Try rolling with a character with 14 in every stat for slightly above average (84).
No stat bonuses until you acquire some tomes.
The thing with BG is there is a dead stat area from 8-14 in all stats that do not effect anything except carrying weight and chance to learn spells. So a character with all nines is pretty much the same as a character with all 13s. These are considered your average stats.
If you want more bang for your bucks, consider installing @subtledoctor 's Scales of Balance mod which offers a revised ability score system; basically spreading bonuses and penalties more evenly instead of the 9-13 vacuum.
Of course, then your 86-point "average" joe would be even less average as you would now gain a concrete, though small benefit from a score of 13, say.
I used to run all those high 90's, 100 scores for a long time. After stickin to a 75 total, without editing, characters do just fine. It actually makes the tomes feel like much more of a special find now (the same with items). NPCs seem a little more special as well, as about all of them are above 75's.
To be honest, stat rolls are less about the overall points you have available to spend and more about where you allocate the points. It also depends what class you play, as some classes have more spread out stat allocation than some other classes (Paladins, Bards, or multiclass/dual class spellcasters for example). If playing a straight up Fighter type class or a Ranger, there are really only 3 stats you have to worry about and so even a low overall roll doesn't hurt your potential as long as the points go into those 3 stats. Thieves also really only need to worry about 3 stats, provided you're going single class or have it as a dual/multi combo with a Fighter. Spreading everything out into average stats would really only be viable for maybe a Bard or a Bard kit, since their Bard Song can still be just as effective with crappy stats as it would with good stats. Maybe a Sorcerer too, since they don't rely on Intelligence for spellcasting or learning spells.
In something like the most recent edition of D&D with 5th Edition, you could get away with having more just average stat allocation since the stats and sub abilities are more based around roleplaying than solely how to help you in combat or with bartering. That and you get bonuses in tiers that start at lower stat numbers, and penalties that begin at higher stat numbers than what 2nd Edition did (bonuses start at 12 instead of 15, and penalties begin at 8 whereas 2nd Edition usually it started at 6.), so you have to take careful consideration of dump stats as well. In older D&D, as mentioned you have some no man's land of stat allocation where there isn't much difference between a stat of 8 or a stat of 14. The only notable differences (at least in Baldur's Gate) would be these things:
Carry weight for Strength.
Strength requirements for some heavier equipment and armor, many forms of magical equipment don't have as high of Strength requirements however.
Chance to memorize spells for Mages & Bards.
Ability to use scrolls and wands with a minimum of 9 Intelligence.
Having stats just high enough to use certain equipment that lowers one of your stats but not low enough to incur any penalties from that stat being lowered.
You can have a Constitution as low as 7 and still incur no penalties to your hit point total (as we see with Xan as far as NPCs go). So there's little to no difference between Xan's 7 Constitution and Dorn's 14 Constitution where it matters, which is in how many extra hit points they get. This makes getting 'average' stats across the board a gimped way to play the game, because only higher tier stats really change your character's abilities and potential at all. A character with 14s across the board (Rasaad comes close to this sort of build) is way worse than a character with the right stats around 16-18 (someone like Edwin or Shar-Teel).
In that same vein I've been wanting to try out an a character like Quayle. Low stat total but still kicks butt because he's some kind of multiclass. Haven't worked out precicely where I wanna go with it though.
But for RP reasons, should'nt the Bhaalspawn have good stats? After all, he's meant to be powerful.
Been a while since I looked at the stats of the various bhaalspawn, but I seem to recall that some were more gifted in the stat department than others. Some of them have godly stats and some of them not so much.
Yulaw9460
Member Posts: 634
Comments
Try rolling with a character with 14 in every stat for slightly above average (84).
No stat bonuses until you acquire some tomes.
The thing with BG is there is a dead stat area from 8-14 in all stats that do not effect anything except carrying weight and chance to learn spells. So a character with all nines is pretty much the same as a character with all 13s. These are considered your average stats.
Of course, then your 86-point "average" joe would be even less average as you would now gain a concrete, though small benefit from a score of 13, say.
Hope it helps.
Long story short
Averages...
STR: 14,28
DEX: 15,77
CON: 14,23
INT: 13,47
WIS: 12,47
CHA: 12,98
------------
Average of attributes' average: 13,87
Lowest attribute: Minsc's Wisdom (6)
Highest attribute: Coran's Dexterity/Kagain's Constitution (20)
Average of attributes' sum: 83,19
Highest attributes' sum: Hexxat (98)
Lowest attributes' sum: Quayle (63)
I'm ignoring one NPC...
In something like the most recent edition of D&D with 5th Edition, you could get away with having more just average stat allocation since the stats and sub abilities are more based around roleplaying than solely how to help you in combat or with bartering. That and you get bonuses in tiers that start at lower stat numbers, and penalties that begin at higher stat numbers than what 2nd Edition did (bonuses start at 12 instead of 15, and penalties begin at 8 whereas 2nd Edition usually it started at 6.), so you have to take careful consideration of dump stats as well. In older D&D, as mentioned you have some no man's land of stat allocation where there isn't much difference between a stat of 8 or a stat of 14. The only notable differences (at least in Baldur's Gate) would be these things:
Carry weight for Strength.
Strength requirements for some heavier equipment and armor, many forms of magical equipment don't have as high of Strength requirements however.
Chance to memorize spells for Mages & Bards.
Ability to use scrolls and wands with a minimum of 9 Intelligence.
Having stats just high enough to use certain equipment that lowers one of your stats but not low enough to incur any penalties from that stat being lowered.
You can have a Constitution as low as 7 and still incur no penalties to your hit point total (as we see with Xan as far as NPCs go). So there's little to no difference between Xan's 7 Constitution and Dorn's 14 Constitution where it matters, which is in how many extra hit points they get. This makes getting 'average' stats across the board a gimped way to play the game, because only higher tier stats really change your character's abilities and potential at all. A character with 14s across the board (Rasaad comes close to this sort of build) is way worse than a character with the right stats around 16-18 (someone like Edwin or Shar-Teel).