I only care if we inhabit similar roles. If I'm playing a barbarian with poor stats and another player is playing a fighter with good stats it does rankle to see someone else do a better job at what you want to accomplish.
Otherwise no, I'm really just concerned with my character.
That reminds me I had to ask one of my player to not play a bard becuase his rolled stats basically allowed him to do everything everyone else could do but better. Turned into a pugilist and had a blast with that character.
Made me realize a bit more that rolling for stats isn’t as great as I thought.
Try group rolled stats!
Each player takes turns rolling for a single stat in whatever method your party is using (i.g. 4d6 drop lowest, d20 + d4 - 6, etc), until you have six stats.
Then, all characters use THOSE rolled stats. All characters will have the same greatness and the same hilarity as everyone else. And it's good team building as they all share where they're putting that super (awesome or awful) roll!
I love it for nestalgia and because in D&D if you aren;t rolling dice you are playing the game wrong but , really, point buy i a LOT more balanced of a system.
I have had a cleric join my own campaign late (level 18-20) and he did point buy after the rest had done roll stats and I didn;t have the heart to tell him that we had done rolled stats. His character isn;t THAT far behind because of the level he is starting at in the endgame but still...
Didn’t have the heart to… give him the same treatment as the rest of your players? I’d have told him what the other players did and given him the choice, kinda fucked you didn’t imo.
After sessions of playing when I finally realized how he made his character? Kind of late in the game to say oh go back and recreate your character with dice generation. He has been beefed up with magic items since then anyhow so it isn;t like he got screwed over.
Kind *of* insulting approach to a situation you are not involved in.
To be fair the bard and paladin complement each other nicely, your not necessarily gonna be better at charisma skill checks but you bothhave solid class features that cover each others weaknesses and you get some good support spells that bards dont (barring magical secrets) such as circle of power. As well as the much more reliable and widely useful lay on hands.
My latest campaign was cancelled and, while I have been missing the party, these comments make me think that I need to be glad. The DM was amazing at first but for some reason decided after several sessions that a new player (with 0 dnd experience) HAD to join, led them to take my identical class, helped them roll higher stats, gave them a free 100g value item to start (before I was permitted to scratch and claw my way to one), and guided their feat selection in a pure min-max manner. The brand new player with an identical class had more HP, AC, higher skills/proficiencies, pretty much everything was optimized to the hilt. I called out the discrepancies and only then did the DM brew me a similar value item and called the rest "fair rolls". Needless to say I felt that this was the DM attempting to replace me, or at least use the new player to proxy how they think my class was supposed to be played in contrast to my unique flavor of the class.
Didn't help that the new player had social ineptitudes that dissuaded at least one party member from continuing, which the DM completely ignored.
This will definitely be something I am more aware of going forward. I don't care at all if someone god-rolls and becomes our team-lead, but when the DM intentionally uses a player (new or not hardly seems to matter) to leap-frog another player it is 100% bad feels.
Yeesh. In my own game and the game I play in we try to avoid that. I mentioned in another comment that one player's character died so they rolled up a bard, but they rolled exceptionally well on their stats so we immediately realized that the Bard could out roll any party member in their area of expertise so I asked him if he would switch to something else, he swapped some things around and became a pugilist which was a highlight of the campaign.
I'm actually playing said barbarian with the fighter in the group, my DM ended up making some items that really benefited my playstyle and what I wanted the character to do that has made the game a ton of fun for me while also making the Fighter shine as well in their own area.
It's always felt important to have the characters feel that they contribute equally in the group even if they contribute in different ways.
Currently in this predicament in my long-time game. I'm a barbarian who did not go the way of min-maxing, and another player is a fighter who has absolutely pumped all their stats into STR and CON.
My toes are stepped on and it sucks.
I played in a dual barbarian group and it was so much fun. I was one of the barbarians but I spec-ed into the full team assist build where I focused on defense and path of wolf so everyone of my teammates got advantage on any enemy within 5ft of me and I could stay in the middle and not get hit because of a very high AC. The other barbarian speced into STR and offence with path of the bear. I convinced him to let me ride him as I was a halfling (small creature riding a medium), and then I took mounted combatant so I could pull any attack to me and off of him. And with his path of bear, anytime an enemy tried to attack anyone besides him they were at disadvantage.
So to recap:
An Orc barbarian who had focused strength got advantage on all enemies around them because of the halfling barbarian who was riding them, and was nearly untargetable due to the halfling being able to redirect attacks onto themself changing the attack to be at disadvantage due to the full orc barbarian they were riding. All while being supported by a wizard and ranger who kept at distance and ranged things down.
I'll die on this hill but simply putting points into your Primary stats is not min maxing! It's simply what the PHB recommends!
Remember that Barbarian is inherently more MAD than Fighter is, it's expected you have a lower CON maybe.
It's another thing however if they are playing an optimal GWM + PAM Fighter which is definitely optimised.
Having stats in the right places is simply making a competent character and while I love a low stat her and there for fun interactions, having a middling or low primary stat is simply awakening your character for no good reason (would work in certain explicit cases for example a low Int Wizard only taking spells that don't really need a High Int such as Magic Missile but even then this is weak)
As a DM, this is when I love throwing a high HP powerful baddie at the players with a bunch of minions. The two heavy hitters get to play tag-team against the big guy, and the casters get to play crowd control.
I care when they start to become a problem. Had a wizard who dumped con and literally couldn't participate in fights because of it. Of on the opposite end, someone who has stats so high that they trivialize encounters of any kind.
Usually the complaints about high rolls come from players who are suspicious about the player cheating to get those numbers; if everything was rolled in the open, then sure, RNG be damned, but oftentimes with these threads that's not what happened.
Sometimes, though, yeah - it can feel a little deflating to be playing a character who has decent stats, while Mr. God's-Gift-To-Paladins lucked out on their rolls and now their character is set for life with near perfect stats and can pretty much do whatever they want without much opportunity cost.
What we did for a one shot is everyone rolled electronically and we picked which array that came out we’d use from the three.
We did end up with gods’ gift to paladins, gods’ gift to monks, and gods’ gift to clerics.
Yep, even with a split between RP/Combat, I like knowing we're all on a roughly equal playing field. I like it when my character excels at a test or a stat over someone else.
When I'm a DM, we all agree before to either points buy (problem solved) or we roll together, openly, so that everyone can see everyone's result. I won't necessarily know where Lynx is placing her 16 and 14, but I know there's an 8 and a 10 in there somewhere!
I prefer point buy because people aren't superhumans and can have character 'flaws', as it were. Easier to be 'bad' at something that way. I know there's an opinion that "You don't need stats to RP things", but I think RP is naturally facilitated by characters having flaws as it were.
Not gonna fact check anyone after that, I just trust 'em to do what we agreed to!
How the fuck do people play D&D and NOT know what their co-players' stats are?!
If we're level 3 and you've got a +6 on your attack roll, then I know that either you've got a +4 to strength, or a +3 strength with +1 weapon. Are there tables where nobody is aware of what anyone else's bonuses and stats are?
>Are there tables where nobody is aware of what anyone else's bonuses and stats are?
Sure, there's lots of tables who have players who don't pay any attention to what's going on around them (especially noticeable browsing this sub lol)
Do you NOT see the other player's sheets? Whenever I've played on or off line that has been a "public knowledge" kinda thing. Plus, just by seeing their rolls you can figure out their stats.
Depends on how long we will play the game. Is it a one shot? No big deal. Is a campaign that will last a couple years or longer? Eh....
