Question for DM's

[Foamhead]

I have noticed more than a few DM's here seem to like telling people not to have stats above or below certain numbers, usually 16/6.

Why do DM's do this? If a player wants to make a genius glass cannon isn't that the point of an RPG? Does that extra +1 really unbalance the game so much?

I don't get it.

[SirGraystone]

Because if you make a Fighter with 18 STR, 18 CON and dumb the rest of the stats, you dont get a glass cannon, you get a killing machine who's bad at everything else outside combat. A

[celestian]

Because if you make a Fighter with 18 STR, 18 CON and dumb the rest of the stats, you dont get a glass cannon, you get a killing machine who's bad at everything else outside combat. A

Nothing wrong with that.

[GunnarGreybeard]

I don't worry about any generated stats as long as they are done by a legally allowed method but of they roll, it has to be done in front of me, in FG and you go with what you get. If anyone ends up with a high stat (or stats) I adjust the campaign as needed to keep it challenging.

[madman]

I think that the problem is more the fact the character requires so much extra focus and time. Thus giving less time to the other characters. Players should not feel like they have to grant so much of their characters time and effort to either do things the way that character needs to do things to survive.
I know as a player I will not use my character to keep another players character alive if they require extra effort. (more than the rest of the party ever needs)

Not that I will not allow my players to make a character with flaws, but they must make a viable character. (as most games if not all have combat) I have had characters in games that just took so much extra effort because of the dump stat that they would want to roleplay a situation and try and make something happen, knowing that they could do nothing about.


Because if you make a Fighter with 18 STR, 18 CON and dumb the rest of the stats, you don't get a glass cannon

This is not what i like but the player that makes this type of character must like combat. They would be good at it.
(and having low "Wis" makes them fun to mind control.)

But as far as balance goes as long all the other characters do it, No it really does not unbalance the game at least in Pathfinder.

Madman..

[Full Bleed]

I have noticed more than a few DM's here seem to like telling people not to have stats above or below certain numbers, usually 16/6.

Why do DM's do this? If a player wants to make a genius glass cannon isn't that the point of an RPG? Does that extra +1 really unbalance the game so much?
Well, it depends on the system. In 5e, the +1 is more tangible than in previous editions. But games are balanced around certain numbers... and those numbers may be more important to some GM's than others.


I don't get it.
You don't really have to "get it."

It comes down to the kind of game the GM wants to run and the kind of players they want in that game. If you don't "get" their rules and preferences, it's probably not the game for you and you'd do best to move on to one that is.

I, personally, have a problem with players dumping stats because they, inevitably, fail to play (or accept) their dump-stats accordingly. And it's not a lot of fun to police.

[Ken L]

i gave up on rolled stats and just use point buy. Too much drama.

[Targas]

Player‘s should not expect by maxing out numbers they will make the game easier for them. The GM needs to adjust the Challenge, which will probably frustrate those players playing ‚by the rule‘. So instead of expecting a better game, it will make it worse for everyone. More effort, more attention, more unbalancing. Roleplaying games are no solo experience. It works best, if you have a cooperative group.

Min. and max. attributes are possible, but will make it more difficult for a gamer to play his Character accordingly. If played well, it can add some flavor to the gaming session, but many gamers I had cannot keep up playing their Character representing their attributes.

I allow any value normally generated by normal rules. In the early days of roleplay of the ‚most popular rileplaying system‘, one was very happy to roll exceptional strength on a 3d6. There are essay‘s on this topic going back decades, therefore I don‘t want to stretch it.

[Black Hammer]

If you let people build one trick ponies, you're setting them up to be bored later when a session doesn't revolve around their specialty. I restrict overspecialized builds because they lead to two possibilities:

1. Outperforming other characters, making those players feel bored or ineffective
2. Being irrelevant, making that player feel bored or ineffective.

As others have pointed out above, they also push a GM to design encounters in an unbalanced way.

[JohnD]

If a ruleset has a point buy mechanism I use it.

In the case of RMC, which doesn't, I grab from RMSS.

In the case of C&C, I use dice rolls, where you get an extra 3d6, and re-roll the whole stat block if you don't meet a minimum overall +4.

This results in truncating the bottom end, while still allowing players to be good but generally not overpowering awesome in comparison to the rest of the group.

