What do you prefer for stats?
Pantalion
Member Posts: 2,137
While bigger is obviously better for rolling characters, and it's always great to see those epic rolls from time to time, I must confess I generally prefer my "serious" characters to have a total in the mid 80s.
I find that this lets me have that perfect blend of having enough points to move around to suit my characters, while having few enough that it's not just Yet Another Peter Perfect.
Given the choice between a well rounded cookie cutter 18/19/16/18/18/3 and one with a modest 16/19/7/18/8/17, the second one speaks more to me as a character - gifted and charming, but fundamentally flawed, prone to impulsive decisions and with room to improve as they progress through the series and grab tomes and other boosts, while the other just gets... More perfect.
What's your approach to stats? Are you in it for the ubermensch? Or do you prefer your heroes to be gritty and flawed?
I find that this lets me have that perfect blend of having enough points to move around to suit my characters, while having few enough that it's not just Yet Another Peter Perfect.
Given the choice between a well rounded cookie cutter 18/19/16/18/18/3 and one with a modest 16/19/7/18/8/17, the second one speaks more to me as a character - gifted and charming, but fundamentally flawed, prone to impulsive decisions and with room to improve as they progress through the series and grab tomes and other boosts, while the other just gets... More perfect.
What's your approach to stats? Are you in it for the ubermensch? Or do you prefer your heroes to be gritty and flawed?
- What do you prefer for stats?58 votes
- Stick with the first roll you get, because apathy is the only appropriate response to rolls.0.00%
- Reroll until you get a decent score, then play it as it lies, because modifying is cheating.8.62%
- Ctrl-F8 / Keeper those stats. Life is too short to spend time rolling.15.52%
- Reroll until you get 100 or bust.6.90%
- 90+ is plenty.39.66%
- 80+ is all you need.25.86%
- Only posers go above 75.1.72%
- I reduce all my stats down to class minimums, because I'm a roleplayer.1.72%
3
Comments
But yeah I find 80+ covers the core needs well which gives me room to have imperfections while maxing the stats I feel are necessary. I typically trend towards ubermensch though.
- My usual Charname has above average points, 15-17 in the stats that are relevant for the class and 1 stat in which he or she excells (18).
- In other stats, my Charname is usually average, I dislike having characters with heavy flaws (single digits).
- With any class I usually have either DEX or CON 16+ for survivability, so I won't need to reload that much for seeing the disintegrating hand cutscene.
- Another stat that I like to have high for any class, is CHA. She or he is the leader of a party of adventurers willing to risk their life and limb for her or him after all.
- If the roll is too high for what I have in mind, I don't allocate the points I don't need, ending with less total points than the role gave me.
This usually ends up taking some rerolling to end up in the mid-80's.Though sometimes I play characters that have less total points if I like an extra challenge or extra believability (after all, scores above 15 are rare in real life).
P.S.: I have a hard time believing anyone would be willing to sacrifice their life for someone that everyone in the world gives a wide berth as they're that disgusting (CHA 3).
I made a spreadsheet that rolls 10 sets of stats at once (4d6 drop 1). When I start a new character, I hit calculate, then I pick the one I like best, apply racial modifiers and use ctrl-F8 to set the stats in the game.
For example, when I tried to beat BG1+BG2 with a solo druid, on Core, with the SCS, I went with a 75 roll. Because of the challenge and because a druid doesn't need anything else than WIS.
In our forum MP attempt, we're aiming for something between 80-90, with flaws (not perfect 18-18-18).
But for a duo run on Insane, with the SCS, with a monk charname and Rasaad I had to go with 18-18-18 (the latter for the Claw), because otherwise it would be redicilously hard not to die.
Sometimes, I will roll to get the best of 20/50 results, the best result of 10/20 minutes. Sometimes, I will Ctrl-F8 and then lower stats to what I want.
Or I may use the random method for a Bhaalspawn in a party run that I quite like, presented by @Lemernis here: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/17887/create-a-random-game-optional-no-reload-speed-game-contest-included-spoilers/p1
But generally, I try to think about NPCs' stats and make charname so that he could have both stronger and weaker sides. https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/681589/#Comment_681589 and https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/681590/#Comment_681590
Usually, it ends around 80+ too.. I'm a hard RP type of gamer and for example, my halfling would never score a 18/xx strenght..
As of late, I really do enjoy playing with characters that possess stats *below* the class minimums with the help of EEKeeper. This allows for a wider variety of character backgrounds as well: lower stats helped me to successfully roleplay as an run-of-the-mill Commoner for instance. Or an 11 year old human child Bhaalspawn with nyctophobia.