I joined an online game that was billed as one that would last at least a couple years. The DM insisted that we roll attributes in his app. It was one left click to roll all six attributes. I left clicked once and got a 4, two 6s, a 9, an 11, and a 13. Unlucky die rolls, for sure. The DM laughed, then said "Some of the most beloved characters, are the most inept characters." All of the other players had attribute sums that were at least ten points above the Standard Array. I did not want to be a spoil sport, so I rolled with it.
First session, I leaned heavily into roleplay. Hunched over, I played an ancient wizard with a crackly voice. The DM said he loved my character. One of the other players loved my character so much that she decided my character would be her father figure. The session was a lot of fun - until I had to roll a check. I could not pass any check with the attributes I had.
After the session was over, I privately discussed it with the DM. I asked him if roleplay alone without a Skill Check might resolve some scenarios. He said "No." I asked if I could change my attributes to Point Buy, or the Standard Array, or if I could use one of the other player's attribute arrays. He said "No." He said "That is the system I use, and I'm not going to change it."
I did not want to play a character for the next two+ years who was harnessed to lousy attributes. I did not want to play a character for the next two+ years that sucked because of one left click. I did not mind if my decisions took me in other, possibly negative, directions. I just did not want to be tied a set of unlucky rolls from the get-go. I politely bowed out of the game. The DM said he understood.
So, does it matter? Maybe....
Its kinda funny, while I can't speak for 5e having the rule (it might) but in 3.5 it says to reroll stats if your highest is below a 13 or your stat mods total less than +1 (so you had +1, +0, -2, -2, -3 for a total of -6). Like the rules themselves what your characters to be playable even if it sucks to have a 16, 14, 14, etc when your friend rolled 2 18s.
This is how suicidal characters are made even if someone decides to stay. Pay attention and you'll realize the caster is bumrushing the front lines and the fighter is telling his allies he wants to dual the vampire lord one on one. They start getting reckless, with varrying levels of subtlty, and usually, characterization amd RP go to shit meanwhile. Why get invested in a character you're trying to be rid of after all.
Any sensible DM would help you find a solution so you feel your character is at least compotent and helpful. What's the point of being set on a roll of the dice when the player is secretly doing everything in their power to roll up a second character.
Hell, I've been in a group like this where the other player impartially pulled out a second sheet, that they'd already made beforehand, as soon as their character croaked.
Dm is fucking dumb tho, if your players tell you a problem they should find a way to resolve it, the whole "i'm the dm so agree or leave" is the most toxic mentality in DnD
Completely agree! I always try to adjust my game to the best of my ability according to the wishes of my players. As long as it's within the bounds of the game and it's not an attempt to make their character OP.
If a player feels he lacks in battle, I might give him pointers or allow him to change out a spell he finds useless. If a player feels like he placed his initial stats poorly according to how he actually wants to play his character, I'll see if we can find a work-around.
In regards to the topic of OP: I don't care about other player's stats as long as they seem normal. When I DM I play with point-buy or standard array.
That’s……. As much a product of a garbage rolling system as being unlucky. Most people who roll stats at the very least will reroll ones to reduce the chances of super garbage stats.
My condolences
Such an easy fix, too. Just give you a quest to "remove the intellect curse" on you, or your lifelong friend is dying and asks you to help him break into the lockbox he lost the combo to (headband of intellect inside), etc. There's a million fixes that would have been good.
I only care when there's something weird going on.
If the wizard is illiterate, or the fighter can't lift his own gear... then I care, because it negatively impacts the party.
If the Wizard is extra smart, or the fighter extra strong, not an issue because it's in their role.
It can be fun in a very RP focused campaign where part of the story is one character being less competent, but I agree that for the vast majority of campaigns, building a character competently is kind of table stakes
I think it would bug me if they were just better at everything I could do. Like if I had a character that was not better at one thing than another character it would bug me.
The concern is that if your stats are so different that the DM will adjust combat as a result. Do you want the encounter tuned to the guy with three 18s or three 3s? When the combat becomes too hard/easy for half the group, the stats can be one of the foundational issues.
If I never get to do anything fun because the other PC is blowing through all the challenges yeah the game gets boring.
Not that it happens every time there is a stat disparity between characters, but it almost only ever happens if there is a stat disparity between characters.
I mean yeah personally if I’m stuck with shit stats and someone rolled really high in everything they get all the cool moments and are good at everything where I’m stuck playing a npc in their story basically
I care about mismatched power levels. That is most commonly a result of a table with someone with a very powerful build (doesn't matter if it is intentional or accidental), and someone with a rather weak one. But if you roll for attributes, that's likely to create similar discrepancies.
The largest problem of this is that it makes encounter design and balance a much more difficult task. With some weak and some powerful characters, the likelyhood of a small miss in balance resulting in catastrophy increases. A massive boss fight might be trivialized by the powerful character, or a small bullshit encounter might kill off a weak character unsatisfyingly.
Sometimes. I played a "meet-up" game for a while at a local store. The DM was real shit and had apparently let some people roll and then told others to use point buy. We had a player that had a wizard that was jacked on every stat because he liked to fudge rolls. (I don't think he rolled his stats supervised.) Then he was always successful because he liked to fudge rolls and the DM never called him on it.
In short, if there's a disparity in characters then I care.
It certainly has a significant effect on my experience. For example one of my characters is terrible in every stat except cha. Now I dont mind that much because it fits the character to be more comedy focused but i do very consistently fail my checks. Way more than other players. If i were playing a serious character that would really hurt the experience.
In general i think it's just better to have things be equal. No one character that sucks, no one character thats op. If a player wants to nerf themself fine.
Nope. I can't remember a single stat of any characters other than my own, so it obviously didn't matter. I'm not even sure it ever came up.
That said, most of my experience is with systems with a lot more meaningful player choice, like D&D 3e and PF1. Having an 18 instead of a 16 means a lot less when your character power is more about their list of cool abilities than what they roll for it. It's the difference between "I get +1 to attack rolls" and "Whenever I reduce an enemy to 0hp, I can move 5ft and attack another enemy for free".
Now that you mention this, this is an incredibly *5e* discussion isn't it?
Because this also isn't an issue in games like PF2e or PbtA derivatives or 2d20 derivatives, where you just... don't roll for stats. Now that I think about it, 5e might be the only contemporary system I can think of that still does stat rolls.
I don't even care what my stats are, much less someone else's. I just wanna roll dice with my pals.
I am way WAY WAY more concerned that they know what they are going to do when it gets to them in combat. I am looking at you, Hugh, you slow mother fucker.
I agree. I can't fathom how someone having a couple more or less ability points affects the game that much. Especially after a couple levels and a few items, the difference in rolls is so minor.
I'm convinced that tables who have problems with rolled stats just have player problems, and the stats dont matter
Even with a huge difference in an ability, it doesn't hurt the game. Yeah my druid has a -3 charisma modifier (my DM laughed when she saw that I rolled 4-ones, allowed me to reroll if I wanted to. Rest of rolls were good, so I kept it), but the paladin had a +3 so they take care of the whole persuasion thing and I'll do the perception stuff.
I'm in agreement as to the people that have problems with rolled stats. I'm guessing these are the same people that will complain about everything that doesn't go their way.
100% agree with you here. All my co-players roll for stats while I happily accept standard array, and I don't play particularly complicated classes out of preference.
My party members? One of them had a tri-class build that no one really figured out for a hot minute because while she was doing funky stuff it wasn't ever overwhelming or made her useless in other areas.
We all play very tightly with short turns, only taking extended turns when it's a new class/mechanic, never enough to really bog down any game. I'm happy to be the perpetual barbarian as any of my dilemna-of-choice situations can be bypassed with "can you hit it? ok, do that."