[Mgrancey]

Have to agree, such specialized or in worst case one dimensional characters tend to be a bigger aggravation than not. Too many end up with the "One Tool" attitude, make other players at least feel unnecessary, or over power regular encounters to the point that you need to rework way too much to provide a challenge. From my experience they also tend to either be fighter types or spellcasters, both of which tend to become a lot of trouble. One from usually being completely disruptive on social stuff or the other needing heal/protection in combat constantly.

As a player I, have more than once, just had my character stand back and do jack because a power gamer just blitzes through all the enemies, it was so much fun.

[Dershem]

I agree with the one tool comment and in rpgs that tends to be combat. I would rather see the group come up with a smart way to avoid or minimize situations than hitting everyone with a big stick.

[LordEntrails]

I agree with the one tool comment and in rpgs that tends to be combat. I would rather see the group come up with a smart way to avoid or minimize situations than hitting everyone with a big stick.
Me Grog! Me strong! Me carry Big Stick!

[Varsuuk]

I like to collect ears and rush through doors if it is suggested in passing to me.

I also have like 16 Str (eventually got Hill giant gloves though) and 15 Con (5e, think Con now 16 and took a feat for more. Int/Wis about 12/11 and Char of 8 (raised by orcs... full human though)

Sure, the rogue outdamages me in combat and casters for the longest time had at or slightly over my hp... I have fun in my party being a bit odd (rolling for omens and aforementioned ear fetish) and being easily manipulated.


When I co DMed, we used the 4d6 drop lowest x 6 and rearrange. Did this x2 picked best set of 6 rolls. If neither had 15 or better, allowed one stat reroll to replace ONLY that stat if got better roll. Was AD&D and never had many 18s (one pally was 18/37 & 17 Con. He was not the norm.

[dulux-oz]

Me Grog! Me strong! Me carry Big Stick!

You not named "Jazz"!?

[Targas]

I might add we currently play Pathfinder which is heavily combatboriented. However I award the same amount of experience, or even grant incentives like ‚inspiration cards‘ if they outwit the battle. It‘s a win-win. Combats are faster, it‘s more fun being creative, story progresses faster, and leveling up is better when they are more clever. I know it‘s not about the topic we discuss, but I wanted to share anyway. :-)

[ArcebU]

Ability score really doesn't matter except to players.

A player who is really bad at RPing will always be bad at RPing if their stats are all 20's or all 6's.

In reality having dumb stats in some and being genius level at others is probably more accurate than being average with everything.

I've had cases where you have the players that would genuinely strike up conversations with other players or npcs never asking for a specific check leaving that up to me.

I've had players that just run up to an npc and say I want to make a persuasion check.

D&D on the internet gives you all types but I digress.

The ability score has more value for players. I think some feats actually have more of an impact than ability score, like observant. If you are playing with passives observant basically can create narratives without the player doing anything more than being present.

Cantrips scaling is another one with more impact than ability score.

So no a +2 (20) doesn't imbalance the game in most cases it fills into the meta because you have that character who is good at this one thing and you know you should be able to rely on them for it.

Then you as a DM can colorfully describe how to they succeeded at doing what it is they are good at.

[Full Bleed]

Ability score really doesn't matter except to players.

A player who is really bad at RPing will always be bad at RPing if their stats are all 20's or all 6's.

In reality having dumb stats in some and being genius level at others is probably more accurate than being average with everything.

I've had cases where you have the players that would genuinely strike up conversations with other players or npcs never asking for a specific check leaving that up to me.

I've had players that just run up to an npc and say I want to make a persuasion check.

D&D on the internet gives you all types but I digress.

The ability score has more value for players. I think some feats actually have more of an impact than ability score, like observant. If you are playing with passives observant basically can create narratives without the player doing anything more than being present.

Cantrips scaling is another one with more impact than ability score.

So no a +2 (20) doesn't imbalance the game in most cases it fills into the meta because you have that character who is good at this one thing and you know you should be able to rely on them for it.

Then you as a DM can colorfully describe how to they succeeded at doing what it is they are good at.
Sounds like you and Foamhead should game together. Not so much with most of the other respondents in the thread. Which is the point I was making. A player can't force their ideology on the GM. If they don't like the GM's gaming philosophy, go find a GM (and other players) with a more like-mind. No reason to keep trying to bang your square peg into someone elses' round hole. That's just as painful as it sounds. ;)