When people talk about stats...

When people talk about stats, why is it that midsling stats are always deemed to only be appropriate for ""grim" "gritty" "realistic"" campaigns, with all three of those words always used in the same order?

You know why I like "low stat" campaigns? It's because they're GROUNDED. Lord of the Rings wasn't grim, or gritty, and many parts weren't even especially realistic, but most of the main characters were grounded, and that's what made it work. Why is it so bad that I want that for my campaign?

The average Ability Score (in D&D obv) is a 10. If you have a 14 in an ability score you're already 1 standard deviation beyond the general population. Why the fuck do you need ALL OF YOUR FUCKING STATS to be higher than that? Point buy is for babies that can't handle not being the most specialist person in the whole wide world.

on a slightly less venomous note, I think that most of the problems with having low starting stats would be alleviated by making it easier to increase stats as you level. Thoughts?

Most editions of D&D people are familiar with operate on the function of a certain base-starting statline, usually at least 16 if not 18 in your primary stat. A 10, or even 14, is just not enough

Point buy reflects the baseline around which the game is balanced (at least as far as D&D is balanced). Going for an average of 10 results in underpowered or nonfunctional PCs in 3rd edition and beyond -- and since low stats hurt martials more than casters, exacerbate already existing balance issues.

I do agree that it's gotten out of hand though.

You're talking in terms of RP and campaign tone but the players you're talking about don't really care about those things except in the most superficial ways. What they do care about are optimizing mechanically and/or their own power fantasies.

Point Buy is honestly more for honesty. That guy can't show up with a "Lucky" Wizard with 13 Str, 18 Dex, 17 Con, 20 Int, 15 Wis, and 6 Charisma if you use point buy.

Plus, realistically speaking, the "Average" npc grew up malnourished with few, if any opportunities to engage in active learning. Most pc's represent the bourgeoisie, if not the outright noble classes, who get their calories and opportunities for personal improvement handily.

Not if they're around tens. A 10 str fighter is just weak. A 10 int/wis/cha caster can't cast anything but cantrips/orisons.

It's not bad you want that for your campaign. It's bad that you'd try to use a heroic fantasy system like D&D to do it.

The modern editions, at least. The older editions would work better. Either way, it's not about your preferences being inferior, it's that it's dumb to try and make D&D more grounded by lowering stats when the systems assumptions are built around the idea of having higher ones.

I mean only if you've got flat 10's across the board. But if you've got a 14/12/10/10/8/8 to distribute, you wanna be a full caster -- preferably a summoner or a druid with an animal companion.

>Why the fuck do you need ALL OF YOUR FUCKING STATS to be higher than that?
Because the chimps at WotC had no idea how D&D actually worked when they started the 3e development process.

Even Gygax considered high ability scores important. Source: 1e AD&D DMG.

> If you have a 14 in an ability score you're already 1 standard deviation beyond the general population

It's hard to relate to people who aren't. Mentally and physically, I'm at least 1 deviation over average and so are most people I know.

A cinematic hero in a fantasy world is probably +2 SD overall, +3 or +4 in their field.

Except for the Hobbits, all members of the Fellowship display themselves to be extremely capable combatants.

Eh, with the way 3.PF works you need to either have really exceptional stats or be much higher level to really feel heroic and be able to do things like fight large raiding parties of orcs and not die. And if you are going with the higher level thing you need to have amazing story telling to keep player interest because there won't be much leveling up.

>I'm at least 1 deviation over average and so are most people I know.

Please tell me this is satire

>Except for the hobbits.

Are you making light of a Took? He'll kick your ass for that.

>I want to be good at my chosen role so as not to burden my friends around the table
>FUCKING MINMAXER REEEEEEEEEE

That might be putting it mildly. How many uruk-hai did it take to kill Boromir?

He brings down 20 with him, so presumably more than that.

No, he's right. 1 standard deviation isn't asking a lot. IQ for technical professions is pretty much all going to be 1~2 standard deviations above the mean; statistically average intelligence is a little slow by comparison, and 2 digit IQ basically need not apply. Similarly, the average military-aged male is a 175 lb fatbody standing at a height of 5'9" and can do one (1) pull-up. If we liken a "heroic" adventurer to, say, Army SF--physically demanding job; requires initiative and unconventional thinking--they're usually going to be at least 1 standard deviation all around (with allowances made for weak but wizardly wizards and the like).

The idea that LotR characters have "low" stats is hilarious.

Because heroes are greatly above average? How does the average Olympic athlete compare to the average population overall? Is it unfair of them to be young and in shape (and therefore attractive), and have greater strength, endurance, and flexibility than you?

Honestly I'd be surprised if the average piece of shit can even do a single pull-up.

They can't.

Well, there aren't many people who are actually completely average in every respect. It's likely a fuck ton of people that can't do a single pushup and then groups of fewer and fewer people who can do a handful or more than that.
Put another way, the median probably is zero.