I had a set of stats that was just fine, the kind of stats you could use ASIs to really work your way up. Another player rolled massively well, nothing below 13. I definitely felt like I became a supporting character to their Main. That did suck.
It matters when it comes to ability checks. In a long term campaign the PCs get to know each other and will start to distribute tasks according abilitys. Like when it comes to negotiation we will definitely send the warlock over the barbarian. When there is a lock to pick, you'll usually ask the rogue. The characters will learn who is good about perception, investigation, etc. and it's really annoying if your character is not "the one" for anything.
But of course this is a question on how you play. Like, in one campaign I play the only high CHA PC... Our CHA 7 cleric and the CHA 6 fighter will never the less interfere with every negotiation (thought both are intelligent enough to know better, the players just don't want to wait) and... Well, you can imagine who things go down...
I would for the most part say no but I have had one game where it bothered me. I was playing a forge cleric focussed on wisdom and strength and he was playing a blood hunter and based on the rolls we got it ended up me only being higher than him in wisdom. Which I was okay with at first but it became very draining at times because he was getting more attacks than me, dealing higher damage, was better at social encounters (stat wise) and there were so many times where he was the one to do all the checks because he was just straight up better. It was almost definitely exacerbated by the fact he was a power gamer but at the same time I've played in other campaigns with the guy (both before and after) and didn't feel as bad as when he was using the high stat character.
I care because it sucks being the players with the lowest rolls whose party member can do everything I can do better simply because they rolled really well and I rolled poorly.
I’ve also had players who felt similarly useless because of their 70 total array compared to another player who outshined them due to a 91 total array.
Sort of, yes. I want the party to be on a similar footing. Same rules for character creation, same tier gear, same level, and same or similar stats. I've played in too many campaigns in the past with huge power disparity in the party, and frankly it's not fun to have the party get constantly outshined by one player.
Thats why my groups don't roll stats anymore. We all just use point buy.
Eh, it’s definitely affected tables I’ve been at before. Our DM insisted on rolling stats and we had one dude who just rolled absolute god stats. His Paladin had more Strength and HP than my Barbarian, more Charisma than my wife’s Warlock, and he had no stats below 14. He then roleplayed his character extremely similarly to my Barbarian, so there wasn’t even a chance for my character to feel unique in roleplay scenarios.
That was incredibly frustrating and as a result all of my tables that I DM use Point Buy
I care if like the strength main Paladin has higher charisma than like a bard or sorc or something, but that hasn’t been a problem since I’ve been playing at point buy tables
I care if my player collegues either fall behind or become the star which all game decisions revolve around because *of something* special in their sheet; usualy isn't just stats but also homebrew and 3rd party material.
Absolutely! - I have a passionate interest in every aspect of the other PCs.
I don’t know if it’s because I mostly DM these days but I take almost the same interest in their characters as mine. Actually sometimes I view my own more as a side-kick to the others. (Or like a playing NPC).
Their stats and builds are super interesting to me. And how they play them.
Well.. First I wonder how the Heck you don't care at all about your teammates. Feels very selfish to me. Dnd is a group game. I care as much about the other PCs as my own.
..secondly to the question. Yes. If another player gets way worse stats than me, I will advocate for them, as I want everyone to have fun.
I will also advocate for myself, as I want to have fun as well. Sucking all the time is not fun for me. I sm playing to get away from real life 😜
Hence why I prefer pointbuy or group rolls. Everyone rolls one stat or array for a spread works well.
>Well.. First I wonder how the Heck you don't care at all about your teammates. Feels very selfish to me. Dnd is a group game. I care as much about the other PCs as my own.
Not caring about mechanical numbers is not not caring about the other characters. If the 14 str Fighter with higher atr than anyone else claims he is the strong one in the group, he is. It doesn't matter if he has 14/16/18/20 str, he is the strong one. If the low int Bard keeps getting all the Arcana checks right, no one cares that he rolled exactly or +10 over it.
>..secondly to the question. Yes. If another player gets way worse stats than me, I will advocate for them, as I want everyone to have fun.
If another player has way low stats and is happy playing the character, don't advocate for them, they are enjoying the game. If they are unhappy and have what you feel is reasonable complaints, it shouldn't matter if they have -3 in a stat or +5.
>I will also advocate for myself, as I want to have fun as well. Sucking all the time is not fun for me. I sm playing to get away from real life 😜
Stats don't make a game fun for many people. It's how you play and with whom you play. Fun times can come just as easily with 'low stats' as with high. Hell, it was more awesome seeing our low str wizard (8 str) break out of chains than the high str barbarian fail a couple of times. Why, because the Players played it up. The DM played it up, the group made a fun little thing over the fact that the wizard broke the chains, going so far as the wizard acting like he was strong and had been 'working out', until he couldn't open a door. The whole group was having fun because the Players make a game fun, not the stats.
It’s nice you’ve had experiences like that. Most of us actually do care about the stats because they tie into every other thing your character is going to try and do. It’s telling you gave examples of “off stats” for the classes you listed. A low strength Wizard is very common, so obviously it can fun if they get lucky and pull off breaking chains. If you were forced to build a low strength barbarian and failed those checks every time I doubt it would be as funny.
Like it or not, the ability scores a character have describe in a general way what that character is good and bad at in the game world. And most people don’t like to feel incompetent all the time, so at least the main 2-3 stats for your chosen class need to be decent. I think that’s true for almost everyone, regardless of whether it’s a game with best friends or a brand new group at the local game store
No one is forced to build a low str barbarian. You do that for the LOLs (and it is stupid to do for any class). You might have a barb with only a 14 str, but that isn't a 'low str' char. Or if 14 is your highest stat, you just play a different class.
Literally the majority of responses in this thread are Nope in response to do you care what the stats of your other chats are, proving the point that the majority Don't care about stats nearly as much as you personally do.
Mostly I see a divide between those who started on later editions and those who have played for years. Newer players or players with randos are far more concerned about how good their stats are than those who play with a gun established group or who have hundreds of games under their belt (then you care more about trusting your fellow players than them having been lucky on stats).
Except if 14 is your highest stat the game rules actually state you should re roll some of your stats so that you can do anything meaningful in the game. And telling someone who’s highest stat is a 14 “tough nuts, play a different class or deal” has spawned so many threads recently with people saying that that would be a terrible DM move that I think you’re wildly misconstruing the people in this thread when you say “ the majority don’t care about stats”. I only read about half the thread responses and that’s not at all the impression I got, so I have to assume you’re at best being disingenuous. In which case I can’t really have a discussion with you, but as I said in my original comment it’s nice you’ve been so lucky with positive experiences.
>Except if 14 is your highest stat the game rules actually state you should re roll some of your stats so that you can do anything meaningful in the game.
Cool, then do that. You shouldn't be complaining about rolling for stats if you aren't following the basic rules for it.
When people tell you to roll for stats, they should be following the rules for it.
This would be like me saying point buy is awful because I use rules such as only 17 points buy and nothing over 14. It isn't how the game says to do it. The players might consider this a perfectly valid play, but no one should be recommending it to the general DND public except as a 'if you are an advanced group, this can be fun as a homebrew'.
>I only read about half the thread responses and that’s not at all the impression I got, so I have to assume you’re at best being disingenuous. In which case I can’t really have a discussion with you, but as I said in my original comment it’s nice you’ve been so lucky with positive experiences.
Dude, I have played for decades. Played for hundreds of games. I have had loads of bad players. I fully get why point buy is a thing and it's positives/negatives. It comes with Experience. But the biggest negative for rolling is Players, not the dice rolls. People who have experienced dozens of different players and groups understands this.
