No average or mediocre characters allowed

>one player has god-tier luck and has several skills above 15 or even more
>another has their highest skill be 10
Doesn't sound like a fun experience for the player, and a nightmare for the GM to plan for.

The system disagrees with you, which makes you retarded.

See, your problem is that you play a system where character stats affects TOO MUCH stuff.
Look at older D&D games: you get +3 bonus at best, the only saving throw that's affected is versus spells, the only skill that's affected is Open Doors. That makes weak characters still viable, because they don't get massively fucked over by lower-than-average stats.
The NuD&D gives you option to randomly roll your stats only because "EETS TROO DEEANDEE GYUS", despite the fact that the most fiiting option is still pointbuy.

>See, your problem is that you play a system where character stats affects TOO MUCH stuff.
I don't play 3.5
2 and lower is all I ever played.

Good for you?

If your GM is so shitty that some players having +3 and some having +0 to ability checks is gamebreaking then maybe he should give up the seat

I guess?
3.5 is barely acceptable, pathfinder and up are absolute shite. 4e and 5e are abominations which need to be erased.

Yep. Looks like Dungeons and Dragons has finally cemented its place as a containment RPG.

It's not like this wasn't already a thing. Ever since third edition came out the trend was already starting. Fourth edition came with the popularity surge of The Big Bang Theory which resulted in a spike in sales, which was not enough to save 4e's badly-written mechanics.

Fifth edition was specifically watered down to be palatable both to grognards (who do not rely on the active D&D community nor do they need a new ruleset, thus this pandering was stupid) and to normies, who flocked to the game in great masses thanks to the game's appearance on two terrible TV shows (Stranger Things and Big Bang Theory). Also, the prevalence of Critical Role podcast created quite a lot of love for D&D, which found itself inundated by waves of new players. Wizards of the Coast saw sales skyrocketing, giving them the false message that dumbing down the game represented an improvement in game design (though they did streamline many of the mechanics, which *was* a good thing). As a result, Wizards is very happy with this diluting of the Dungeons and Dragons fanbase. Veeky Forums has also deluded itself into thinking this influx of players is a good thing. This lack of foresight is to be expected.

D&D is now the containment RPG. It keeps the dumb-ass Skyrim addicts and the brain-dead hipster roasties who can't even figure out which die to roll, out of the good RPGs. Which is sad, because D&D, despite being shit in many small ways, was overall a very fun and enjoyable roleplaying game. It was structured that way. However, the fanbase it is now attracting is making it intolerable, and the way said fanbase is guiding the mechanics is a direction that would make a game like Dungeon World seem sophisticated.

So, in short, D&D is dead, but thank god for its existence.

>>no average or mediocre characters allowed
Where does it say that?

Now THAT'S an elitist!

For a "hard" task the character with the +3 is 50% more likely to succeed than the one with the +0.

Somewhere along the way the game changed to playing out your power fantasy. Shame.

Well it's a good thing that D&D is not a competitive game.
Do you also complain that the barbarian who invested in strength is more likely to force open a door then the frail wizard?
Of course not, the wizard can just cast knock

Yeah, 1977 was a real shitty year.

Highest below 13, not lowest below 13. Please learn 2 read.

It's a pasta, but it originated from someone posting it unironically

I guess everyone has it's own definition of fun, user. Notice 'may'.

If your highest score is 13 you aren't a flawed character, you are practically a worthless character.

11 should be good enough as your highest score
50% chance of a successful die roll for checks, that's good enough. Having a 75% chance or more just makes it too easy.

>no average or mediocre characters allowed
Where does it say you can't play Fighter?

are you a masochistic player or the kind of GM who sets up a lvl1 party against adult red dragon?

No, but people tend to like to actually survive instead of having to reroll new characters ever three sessions because fucking Jimmy thinks that having a 9 in every stat is great roleplaying.

>having more than 2 double digit scores is OP

Wut

Anyone who still allows rolling this day and age is asking for trouble

ITT:

While RPGs aren't competitive (outside fringe ones like Paranoia), having wildly different power levels between characters makes the GM's life more difficult and will probably annoy the players as well. Mainly because if the GM makes monsters that can actually pose a threat to the strongest player, those same monsters tend to reduce the party to pink mist. Conversely, balancing to the weakest part member with a large power gap can result in a bunch of bored characters in no real danger of even losing the battle, let alone dying.

Overall, you want all your PCs to be roughly the same power level in whatever their character sets out to be good at.

Are you talking about DnD? Because if so you’re a fucking idiot. 11 literally doesn’t give you any benefit at all.

Practically every monster in the book has stats leagues above you. Tell me, is it fun being outclassed by a goblin? A fucking minion that’s supposed to be worse than a lvl 1?