If we're talking 3.5/PF (you specified D&D but not the edition) then low-stat games are retarded because the system is about character builds and lower point-buys restrict those options.

Any other edition it's fine.

But in D&D that one SD difference translates to just 5% better chance of success, which is unrealistic. The bonuses that high stats give should be considerably bigger.

>The bonuses that high stats give should be considerably bigger.
They were before 3e fucked everything up.

t. 3e and ahead only player

They weren't, AD&D was even more stingy with stat bonuses. The bottom line is that a guy whose IQ is four standard deviations over yours shouldn't have measly 20% bigger chance of winning a contest of wits against you.

>Lord of the Rings...most of the main characters were grounded

I mean sure, if we ignore the Demigod Wizard, the definitive aim-bot elf sniper, and the two ubermench princes...actually wait no, the majority of LoTR protags were fucking huge badasses beyond a mortals hope to compete with.

By level 11 you can't cast spells, and at 13 you literally cannot catch up.

14 in a casting stat is gimped

Depends, it is not hard to achieve that in the USA, the UK or Australia.

Just spend at least a year in college and be not-fat.

There! You have done it!

>Demigod Wizard
Gandalf got by mostly on elbow grease and wise counsel. He hardly ever used any actual magic.

>definitive aim-bot elf sniper
At the battle of Helm's Deep, Gimli almost matched Legolas' kill-count, while using an axe. Legolas' archery is strong, but it's not hax-tier.

>and the two ubermench princes
Boromir was just a big burly dude with a sword and a horn. He was skilled in arms and strategy, but he wasn't particularly special. And Aragorn may have been destined to rule Gondor, but much like Gandalf, he relied on elbow grease, knowledge of ancient lore and wise strategy, more than any inherent specialness.

Because the majority of the challenge in D&D is fighting monsters , overcoming traps and exploring various hostile places designed to kill you and that's not fun or often possible to do with shit stats.

The only reason the Hobbits survive in LOTR is because A: They have plot armour and B: They're with a GMPC very high level wizard , not to mention 4 high level fighters/rangers

So unless your GM is A : going to provide high level characters to carry you ( Which is always a massive GM faux par) or B: Fudge dice so you never die (making the point of having low stats meaningless ) . You're going to have an unsatisfactory experience that will result in a lot of character death and failure.

While this old school gygaxian style of play can be fun in itself, it's difficult to craft a narrative out of it, or build up characters in any meaningful way as character death is so common in the RNG gauntlet.

You can have a heavily RP focussed game with middling stats but you don't really need stats at all to do that anyway.

4e can't, treadmill math for enemies makes anything lower than a 16 on your main stat just not viable.

OP here. On reflection, I think improbably high stats are only bothersome too me with low level characters. A standard 18, 16, 15, 13, 10, 8 statline doesn't really bother me on a 10th level hero whose deeds will be remembered through the ages. I prefer starting adventurers to be a little more on the frail side though.

Also, this might be more political, but there's something uncomfortably darwinistic to me about the idea that the only people who can become great are those that already are great.

I'm not saying that 10 needs to be the baseline for starting adventurers, it just breaks my immersion that every campaign starts with a bunch of mensa level olympians randomly meeting in a tavern and deciding that the best use of their time is going into the woods to fight bugbears. I think my ideal starting point would be with a high stat of 13 or 14, one or two low stats, and the rest at 10

Fair point
Also a fair point

I disagree that D&D is inherently heroic fantasy. It's definitely built around that (with 3rd-8th level play usually being emphasized), but because of the levelling structure it really spans multiple genres
1st and 2nd level are as "low fantasy" as anything out there

Yeah, and how many years have they been training?
Also, I think you're overstating the degree to which most athletes are highly balanced people. Read The String Theory by DFW. Most athletes have ungodly high CON, DEX/STR as needed for their sport, passable WIS, and then absolutely shit INT and CHA (see: most American Football players, prize fighters, Ryan Lochte)

I agree with this, but average talent should also be more capable than it currently is. If you have a 10 in a stat, you're largely going to be able to do fuck all.
One thing I like, designwise, about OD&D is that success at a task is mostly down to what your class is good at (your training), and less about how naturally gifted you are

...

Because Pathfinder is a shit game that doesn't hold itself to it's standards.

If you were going to have Pathfinder work as a game using it's stats, the human average should be about 14 in each stat, just to make the math work for it's challenge ratings. They *say* that a 10 is human average, but there's almost no characters, even the NPC mooks, that actually keep to that - Because they'd be so pathetically weak that they'd be worthless.

Back in classic D&D, basically everything up to 2e, having a 10 in a stat was fine. A fighter with a 10 in their strength could fight just fine and contribute to their team pretty easily. The change to static bonuses based on your numbers changed a lot of things in 3e but the most drastic shift was that it started to mean you HAD to have previously min-max level of stats and careful feat selection in order to perform your character's role.