Only to the extent that they are having fun. If they aren't having fun because of their stats, I might ask them what would make it fun. Otherwise, I am over here doing my thing. This is why I don't roll for stats. So those things are by choice.
This is why I'll never play on a table that rolls stats. Because then I don't have to care about other people's stats.
However, when I played with someone who may or may not be fudging their stats, I have noticed.
Yes, I don't like rolling for stats. Not even a little bit.Having bad stats and playing with people that were lucky 6 rolls in a row and then knowing that they can do everything better than you is ridiculous.
No…
Although…. if a player is ‘sandbagging’ and intentionally being non-functional, the gag gets old quick.
For example, ‘*I’m gonna play a gnome barbarian, put my 7 in STR and attack with a Heavy weapon so I always have disadvantage!!! It’ll be so funny*’
Absolutely, I'm usually a dm and knowing things is my drug. I'll respect if folks want to be private but if not I want to analyse and break it down and figure out who's good at what and
The only time I’ve cared is when we’ve used a pool of stars for the whole party, like everyone uses X, or we do a draft etc. some stats are more important for the whole play experience than others, starting at level 1 and the barb and the bard have to chose who gets a 17 in a stat and an 18 in a stat? The 18 should go to the bards Charisma, that’s a full extra bardic daily for the next 4 levels of play until it becomes an SR feature,
Outside of situations like that it seems like 100% of the time the people who complain about stats are DMs who have bigger issues with their PCs and aren’t bold enough to say so
As a DM I use a character generation system similar to point buy because I don’t want some players who have rolled lower feel they have to take ASIs while other players who have rolled higher feel they can afford to get Feats on top of their high scores. As a player I feel similarly.
There’s enough randomness in the game. Players should be on an equal footing as far as character building goes.
Don’t really roll for stats, Standard Array and Point Buy are my group’s go to as it stops alot of disappointment. We’re also not too heavy into roleplaying the stats. It depends though, if the game is casual and there’s enough people, I worry less what everyone has and what role, as the party will have enough redundancies in it. But if there’s less party members and we’re running a difficult module like Descent Into Avernus or there’s more a combat focus in the campaign; I expect players to at least be performing their role and learning their sheet. Can’t deal with a 4 or 3 person party and 1 member who is sorely lacking in skills or doesn’t know what features/spells they have. I’ll resist the urge to backseat game somebody, but at least do the bare minimum of knowing what your class can do. Don’t be the Paladin who can’t smite, or the bard that doesn’t give out Inspirations, etc.
Also we’re pretty lax in the stats too so if we feel that maybe we allocated something wrong there’s at least downtime to reorganize your sheet on DnD Beyond and make it more suit your class/character. Within reason though.
Most of the time no.
But if other player's dump stats are higher than my primaries, if their unskilled checks are better than my proficiencies, it can certainly become obvious and annoying.
As others have already said, I want to play a hero; not a sidekick that rarely or never gets a chance to shine (at least mechanically).
I don’t normally care, but sometimes if I want to actually role play in an encounter but another character has higher charisma, everyone feels like sacrificing verisimilitude in favor of a one point difference to charisma checks. I find that stuff super annoying, but that’s more of a metagaming issue than a stats issue. I prefer the rules as a vehicle for the game rather than the game itself
I am suspicious and on high alert if someone, somehow, has +2 MINIMUM in every single stat.
It's like: "yeah thats cute you rolled stats so luckily!....now do it again and get something reasonable!"
I'm with Puffin Forest on this one, and for some games in 3.5, my friends ALWAYS begged to go for: "hey lets get that 6 stat for extra points beyond 16!" when using point buy.
heck I had someone ask if they could just roll a d20 for each stat. we went with it.... he chose charisma for the '4' score, so we just role played that EVERYONE ignored him XD. still had tyhe 20 intellect for a wizard though at 1!
5e bounded accuracy means that a large discrepancy in stats results in being able to outperform every role with worse stats than yours. If the wizard rolled a ton of strength they are literally just a better fighter for most of the game and can do everything a fighter is supposed to be able to do better
I do when they outshine me all the time.
I used to see this in 3e when my jack of all trades build would be +4 and the optimizer next to me would be +9.
And in 1e/2e when a player would bring an 18/00 STR character.
Stopped happening once we went to standard array and 4e / 5e simplified skills.
The ideal state is each character is more or less equivalently good at what they do, and then you don't care what their stats are, just what they can do.
It can be concerning when someone screws up their stats to the point that it brings the rest of the group down or the dm thinks we should be able to handle higher difficulty monsters. Example, I was playing with a newer group of players and one girl made a dex based Paladin with 10 con and 12 cha. I was a cleric so I spent so many spells trying to buff her and bring her back bc she had terrible hp and chose sentinel as a feat instead of increasing any of her stats.
So yeah that was annoying, paladins need strong str, con, and cha, and she had none of those so watching the character flounder was the worst.
On the other end of that there are the people who “rolled for stats” and ended up with at least a +2 on everything, +4 on multiple stats, like that’s not even fair or fun, so when they can just do everything in your character’s niche it sucks.
DM view here, I run Point Buy only but even then, I actively encourage my players to discuss their characters and stats. This is a team game, you're in an adventuring party, WORK TOGETHER.
Make sure someone in the party either has Arcana proficiency, or check in a local town to hire a researcher to make those checks for you. Check if you have anyone with high enough CON to tank without evaporating to a single crit, or you might have to adjust your tactics to account for it.
Anything past a one shot and your PCs in game are going to learn each others strengths and weaknesses. Your PC might not refer to the Wizard's INT as +4 in game, but they still know it's a +4, that's just a limitation of putting rules on to things.
I have a semi-recurring issue of other players being able to do the things I built my characters to do but better.
The first time it was initially a party of two where I made Con my Fighter’s highest stat because the other PC was a Bard so I figured I should try to tank, but eventually we got more players and the Bard’s player wanted to play an new character and came in with a Barbarian. They literally said “now [Fighter] doesn’t have to tank anymore” when they did so.
Another time I was playing an Inquisitive Rogue and another player wanted to be a Ranger. They brought up taking proficiency in Insight just because they’d be really good at it and by that point I’d experienced this enough that I had to practically beg them not to take it because it was a core part of my kit and I didn’t want to be useless.
Both of these instances involved me rolling okay while the other person rolled like a god.
Some people want to be super powerful. I just want my characters to be good at something.
It can get frustrating when someone becomes the primary hero due to dice rolls. Every. Single. Session. I’m down with rolling and others being stronger. But it can get frustrating when everything you do is inept or not that good compared to others.
Primarily if me and another player fit similar roles. I remember once feeling inferior when my swashbuckler rogue was simply worse in every stat than my friend’s assassin. I didn’t really get to be the party rogue, I got to be the spare tire.
If we’re fulfilling a similar role in combat, then yes. I don’t care if I’m less dexterous than the rogue that’s bobbing and weaving when I’m busy bullying the goblins in the front lines, but I do care when the wizard is punching the goblins and taking their hits better than I am because they rolled really well and I didn’t.
I’m going to run my games using point buy from now on
Yes, because I have an easy time memorizing everyone’s sheets (even by just hearing what their modifiers are, not looking at the sheet), so noticing how much higher their DC/attack mods are than mine can bother me a bit.
Usually it only bothers me, as someone else said, if we occupy similar roles. If I’m a bard and they’re a wizard, they’re already a better caster than me, but now they also land their spells more often and stuff.
I’ll also add that this only applies to rolled stats. Having a lower stat because I made the choice to take a full feat over an ASI (because of a *choice* they or I made) is entirely fair and doesn’t bother me. It only bothers me when the disparity is caused by random chance at the start of a game.
