-optimal character is as great as all of that, why is it that the vast majority seem to come out of those random gen campaigns which force folks to do so?

Quote from: Ravenswing;823378Very, very, very seldom have I ever seen a player deliberately choose a sub-optimal character in a point-buy system.

What definition/connotation of sub-optimal are you using?

Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever.  But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?

I enjoy all the characters I play, be them rolled randomly (with hogh or low scores) or created by point-buy.

Certainly, low - stat PCs tend to be more memorable because survival is harder. Over time, though, those handicaps tend to disappear.

Quote from: Bren;823381What definition/connotation of sub-optimal are you using?

I was curious about that, too. The OP was pretty clear. All 16s+ vs. rolling low, crappy stats, excluding the huge overlooked middle area that a lot of people in this thread seem to enjoy

Ravens thing . . . um, in point buy, you literally can't get an optimal(all 16s+ in D&D) because you simply don't have enough points to do so. Even the powerful heroes amount of points won't get you there. But you also can't be sub-optimal by Pundit's definition either. Too many points for that. You'll likely fall somewhere in that middle area.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;823611I was curious about that, too. The OP was pretty clear. All 16s+ vs. rolling low, crappy stats, excluding the huge overlooked middle area that a lot of people in this thread seem to enjoy

I think "sub-optimal character" is a poorly chosen phrase to describe a "character with low stats." Some of the people who say they like low stats characters really mean they like the challenge of optimally playing (i.e. selecting optimal tactics, spells, equipment, etc.) characters who have low stats. Some of the people who like high stats, like having their character use suboptimal tactics. The lack of distinction has dogged the thread.

I too wondered how one would design a mechanically suboptimal character in point buy - other than buying things with a relatively low utility but without a correspondingly low point cost.

Not in the least. I don't even want to play a character with randomly generated statistics. As a player I get to do one thing, run my character. I want to run the character I design, not the one the gaming system hands me. Random may have been entertaining back in 1978 but it isn't any longer.

Quote from: Bren;822589I see the question in the thread title and the question asked by Pundit as two very different questions.

Optimization is not about whether the stats are high or low it is about min/maxing what stats (skills, spells, etc.) that the PC does have and about making optimal choices tactical, diplomatic, etc. in the game.

• Does the fighter use the most favorable selection of weapons and armor available or do they use a less favorable selection for reasons?
• Does the fighter use the most favorable tactics to defeat their foes or do they use less favorable tactics for reasons?
• Does the player have their character say the clever thing to persuade, coerce, intimidate, or bribe the NPC to do what the player wants or does the player intentionally say something less clever?

These are questions to ask to determine if someone likes playing a sub-optimal character.

Asking do you enjoy playing a character with some stats that are below average or below expectation is a different question. Long term in an RPG, optimal tools, tactics, and words will make a character more successful than will above average stats. For some players running a character with low stats is like a handicap in golf. They want to see if they can keep their PC alive and succeed in the game by making clever decisions despite the low stats?. But to do this they will frequently optimize the hell out of the character and the character's actions.

I enjoy playing characters who I have intentionally chosen not to optimize because that is part of their personality. I had a ton of fun playing a naïve, somewhat too trusting young Jedi in Star Wars. I could have chosen more optimal actions, tactics, etc. but that wouldn't have been nearly as much fun. If I want to focus on tactical optimization I go play a war game, when I play an RPG I want to play the character like a person - and real people, by and large, are sub-optimal in their choices and actions.

As far as stats go, I prefer a contrast in stats. A character who is good in one or more stats and bad in others is more interesting to play than a character who is average or above in all stats. I want to know what the character's strengths are, but also what their weaknesses are.

This entirely.

A character with no stat above a 12 and 2 below 7 can be played entirely optimally. Back in the day it felt like every pc was played uber optimally. Same tactics, same SOP. 10 foot poles to the fore....  
Sometime you just want to be Leroy Wilkins .... or the cowardly fighter that hides in the corner, the wizard who only has divination spells... none of these have anything to do with the stats you rolled.

Quote from: Bren;823622I think "sub-optimal character" is a poorly chosen phrase to describe a "character with low stats." Some of the people who say they like low stats characters really mean they like the challenge of optimally playing (i.e. selecting optimal tactics, spells, equipment, etc.) characters who have low stats. Some of the people who like high stats, like having their character use suboptimal tactics. The lack of distinction has dogged the thread.

I too wondered how one would design a mechanically suboptimal character in point buy - other than buying things with a relatively low utility but without a correspondingly low point cost.

In 5e's point buy you can get a spread of 13, 13, 13, 12, 12,12. Min is 8, Max is 15. With that you could have three 15s and three 8s before racial mods.

With that you could start off with a Fighter whos not very strong, agile or hearty. But is relatively smart, canny, and persuasive. Like a scholarly or courtly student who takes up arms. Plenty of room to grow the character, showing how through hard work they gradually improve physically.