What about orcs? Hobgoblins?...fucking anything?

>this is what gen reddit actually sincerely believes

Actually, I'm pretty sure reddit is the circlejerk for "le ebin RP through shitty stats".

They’re not wrong though?

What kind of barbarian are you if you’re barely stronger and hardier than a non-laboring merchant, or a cushy noble who barely lifts a finger?

What kind of wizard are you if you’re barely smarter than an *illiterate* peasant?

>10-11 are average stats, not low
You don't randomly get to decide that. The stat distributions of the PCs, NPCs and monsters you'll share a fictional world with determine what the stat range and average is.

Correction: casterfags circlejerk about everyone else who doesn’t have ebin super powers having le awesome RP moments due to their incompetence contrasted by their greatness XD
I swear, this is the psychological profile of a sociopath. Avoid these people at all costs

To add to what said, a character concept of "X class, but sucks at thier job" works great in comedic literature, but shit in an RPG.

So only superheroes can take part in adventures?

If you were ever under the impression that D&D isn't a game of fantasy superheroes, you haven't been paying attention.

>just started a new 5e game with a new GM recently
>he wanted us to roll our stats despite telling him it's generally a bad idea because it usually just leads to both overpowered and underpowered characters
>my character, after racial modifiers, ends up with 16 in two stats, 18 in another two, a 19 in his main stat that will immediately become a 20 when we hit next level, and a 12 in Strength
>most other characters barely scratch 15 with their primary attribute after racials, with most of those also having multiple 8s
>"Uh, yeah, okay, just use the point buy system."

No, I've genuinely encountered shitheads there that act like and accuse anyone who want their barb to have a strength above 11 is a evil, dirty, powergaming ROLLPLAYER!!11

Superhuman stats don't even start until you go above 18. You are literally talking about rolling a barbarian that has the strength level of a dude who lifts once a week.

Play Warhammer RPG if you want to be Johny Smallpox, the crippled ""Hero""

A wizard with 13 int can still cast every spell in the book. Just because he doesn’t have genius level intellect doesn’t mean he’s a bad wizard.

Are you seriously this fucking delusional?

Amusingly enough, WFRPG actually does the "zero to hero" thing really fucking well. Mainly because your stats aren't practically set in stone like DnD, but instead are directly increased by XP as you gain levels. If you can survive long enough to get to Sergeant (or are lucky enough to start in a class with an attack upgrade), you can start kicking ass pretty easily.

Genius level doesn't even start until what? 16, 17? You are genuinely retarded.

Plenty of military guys have average strength and can survive just fine in the wilderness and in physical combat,. This nomad barbarian isn’t downing 100g protein a day and maxing deadlifts, he’s running thru the wilds swinging an axe

Please explain to the class how a wizard with 13 int is not a viable character.

>Mainly because if the GM makes monsters that can actually pose a threat to the strongest player, those same monsters tend to reduce the party to pink mist.
There is nothing wrong with a powerful character dealing with foes with ease. If a player it too weak to survive then that just means the player gets to roll a new character, who might be strong enough to survive. Unless you're doing something gay like having a plot where you can't afford to have characters die the problem solves itself.
>Conversely, balancing to the weakest part member with a large power gap can result in a bunch of bored characters in no real danger of even losing the battle, let alone dying.
Solves itself by letting weaker characters die and reroll.

> Tell me, is it fun being outclassed by a goblin?
I don't find it fun being outclassed by a dragon. DM please let me play this homebrew class that is as strong as a dragon at level one please.

>What kind of barbarian are you if you’re barely stronger and hardier than a non-laboring merchant, or a cushy noble who barely lifts a finger?
That's what class features are for. You are a barbarian because you can do barbarian things despite being weaker than the cushy noble, who can't do barbarian things.

>herp derp a common mook of an enemy outclassing me is just as bad as a once-in-a-campaign big bad enemy outclassing me
You are bad at arguments.

What's it like when actually starting out from zero?

>comparing modern military soldiers to ancients barbarians

Listen up, you cum-guzzling fuckstain.

If you want to merely survive the occasional attack or raid on your bunfuck little village, then an average strength will do. Only then, you're not an adventurer, you're some villager bumfuck with no outstanding skills or attributes to speak of. I.e., the kind of person who leads either a boring life, or a short one.

Unsurpringly, people without brain damage aren't interested in either case.

Their endurance and wisdom would be high.

Honestly? One of my biggest gripes about DnD is the scaling. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing to start off as as a lowly character. But by high levels? Yes, they absolutely should be superheroes.

You die. A LOT.

However, there's two things that mitigate this. The first is that the system is EXPECTED to be deadly. Everyone else in the party is going to be close to your power level, so there's not going to be any friction with power mismatches.