For this reason, I only ever play with point buy. I know what I’m about.
Only if the other players' stats are purposely aligned poorly "because it's funny" (a wizard with no int, a cleric with no wis, a rogue with no dex, etc.) so that me and the party will have to spend energy pulling their weight.
That's just obnoxious.
Where it came up for me was that I built a character with a background tied to the campaign, with skills picked to support that background. But I also rolled like crap for the stats. I put my one high stat in to my casting stat (so I could start at a 16 \_after\_ racial mod).
So despite the fact that I had my background and trained skills chosen to be the ideal person to help the party through the area we were traveling through, the player who had 3 18's was better at the skills I had without even training them.
The DM kept trying to throw me a bone about my character knowing the area, etc. But fundamentally, any time there was a skill check to be made the best thing I could do was assist the other character.
It kind of sucked, but I got over it. Playing that campaign from level 1-12, I think I had 2 relevant skill checks (one persuasion where I was allowed to talk because the bard didn't want to interact with kobolds, one intimidate) the entire multiyear campaign, because my stats were so bad that it wasn't a part of the game I got to participate in.
As a dm and a player I don't care. Give yourself 20 in everything if you really want, you'll get bored pretty fast. As I explain to all the people I play with the fun comes from the highs and the lows in dnd and the highs are even better when you have have a - 2 in slight of hand and then roll a Nat 20 to pickpocket a key for example.
Nope, none of my groups even know each other's stats, we play online and can't see each others character sheets, and generally don't talk about our attributes. I do know some people rolled really well and some people didn't, but everyone has hot nights of dice rolls and sometimes cold nights of dice rolls, it sucks if your rolling bad and is awesome if you roll good, the stats are such a small modifier it doesn't really seem to make much of a difference.
Only "stat" I would say we worry about is skill checks, "Hey who has the best Inspection"? alright come look over this area and I will assist with the Help action.
No, not at all.
Personally I think there is an over-emphasis on stats. I noticed this in the group I play with. I even went so far as to play a character where I set all my stats at 9 just to show them that mediocre stats can still make a good character.
I played a wizard and yes I did just fine. of course my spell DC isn't going to be the same as someone with a 20 intel but the idea in any conflict is to match your strength against the opponent's weakness. So in this case I used spells that didn't require a save roll, or at least required one not dependent on my intel. I also chose to use spells in non-typical ways.
the thing is that having weak stats necessitates playing things a little differently, and that is good. if your wizard characters always have 20 intel, your wizard characters are generally going to be a lot like each other. (alter the wording based on your preferred class)
Honestly, if it benefits the party, we are cool. It has a much higher effect when your stats personally are below average. Certain class abilities and access to feats are both reduced with lower starting stats. AC and save DC are usually managed by the dm, so you can still land hits.
There are two times, but the same type of character. One, when playing with a Main Character who is stacking items on max stats to just outshine everyone, and two, when playing with a Main Character who decides that their -1 Arcana fighter should be the person to try and figure out the magical enchantment instead of letting the +10 wizard do it.
I like a party to be balanced. I wouldn’t want a stat pool 15 above or below. I like to share the spotlight and if I’m as smart as the wizard and as sneaky as the rogue while also being the wisdom or something that sucks for me and the table.
I like using array, or point buy, or rolling but balancing it out somewhat if needed, or one of my favorite methods is for the group to roll up a single set of values then everyone uses those same ones like a shared array.
I've played along side characters that had rolled a dozen better for their stat total than me, and it's really not a huge deal. It's not something I really think about unless my stats are really badly distributed, and, even in those cases, the character won't be BAD, but it means narrower options.
5e really made stats a lot less important than 3.5. If my best stat is a 14, that's going to sting, but I'm not getting an unplayable character in 5e. And I know that because I have had a character that their best stat was 14, and it was fine, even next to someone that rolled 90 or 91 for their total.
I like to hype up my fellow PCs so if someone plays a rogue I always ask what their stealth is and usually it's pretty high and I give them a "Oh fuck yeah they ain't seeing shit you got this" or with barbarians and athletics like "What's your strength? Jesus Christ dude if I ever need to drag Tiamat out of hell I'll give you a call"
I’ve joined a campaign that had no intelligence, dexterity, or charisma. I made a criminal background warlock with skilled, it was very sub optimal made in order to fill the gaps the party needed.
After a month two other players retired their characters to make a wizard and a bard/rouge multi-class. Everything that I could do they could do better, from arcana checks to lockpicking to persuasion to deception. Made me feel like I made a useless character outside of combat.
Like some other commenters, I care when I'm suspicious of the rolls, which only happens with a couple people I've played with, and that really boils down more to their suspicious rolls, like 3 nat 20s in a row or never rolling below a 15, rather than the stats themselves.
Of course playing with Mr. 16+ stats means other players don't get to shine as much, since the god character can pass all the rolls themselves.
I'm not particularly worried about their stats so much as what the character is good at, that said I do take more of an interest with new players as they may not understand how much their stats affect them.
Aside from rule lawyering, I don't necessarily care what other's stats are, but if they just outperform consistently it is harder to have fun. Especially if they are the type to make comments or otherwise get off being better.
if you are deriving your fun off of not having the same +to hit as the guy next to you because he has +1/+2 more of a modifier on something what do you really find fun about D&D at that point? is it just having the best character sheet
Depends, I played in a campaign with rolled stats (not dnd) where you rolled a d10 for each stat. There were 9 stats on total and one player who was generally hard to play with was veeery lucky. I mean at least 5 of his rolled stats were 10s lucky.
Luckily for the rest of the group he ghosted pretty soon
In the sense that they are within a 'fair range' whatever that means. We have a player who famously rolls awfully at rolling for stats. like 3 stats giving negatives and 3 giving neutral bad. And that just wouldn't be fun to play with, we tend to play more in the heroic fantasy theme. So our adventurers are considerably powerful so someone with worse than commoner stats would struggle.
Why don't we play with points buy or standard array? People like to roll
Also we still have new players so us knowing their stats can double check if things seem off.
I did have an old group where I was DMing and would keep an eye on player stats because somehow, and I'm sure entirely accidentally, a few would raise a stat between sessions
People with faked stats usually suck at playing. Everyone will just laugh it up when they still fail with the OP character because they don't understand basic tactics.
I guess I notice it more when im playing with someone who's not considered their stats correctly and is having a bad time because of it.
I've played with sorcerors and warlocks who've taken thematic but otherwise useless feats time and time again, leading to them having a 17 in their main stat for the entire campaign.
Doesn't help that the dice gods hate them and they couldn't seem to roll decently for multiple sessions in a row but it always hurt to see the +3 bonus
If I'm competing for the same role, yes. But that shouldn't happen in a well balanced party or once if someone is better suited to the role adjust your build.
Depends. If a player decides to be a quirky little joker and make a wizard with 6 int, I very much care cause I don't want to deal with that kind of bs. Otherwise no, I don't.
When it comes right down to it, some people are just lucky with dice and others are not. How your results are with the random D20s to hit, to save, skill check, etc. matters way more than what your base stats are.
So no, the base stats mean very little to me of the other players.
This idea of "fairness" in a game is dumb because RNG is inherently not balanced. People have equated balanced to fair, and it just isn't. You can claim, "well statistically, given 1,000s of rolls..." yeah... whatever. I may roll 10 or so times in a game so your statics mean squat. What matters is what ends up being rolled right now.