It's also interesting (and much more trickier) to undergoe playthroughts with believable disabled characters. An permanently blind Bhaalspawn of mine, for instance, did manage to become one of my all-time favourites. And for my first SoD playthrough I decided to plan an permanently deaf Shaman character. I imagine it will be a rather fresh experience to suffer a 50% chance of spell failure all the time.
Sometimes I roll until happy and lowers cha (in BG2) then goes to pick up ring of human influence. Problem solved.
I would consider this to be poor roleplaying in most instances. In Icewind Dale you are, after all, an adventurer who travels to an icy wasteland. Most characters (though not all) would likely be hardier and more competent in this situation. In Baldur's Gate, you are not just a Bhaalspawn, but one of the best of them.
17 for his/her best stat
16... next best
And so on down to 12 for their worst
Has to meet class requirements.
Eg:
Fighter
S17, D15, C16, I12, W13, Ch14
Mage
S12, D16, C15, I17, W14, Ch13
Cleric
S15, D13, C16, I12, W17, Ch14
Thief
S16, D17, C15, I14, W12, Ch13
Paladin
S16, D13, C15, I12, W14, Ch17
Racial modifiers applied after distribution.
My characters were usually around
Thieves:
S16, D18, C15, I12, W10, Ch17 (Dextrous, charming, still capable of fight)
Warriors/Monks:
S18-19, D17, C16, I9, W13, Ch12 (Strong, capable - but not overly bright or good-looking (all the scars and stuff. But still quite wise)
and so on... strong characters, but not munchkins.
Unless I get an 88. I don't know what font the game uses, but I love the look of 88. I'd give up a roll of 100 just because I like 88. Otherwise, anything 80+ is fine, and I like to force myself to use the first roll over 80 I come across.
I would have picked 100+, apart from the fact I have never rolled that high, and so do have to settle for a roll in the 90s, although generally I hold out for a high 90s. For most classes, getting even a 93 is tough and can take hours though, but that patience being rewarded is part of the reason I am hooked.
93 is also the magical number if, being the ultimate min/maxer, you want 5x18 and one 3-stat. Clearly rolls over 93 are better, and I try to find a more creative dump stat than Charisma. Paladins with 3 dev, hiding in the tin can suit of armor, for some reason amuse me. The fact that both games offer an item that can remedy that character flaw, assuming you make it that far, is also quite helpful (although it means giving up other items that would better occupy the slot with a more traditional warrior's dex).
For the main character of bg2 I usually role play so I try my character stats to reflect what it would be like in real life, with some artistic liberties. I am a pyschially very weak person, with a chronic illness, so I reflect it in low numbers of str, dex and especially con. My current character has a con of 6 now, with -1 to hp/lvl if I am not mistaken. I play caster types and generally give my mages 16-17 int. Very seldom 18, and that is a huge leap in artistic liberty for my char. However I don't write scrolls before gulping potions of geniuses because I play minimal reload, so the impact of the intelligence score is not much in my game.
With tomes and spells the stats go beyond 18 soon enough.
Characters I finished TUTU with, noting their start dates, starting stats and highest stats:
Faihra (half-elven cleric/ranger), November 27th 2008: 91 points (18/75 STR)
Zulecha (half-orc barbarian), March 7th 2010: 90 points (19 STR, 19 CON)
Ihrene (half-elven conjuror), June 14th 2010: 89 points (18 INT, 18 WIS)
R'am (human berserker dualed to cleric), July 9th 2010: 89 points (18/88 STR)
Ohrlinka (gnome cleric/illusionist), August 23rd 2010: 91 (18 INT)
Characters I started BG:EE with:
Sakhmet (human avenger), February 26th 2015: 84 points (17 WIS)
Deirdre Bookchild (gnome illusionist), July 5th 2015: 79 (17 DEX, 17 INT)
Cecilia Swiftfoot (halfling bounthunter), January 23rd 2016: 86 (19 DEX)
Fannie Thumbwhistle (gnome illusionist thief), January 30th 2016: 76 (17 DEX, 17 INT)
So it's only recently true I end up choosing points in the mid 80's or upper 70's. With a new development in me creating characters that I'll name "17 is exceptionally good as well".
I won't lower any stat below ten, because I think that going into penalty range represents an impairment or disability of some kind.
It might be worth revising that last paragraph... it could be construed as suggesting that people with disabilities should only appear in stories if their condition is some sort of plot device.
*I* know that's not what you mean... but this is the internet...
I min-max, though, and ignore class-specific minimums (otherwise Paladins have a real problem).