Second, the game has "fate points" that can be spent from a daily pool to do a reroll, or burned permanently to avoid death. If you're fortunate, by the time you run out of fate points you're badass enough to keep yourself alive and actually go out like a hero and not a chump when the time comes.

DnD isn't really suited for that kind of thing, especially with how static stats tend to be after character creation, so that blurb is completely warranted.

Average strength in DnD is absolutely pathetic.

Like, with a strength score of 10, you can maybe do a single pull-up and deadlift 150lbs once without killing yourself

>herp derp a common mook of an enemy outclassing me is just as bad as a once-in-a-campaign big bad enemy outclassing me
depends
on
the
setting
For instance, if I wasn't strong enough to fight wyverns in monster hunter it would be total bullshit. But that doesn't mean in every setting it's necessary to be that strong to have fun.
Likewise, you don't need to be stronger than a goblin all the time to have fun even in settings where it's normal to be stronger than a goblin at level 1.

Go pull in a random person off the street. I bet they can’t do either of the things you mentioned

Then I hope you downscale the fuck out of your monsters. Otherwise your players are eventuallygonna ask

“Hey DM, why the fuck do I only have a +3 to hit at lvl 5 while this random ass guard has a +4?”

Your vision of the game is not supported by any setting in any campaign of 5e anywhere. To be fair neither is mine but at least I can somewhat compromise. You however? Good luck rewriting the entire fucking monster manual

>Likewise, you don't need to be stronger than a goblin all the time to have fun even in settings where it's normal to be stronger than a goblin at level 1.

If you're a fighter, your job is to be the strongest man in the group, and you're outclassed by the most pathetic enemy you could ever face in the setting from the word go?

I mean, you might as well go ahead and roll that quadriplegic barbarian you think is so awesome so we can leave him in the gimp cage as bait.

Even worse. The DnD devs did not base ability scores around the folks in medieval times, they based them around the modern human.

So in reality, that peasant who lifts large nails of hay everyday most likely has a real strength score more akin to 12-13, if not higher

>depends
>on
>the
>setting
We've
already
established
it's
at
least
D&D
you
insufferable
toddler

*bales

Yeah nah.

Even hard work doesn't turn you into a body builder if your diet consists of pottage and dysentery.

You’d be surprised. Medieval times were rough. Definitely not bodybuilders but humans back then on average were stronger accounting for their small size

Having a strength of 12-13 wouldn't make you a fucking bodybuilder, jesus christ. That's barely above average.

You should stop replying to the troll.

It's a minor issue as the fighters class abilities will still ensure he's more useful than any random town guard regardless.
Proficiency bonuses are guaranteed, and get bigger at higher levels than stat bonuses. So "chucklefuck mcaverage" isn't average at a higher level where he's not supposed to be so average anymore anyways.
>your job is to be the strongest man in the group
If I'm a fighter then my job is to have fighter abilities, which my class gives me regardless of attributes. Mission accomplished.
>I mean, you might as well go ahead and roll that quadriplegic barbarian you think is so awesome so we can leave him in the gimp cage as bait.
>having average/slightly below average stats is equivalent to having a literally crippled character
lol, munchkins
implying
clowns
don't
play
inappropriate
settings
using
D&D
anyways
so
you
never
know
for
sure

>awesome folklore hero fighter controlled by PC is weaker than Bumfuck Billy who joined the town guard a week ago because they have good insurance and he needed some money to take out his girlfriend for a nice vacation

Your argument is inane. Those who are more dedicated to their craft are going to have better stats to reflect that fact. If you trained in martial arts and fighting thugs on the street for years, why would it be reasonable to expect a peasant or a goblin who started punching a bag for a couple days to be stronger than you?

The PCs are professionals. They’re adventurers. Eventually be heroes. Fighting is their life. Why are they on the same level or even worse than someone who incidentally found it as a hobby or just a part time side gig?

I think he’s serious and that’s the scary part

> Those who are more dedicated to their craft are going to have better stats to reflect that fact.
Yeah, this is what proficiency is for. And proficiency scales with level, while stats barely do.
Unless you think someone gets more intelligent by reading books or something. That kind of stuff is what proficiency in history/arcana/whatever is for.
>If you trained in martial arts and fighting thugs on the street for years, why would it be reasonable to expect a peasant or a goblin who started punching a bag for a couple days to be stronger than you?
Yeah. The difference is in the fact you literally have class features that means you can do things the peasant or goblin literally cannot do.
A barbarian can rage. No matter how much stronger that goblin is than you, it will never be able to rage. And that difference is why you are a barbarian and the goblin is not.
>The PCs are professionals. They’re adventurers. Eventually be heroes.
Depends on the setting.
>Why are they on the same level or even worse than someone who incidentally found it as a hobby or just a part time side gig?
The random shmuck is naturally talented, or had another profession that just happened to have some similarities for what to them is just a hobby but made them better at it, or simply that maybe you the character opted for a profession you weren't entirely suited for so of course others are going to be better than you without hardly trying.
>I think he’s serious and that’s the scary part
Yes how dare I assume player characters are not flawless heroic beings some times