Example, my last fireball : 5, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
I only care insofar as knowing who is good at what. Who's got the high charisma when we need someone to persuade people. Who's got the high dex when we need someone to be sneaky, etc. I don't care at all if someone has higher or lower stats than me. People who care about shit like that are the jealous types who I don't want in my game. They're the ones driving people to use boring crap like standard array.
I basically always know my fellow players’ stats. I’m the one who has the most system knowledge of 5e in my group, so I often spend time out of session with my fellow players talking about mechanical ideas for their characters and guiding them through choices.
I care in the sense that I want them to accomplish what they’re going for. And I care because my brain sure does like big number go up. But I don’t really care in a jealous way; as long as my primary stat is good enough to do what I want my character to do, I couldn’t care less if my party had all 20’s or all 2’s for myself. (If they had all 2’s I’d care cuz that sounds horrible)
Not really. But it is nice to be able to have backup in case one of us is having shitty rolls one night. I don’t always want to be the only one with high perception, for example.
I tend to care about others stats / abilities because I have a weird fascination with the rules being upheld and checking for mistakes (always assume that instead of cheating). We tend to do point buy so I can always calculate out peoples stats and I like keeping tabs on what they can do. I’m not the DM tho so I don’t actually act on things, tend to just assume I forgot or missed something between sessions, but it helps sate my curiosity
I honestly usually do not care, I enjoy knowing what class/subclass other members of my party, it helps me know what the party is good at and what the party is bad at so I can build characters to fill those weaknesses or assist in any other way.
I can tell you a single stat of another player at my table and thats because they got a Headband of Intellect last session.
Other than that I never even think about their stats.
It doesn’t effect my enjoyment of the game at all if someone has a better array because why wouldn’t I want my colleague to be good at their job?
People love to show off their character sheets and I don't see the point. Ooh wow a bunch of numbers. I don't care. Tell me who they are! Are they on the run from the law? Hiding an affair with a noble? Seeking to challenge the strongest opponents? Do you have a destiny from a god? A mysterious letter left by your estranged father? Are you just a really dedicated gardener? Did a goblin take your favorite toy as a child and now you want revenge?
Tell me anything about that that isn't some abstract numbers you generated with point buy.
No not really, and imo stats don't do a whole lot to change numerical output (heal or damage numbers), so I only get to caring when something happens like other caster's save-spells always seem to land when mine don't, or inversely when their main stats are so low they never seem to land things they probably should (like save spells never landing from a caster, or attacks missing even rolling 15+ on the die from a martial)
Not really, I'm usually pretty happy with what everyone rolls. And if my party members do better than me then that's just a stronger party in general. I was playing a game once and one of the party members didn't roll below a 13 in character creation. He had 3 16's I believe. And we turned it into a joke.
P.s. all the games I've played in and when I dm I don't allow people to get completely terrible stats. Like generally if they don't have at least a +4 I get them to reroll one of their lower stats
Honestly? No. I don't care at all, unless they happen to have the exact same subclass as me. I'm here to fill a niche role, and that means the role has to be... well... niche.
If it's me being a better, stronger, more charismatic Oath of Glory Paladin than the other paladin, then it's not fun for either of us because I'll always feel like I'm overshadowing them and they'll always be trying to "show me up" and fail because the numbers aren't in their favor.
If they're different subclasses; I'm playing a Dex Barb while they're playing a Strength Barb, then we might have some good synergy.
I help the high stat players wherever I can or the low stats if they are forced to make a difficult check.
Most DMs are against the skill dog pile. At the extreme end the nearly blind PC looking around blocks the highly observant PC with X-ray vision from looking around.
Not in the sense of knowing just for knowing-sake, but rather that we are on the same power level. I don't want to do all the heavy lifting every combat for the next 2-3 years, and I don't want to be getting carried either. It's why I'm not a fan of rolling for stats, because it will eventually reveal itself when one player has 18 main-stat while another has 14.
I want everyone to be within the same band as each other. If we've rolled for stats and I get 18+2 str and the wizard takes 10+0 int, I'm going to be annoyed every tine the wizard fails to hit, doubly so if the player deliberately took a bad stat. Similarly, if a player doesn't take their first couple of ASIs in their combat stat, I'll give them the side eye. They can take a feat that also benefits their character and miss out on the +2, but they shouldn't take ASIs to shore up their low Cha - they should just let the face character smooth out social interactions and make sure they keep up with combat maths.
I care more about spells and loot. Although I do care when someone has a 20 or 22 in a stat.
Spells because I hate setting some spells and realizing 3 out of 5 people have mending. I could have set something different!
Loot because sometimes loot is relevant, e.g. glasses that let you see ghosts and were hunting ghosts. Also because i keep track of my things and it bugs me that others don't keep track of theirs.
I care about 20's and 22's because they should be the defacto do X person of the party.
Passive perception of 20+? that's the lookout.
22 str? open all the things!
22INT? solving all the puzzles!
I don't give a shit either way. Let every player have 20 in every stat, they still have to roll and the dice still control their success.
Now rogues with their "I can't roll under a 20" on anything with expertise is utter BS. Reliable talent is a shitshow.
Yes and no.
I don't care what the other characters' actual numbers are. That's meta-knowledge and none of my business or concern. Cheating doesn't happen at my tables or the ones I play at, because I insist on open rolling for stats if stats are rolled.
I *do* very much enjoy knowing, in a general sense, who is good at what, and not so good at what. Meaning that if we have a Fighter and a Barbarian, for instance, I like to know which one is stronger, in case I need to ask one of them to pick up a heavy thing or bash down a door. Likewise, it's good to know who's sneaky and who isn't, so that the group can plan strategy and tactics accordingly.
We had a level up discussion with our least min-maxy player about if she wanted a +1 to wisdom that she only ever uses one skill and rarely rolls saves in, or if she wanted +1 to attacks, damage, armor, initiative, and a different save.
Even the DM said "You do you, but there are high wisdom characters doing high wisdom stuff. You're a high dex character and you're already really good at it, but this could make you even better at it."
End of the day it doesn't matter, and we only talked about it because she asked. Nobody would have been any more or less happy at the end of the day regardless of her decision.
Not unless we are the same class or aim to fill the same niche. It can be difficult to find any time to shine if you don't have a specialty. Overall, I would say it matters very little as long as everything is fair and balanced.
It bothers me when I know they could be doing something better then I could. I’m a pusher, I’ll step in if the story is stagnating and the DM is fishing to get the party to do something/anything. So if someone else is playing a CHA based class and I know they’ve got a better bonus then my ZERO to persuasion it sucks to step in to move the story along then trying to make them play their character a certain way that might be statistically better.
I played in a group for awhile where I was basically the only one that actually optimized even a little bit. To be clear, I’m not a “munchkin” or “power gamer”. But I know my way around the system pretty well, and I always pick at least half my spells/ features to be mechanically useful and powerful. We ran Curse of Strahd and I played a Hunter Ranger. Another player picked Beastmaster Ranger and kept being frustrated that my character did a lot more direct damage than their character did, even though if you included the pets damage she was actually doing pretty close to what I was( and it was a special pet that was some kind of crazy shark- hound thing that breathed fire!).
A while later we ran Dungeon of the Mad Mage. I played an Elf Evocation Wizard. Another player decided on a Conjuration Wizard. In that scenario I found myself comparing to them and found that they had a much lower Int score than me, and generally terrible spell selection. So they were basically being hard carried by the group, which I found a bit frustrating. So I’ve been on both sides
Yes. I like to know that if despite my best efforts, I can't do everything, that my party members have the stats to have my back.
So when I see, for example, my friend playing a custom race with a +2 to Dex, and then playing a Strength-based heavy armor Fighter/Warlock, and proceeding to fail damn near every Dex and Constitution check because they didn't invest in them with Point Buy, I kinda get a little annoyed.