A character with a high stat of 14 and an average of 10 over his stats just can't contribute meaningfully in Pathfinder, which is usually the game people even bother about talking builds and optimized characters with; This isn't about fun or preference, it's a mathematical average. To keep characters on the same power-level to reliably hit and deal damage, or to have their spells' saving throes at a high enough average DC, and to otherwise keep up with the monsters and other bad guys in the game, 18-20 is the number of choice for primary stats in the game.

just get rid of stats entirely, combine them with skills and just leave the one list

If you want a grounded game, DnD is not the right choice.

Now, you're right about standard deviations and such.

The problem is so many key class abilities and feats run off of high ability scores. For instance a Wizard who starts with average (10) Int, barring the use of enhancement bonus items, will never be able to cast spells above 5th level. Want to TWF or sword-and-board? Those feats require increasingly higher Dex scores.

The answer to your question, "Why the fuck do you need [all of your stats to be higher than the average]?" is "Because D&D is designed assuming that they will be".

I hope this slut gets brain cancer

Stats only give up to generally +25% chance, but skill levels make that even higher, up to 100% depending on difficulty of activity. The same is true of bonuses from leveling. Why do people on Veeky Forums keep forgetting about that aspect of the game and think rolls only depend strictly on stats? Are they retarded and haven't actually played the game?

Gandalf, a literal demigod. He was a maiar, a form of angel/demigod. He didn't do much, because that was one of the restrictions placed on him, and his brothers, by God.

Legolas is a three thousand year old elf badass, who has been training with a bow for many human generations. His skill with it far surpasses any human's ability to wield one. His dex score is ridiculous and his level is high.

Aragorn is a fucking Numenorean prince (aka Tolkien Atlanteans) raised by elves. He is the very definition of a super bad ass.

I'll point out that Gandalf is not really a Wizard. Technically, he's more like an angel, using spell-like abilities to pose as a Wizard.

Also, Legolas, Gimli, Aragon and Boromir are all extremely high-level characters.

>applies to 3/5 numbered editions
>"Most editions"
even if that's the case he's right

boromir got killed by a handful of orcs

Yeah, and Legolas, Gimlie, Boromir and Aragorn also weren't the protagonists of LotR.

I swear to god, it's like every person on/tg/ somehow missed the point of that series. It doesn't matter how powerful you are, eventually lust for power wil

>For instance a Wizard who starts with average (10) Int, barring the use of enhancement bonus items, will never be able to cast spells above 5th level
Right, but that won't really be an issue until they get to 6th level, right?
There needs to be more ways for Ability Scores to be improved as characters level, and that would alleviate a lot of problems I think

>Lord of the Rings wasn't grim, or gritty, and many parts weren't even especially realistic, but most of the main characters were grounded
Yeah but many of them would have still had fucking awesome stats. They were party of heroes. It's just that when you think about it having an amazing attribute doesn't really do that much.

In D&D 3-5 an 18 grants a +4 to rolls which on a d20 is a 20% boost. That's a tangible bonus but not anything really incredible. On it's own that +4 is nice but it doesn't make anyone crazy superhuman. What it does do is add to a bunch of different numbers to determine the potency of special class abilities which DOES lead to a game of flying shoenen god warriors.

Conan was incredibly fast, extremely strong and tough, had amazing sense and an iron will, he was very charismatic and he knew a had a wide variety of skills. Gandalf was wise, very smart and had a powerful presence, was was also physically capable enough to fight off several enemies with a sort.
Your average pulp hero will at the very least be very fast, strong willed, tough enough to fight in melee and probably smart or charismatic. They will be both well rounded AND competent.
Most of them are still fairly grounded because while stats may give them an edge it doesn't really change what they can do. A +5 STR doesn't make you superman, it means you can kick in regular doors with ease and be really scary in single combat. Lots of guys will still fuck you up because action economy, big ass stone doors will still bar your way.

The reason stats make the game feel not grounded is that most games have a series of abilities that require them as well as a kind of meta that specifies the necessary numbers needed to be competent character. So instead of making charming but deadly swashbuckler, you make DPS machine who uses DPS class features and feats to keep up with enemy HP.

Because it's fucking stupid for some Druid and their animal companion to both automatically out-STR you for the entire game when you're the one who's actually focusing on fighting.

10 is average for commoners, but some editions (like 5e) have players take 4d6 drop the lowest, so 13 is actually the average for adventurers, making them already a cut above the rest.

Still applies for 2nd edition as well, no idea what user is on about.

Str: 18/55

You ever stopped to think how stats don't matter so much in DnD though? Because it's all about stacking modifiers and you often get those mods in way stronger numbers than other sources.

Here we see the very moment user was consumed by his lust fo

You're wrong.

It gets to us all eventu