>The random shmuck is naturally talented, or had another profession that just happened to have some similarities for what to them is just a hobby but made them better at it, or simply that maybe you the character opted for a profession you weren't entirely suited for so of course others are going to be better than you without hardly trying.
Then why adventurers cannot be naturally talented?

I tried getting through his thick skull. This guy has a serious case of the dumbs.

>gee real coherent setting where the barbarian who lifts and beats up shit for a living is on the same level physically as a tax collecttor

Fucking retarded.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hero

That's why

Adventurers can be naturally talented. I just don't believe adventurers are inherently naturally talented just by virtue of being adventurers.
>gee real coherent setting where the barbarian who lifts and beats up shit for a living is on the same level physically as a tax collecttor
I don't see the problem. The barbarian can rage and objectively be better at lifting and beating shit up than the tax collector anyways (advantage on strength checks), unless he's a really weak barbarian in which case it's still the aforementioned situation of someone insisting on a profession they are not suited for and it still makes sense. You can lift all you want but that doesn't mean a guy with better genes can't put in a fraction of the effort and be stronger than you.
Though if you want to speak about coherent settings, it's not coherent that a wizard can slaughter a bunch of pests and he somehow learns new spells from doing so.

>better genes
>in a high fantasy game
>failing to understand why people play these games in the first place
>failing double hard by letting them using that mechanic of them learning spells for slaughtering pests anyways, despite your constant bitching!

This is worse than the biggest shit tier post I’ve seen on reddit. This is dogshit DMing and dogshit ROLE playing

>You can lift all you want but that doesn't mean a guy with better genes can't put in a fraction of the effort and be stronger than you.

>better genes
>in a high fantasy game
Bitch what the fuck do you think races and racial abilities are? Genes that give them better abilities than humans. That's why humans are the shittiest race, because they don't have those abilities the genetics of other races grant them.
>failing to understand why people play these games in the first place
That doesn't even make sense. I do play the game and I enjoy my interpretation of the game. Clearly at least some people play these games for reason other than capeshit power fantasy.
>failing double hard by letting them using that mechanic of them learning spells for slaughtering pests anyways, despite your constant bitching!
I don't believe you for a second that you actually force wizards to research spells on level up. Well, it might be possible if you use milestone leveling or play at a high enough level where it's very easy to know when a player can level up.
I know when I play sometimes I'll get a shit ton experience for what feels like nothing and almost no experience for what feels like a tough adventure. Really depends on a good DM for that to work out.

...

No matter how much you practice sprinting a kenyan will probably beat you. Why is this? Genetics.
From there it's not that hard to extrapolate this applies to much more and a bit more subtle things.

A trained Kenyan sprinter, sure. That doesn't mean any random Kenyan villager will beat out a Norwegian champion athlete.

Yeah I realized the flaw in my argument.
But I'll still stand by the genetics argument, as racial abilities imply genetic differences that training simply can't make up for and it's feasible this could also apply on an individual scale with relatively more mundane traits.

>you may

Now fuck off

I join this user in asking why is wizard with 13 int a bad wizard?
I seen wizards with int of 6 and it worked, and warlocks with 13 charisma kill off parties of paladins with stats of 16 or 17 - sometimes too high stats make the player arrogant and easy to beat

In real life over the course of maybe a year of consistent lifting I went from 8 or even 7 strength to like 12.
Does that mean I'm defying my genes?

You literally can't defy your own genes.
You can only be genetically superior/inferior/par relative to another subject.
You would have a point if someone had the exact same routine, same habits, same diets as you and also yielded the same results as you did.

>rolling for stats

/thread
This is all that needs to be said

Now try to explain why this is bad.

>casterfags circlejerk about everyone else who doesn’t have ebin super powers having le awesome
user we were talking about Reddit, not Veeky Forums.

You don't get to /thread your own posts.

If you dont get why rolling for stats is bad by yourself, then you should consider simpler hobbies. Like hitting rocks or painting on walls with your feces.

>Isn't some of the fun in playing a character despite their weaknesses?
Play a peasant if you want to be weak shit who can't do anything unless they get a lucky roll. For everyone else, they want to play heroes doing heroic things.

>I can't defend my position, therefore my opponent is dumb for not understanding it
Fucking elitists.