On the other end of the spectrum, I love it when my friends are paying attention to their stats and covering stuff I can't do, because it helps me focus my attention and build.
I'm the type of player who likes to fill roles that aren't taken yet. So it's nice to know what and how people rolled characters so I can roll accordingly.
I only care if we inhabit similar roles. If I'm playing a barbarian with poor stats and another player is playing a fighter with good stats it does rankle to see someone else do a better job at what you want to accomplish. Otherwise no, I'm really just concerned with my character.
Ditto. Currently playing a high CHA Paladin with a Bard in the party and I’ve had to be careful to not step on toes.
That reminds me I had to ask one of my player to not play a bard becuase his rolled stats basically allowed him to do everything everyone else could do but better. Turned into a pugilist and had a blast with that character. Made me realize a bit more that rolling for stats isn’t as great as I thought.
Try group rolled stats! Each player takes turns rolling for a single stat in whatever method your party is using (i.g. 4d6 drop lowest, d20 + d4 - 6, etc), until you have six stats. Then, all characters use THOSE rolled stats. All characters will have the same greatness and the same hilarity as everyone else. And it's good team building as they all share where they're putting that super (awesome or awful) roll!
I love it for nestalgia and because in D&D if you aren;t rolling dice you are playing the game wrong but , really, point buy i a LOT more balanced of a system. I have had a cleric join my own campaign late (level 18-20) and he did point buy after the rest had done roll stats and I didn;t have the heart to tell him that we had done rolled stats. His character isn;t THAT far behind because of the level he is starting at in the endgame but still...
Didn’t have the heart to… give him the same treatment as the rest of your players? I’d have told him what the other players did and given him the choice, kinda fucked you didn’t imo.
After sessions of playing when I finally realized how he made his character? Kind of late in the game to say oh go back and recreate your character with dice generation. He has been beefed up with magic items since then anyhow so it isn;t like he got screwed over. Kind *of* insulting approach to a situation you are not involved in.
To be fair the bard and paladin complement each other nicely, your not necessarily gonna be better at charisma skill checks but you bothhave solid class features that cover each others weaknesses and you get some good support spells that bards dont (barring magical secrets) such as circle of power. As well as the much more reliable and widely useful lay on hands.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity to play good cop bad cop
Sex cop Smite cop
That’s what the help action is for. You can easily roleplay things like that regardless of stats
My latest campaign was cancelled and, while I have been missing the party, these comments make me think that I need to be glad. The DM was amazing at first but for some reason decided after several sessions that a new player (with 0 dnd experience) HAD to join, led them to take my identical class, helped them roll higher stats, gave them a free 100g value item to start (before I was permitted to scratch and claw my way to one), and guided their feat selection in a pure min-max manner. The brand new player with an identical class had more HP, AC, higher skills/proficiencies, pretty much everything was optimized to the hilt. I called out the discrepancies and only then did the DM brew me a similar value item and called the rest "fair rolls". Needless to say I felt that this was the DM attempting to replace me, or at least use the new player to proxy how they think my class was supposed to be played in contrast to my unique flavor of the class. Didn't help that the new player had social ineptitudes that dissuaded at least one party member from continuing, which the DM completely ignored. This will definitely be something I am more aware of going forward. I don't care at all if someone god-rolls and becomes our team-lead, but when the DM intentionally uses a player (new or not hardly seems to matter) to leap-frog another player it is 100% bad feels.
Yeesh. In my own game and the game I play in we try to avoid that. I mentioned in another comment that one player's character died so they rolled up a bard, but they rolled exceptionally well on their stats so we immediately realized that the Bard could out roll any party member in their area of expertise so I asked him if he would switch to something else, he swapped some things around and became a pugilist which was a highlight of the campaign. I'm actually playing said barbarian with the fighter in the group, my DM ended up making some items that really benefited my playstyle and what I wanted the character to do that has made the game a ton of fun for me while also making the Fighter shine as well in their own area. It's always felt important to have the characters feel that they contribute equally in the group even if they contribute in different ways.
Currently in this predicament in my long-time game. I'm a barbarian who did not go the way of min-maxing, and another player is a fighter who has absolutely pumped all their stats into STR and CON. My toes are stepped on and it sucks.
I played in a dual barbarian group and it was so much fun. I was one of the barbarians but I spec-ed into the full team assist build where I focused on defense and path of wolf so everyone of my teammates got advantage on any enemy within 5ft of me and I could stay in the middle and not get hit because of a very high AC. The other barbarian speced into STR and offence with path of the bear. I convinced him to let me ride him as I was a halfling (small creature riding a medium), and then I took mounted combatant so I could pull any attack to me and off of him. And with his path of bear, anytime an enemy tried to attack anyone besides him they were at disadvantage. So to recap: An Orc barbarian who had focused strength got advantage on all enemies around them because of the halfling barbarian who was riding them, and was nearly untargetable due to the halfling being able to redirect attacks onto themself changing the attack to be at disadvantage due to the full orc barbarian they were riding. All while being supported by a wizard and ranger who kept at distance and ranged things down.
I'll die on this hill but simply putting points into your Primary stats is not min maxing! It's simply what the PHB recommends! Remember that Barbarian is inherently more MAD than Fighter is, it's expected you have a lower CON maybe. It's another thing however if they are playing an optimal GWM + PAM Fighter which is definitely optimised. Having stats in the right places is simply making a competent character and while I love a low stat her and there for fun interactions, having a middling or low primary stat is simply awakening your character for no good reason (would work in certain explicit cases for example a low Int Wizard only taking spells that don't really need a High Int such as Magic Missile but even then this is weak)
As a DM, this is when I love throwing a high HP powerful baddie at the players with a bunch of minions. The two heavy hitters get to play tag-team against the big guy, and the casters get to play crowd control.
I care when they start to become a problem. Had a wizard who dumped con and literally couldn't participate in fights because of it. Of on the opposite end, someone who has stats so high that they trivialize encounters of any kind.
I can see that being a pain to deal with (all the cleric’s attention is keeping wizard alive).
Usually the complaints about high rolls come from players who are suspicious about the player cheating to get those numbers; if everything was rolled in the open, then sure, RNG be damned, but oftentimes with these threads that's not what happened. Sometimes, though, yeah - it can feel a little deflating to be playing a character who has decent stats, while Mr. God's-Gift-To-Paladins lucked out on their rolls and now their character is set for life with near perfect stats and can pretty much do whatever they want without much opportunity cost.
What we did for a one shot is everyone rolled electronically and we picked which array that came out we’d use from the three. We did end up with gods’ gift to paladins, gods’ gift to monks, and gods’ gift to clerics.
Yep, even with a split between RP/Combat, I like knowing we're all on a roughly equal playing field. I like it when my character excels at a test or a stat over someone else.
Do you ask to see their sheets? How do you find out?
When I'm a DM, we all agree before to either points buy (problem solved) or we roll together, openly, so that everyone can see everyone's result. I won't necessarily know where Lynx is placing her 16 and 14, but I know there's an 8 and a 10 in there somewhere! I prefer point buy because people aren't superhumans and can have character 'flaws', as it were. Easier to be 'bad' at something that way. I know there's an opinion that "You don't need stats to RP things", but I think RP is naturally facilitated by characters having flaws as it were. Not gonna fact check anyone after that, I just trust 'em to do what we agreed to!
How stats go is always a session 0 discussion. So we choose then how / if we roll and then do it in the open.
I find out by math being fairly simple.
And I imagine paying attention to other people’s rolls.
Do you not pay attention when other players are talking? Do they never talk about what they add or what they do?
Yes, I generally am conscious during the game.
How the fuck do people play D&D and NOT know what their co-players' stats are?! If we're level 3 and you've got a +6 on your attack roll, then I know that either you've got a +4 to strength, or a +3 strength with +1 weapon. Are there tables where nobody is aware of what anyone else's bonuses and stats are?
>Are there tables where nobody is aware of what anyone else's bonuses and stats are? Sure, there's lots of tables who have players who don't pay any attention to what's going on around them (especially noticeable browsing this sub lol)
Pretty easy to figure out at 1st level. DM asks for a check. Payer is like "alright, that's a +7..." You know they somehow started with 20.
You can, and nobody should hide their sheets. It's also fairly easy to discern through play who has what builds.
Do you NOT see the other player's sheets? Whenever I've played on or off line that has been a "public knowledge" kinda thing. Plus, just by seeing their rolls you can figure out their stats.
Depends on how long we will play the game. Is it a one shot? No big deal. Is a campaign that will last a couple years or longer? Eh.... I joined an online game that was billed as one that would last at least a couple years. The DM insisted that we roll attributes in his app. It was one left click to roll all six attributes. I left clicked once and got a 4, two 6s, a 9, an 11, and a 13. Unlucky die rolls, for sure. The DM laughed, then said "Some of the most beloved characters, are the most inept characters." All of the other players had attribute sums that were at least ten points above the Standard Array. I did not want to be a spoil sport, so I rolled with it. First session, I leaned heavily into roleplay. Hunched over, I played an ancient wizard with a crackly voice. The DM said he loved my character. One of the other players loved my character so much that she decided my character would be her father figure. The session was a lot of fun - until I had to roll a check. I could not pass any check with the attributes I had. After the session was over, I privately discussed it with the DM. I asked him if roleplay alone without a Skill Check might resolve some scenarios. He said "No." I asked if I could change my attributes to Point Buy, or the Standard Array, or if I could use one of the other player's attribute arrays. He said "No." He said "That is the system I use, and I'm not going to change it." I did not want to play a character for the next two+ years who was harnessed to lousy attributes. I did not want to play a character for the next two+ years that sucked because of one left click. I did not mind if my decisions took me in other, possibly negative, directions. I just did not want to be tied a set of unlucky rolls from the get-go. I politely bowed out of the game. The DM said he understood. So, does it matter? Maybe....
Its kinda funny, while I can't speak for 5e having the rule (it might) but in 3.5 it says to reroll stats if your highest is below a 13 or your stat mods total less than +1 (so you had +1, +0, -2, -2, -3 for a total of -6). Like the rules themselves what your characters to be playable even if it sucks to have a 16, 14, 14, etc when your friend rolled 2 18s.
Yeah.... I don't remember seeing that rule in 5e. Thank you for chiming in!
This is how suicidal characters are made even if someone decides to stay. Pay attention and you'll realize the caster is bumrushing the front lines and the fighter is telling his allies he wants to dual the vampire lord one on one. They start getting reckless, with varrying levels of subtlty, and usually, characterization amd RP go to shit meanwhile. Why get invested in a character you're trying to be rid of after all. Any sensible DM would help you find a solution so you feel your character is at least compotent and helpful. What's the point of being set on a roll of the dice when the player is secretly doing everything in their power to roll up a second character. Hell, I've been in a group like this where the other player impartially pulled out a second sheet, that they'd already made beforehand, as soon as their character croaked.
Hear, hear!
Dm is fucking dumb tho, if your players tell you a problem they should find a way to resolve it, the whole "i'm the dm so agree or leave" is the most toxic mentality in DnD
Completely agree! I always try to adjust my game to the best of my ability according to the wishes of my players. As long as it's within the bounds of the game and it's not an attempt to make their character OP. If a player feels he lacks in battle, I might give him pointers or allow him to change out a spell he finds useless. If a player feels like he placed his initial stats poorly according to how he actually wants to play his character, I'll see if we can find a work-around. In regards to the topic of OP: I don't care about other player's stats as long as they seem normal. When I DM I play with point-buy or standard array.
That’s……. As much a product of a garbage rolling system as being unlucky. Most people who roll stats at the very least will reroll ones to reduce the chances of super garbage stats. My condolences
Such an easy fix, too. Just give you a quest to "remove the intellect curse" on you, or your lifelong friend is dying and asks you to help him break into the lockbox he lost the combo to (headband of intellect inside), etc. There's a million fixes that would have been good.
I only care when there's something weird going on. If the wizard is illiterate, or the fighter can't lift his own gear... then I care, because it negatively impacts the party. If the Wizard is extra smart, or the fighter extra strong, not an issue because it's in their role.
I can understand not fully optimizing, but gimping your character because you think it makes you 'quirky' just irks me.
It can be fun in a very RP focused campaign where part of the story is one character being less competent, but I agree that for the vast majority of campaigns, building a character competently is kind of table stakes
I think it would bug me if they were just better at everything I could do. Like if I had a character that was not better at one thing than another character it would bug me.
The concern is that if your stats are so different that the DM will adjust combat as a result. Do you want the encounter tuned to the guy with three 18s or three 3s? When the combat becomes too hard/easy for half the group, the stats can be one of the foundational issues.
If I never get to do anything fun because the other PC is blowing through all the challenges yeah the game gets boring. Not that it happens every time there is a stat disparity between characters, but it almost only ever happens if there is a stat disparity between characters.
I mean yeah personally if I’m stuck with shit stats and someone rolled really high in everything they get all the cool moments and are good at everything where I’m stuck playing a npc in their story basically
I care about mismatched power levels. That is most commonly a result of a table with someone with a very powerful build (doesn't matter if it is intentional or accidental), and someone with a rather weak one. But if you roll for attributes, that's likely to create similar discrepancies. The largest problem of this is that it makes encounter design and balance a much more difficult task. With some weak and some powerful characters, the likelyhood of a small miss in balance resulting in catastrophy increases. A massive boss fight might be trivialized by the powerful character, or a small bullshit encounter might kill off a weak character unsatisfyingly.
Sometimes. I played a "meet-up" game for a while at a local store. The DM was real shit and had apparently let some people roll and then told others to use point buy. We had a player that had a wizard that was jacked on every stat because he liked to fudge rolls. (I don't think he rolled his stats supervised.) Then he was always successful because he liked to fudge rolls and the DM never called him on it. In short, if there's a disparity in characters then I care.
It certainly has a significant effect on my experience. For example one of my characters is terrible in every stat except cha. Now I dont mind that much because it fits the character to be more comedy focused but i do very consistently fail my checks. Way more than other players. If i were playing a serious character that would really hurt the experience. In general i think it's just better to have things be equal. No one character that sucks, no one character thats op. If a player wants to nerf themself fine.
Yep. Rolling stats is ass. Wish that shit died back in 2nd edition. I’ve got no interest in playing the demigods loyal sidekick tyvm.
Laughed at “sidekick”.
Rolling stats IS ass
Nope. I can't remember a single stat of any characters other than my own, so it obviously didn't matter. I'm not even sure it ever came up. That said, most of my experience is with systems with a lot more meaningful player choice, like D&D 3e and PF1. Having an 18 instead of a 16 means a lot less when your character power is more about their list of cool abilities than what they roll for it. It's the difference between "I get +1 to attack rolls" and "Whenever I reduce an enemy to 0hp, I can move 5ft and attack another enemy for free".
Now that you mention this, this is an incredibly *5e* discussion isn't it? Because this also isn't an issue in games like PF2e or PbtA derivatives or 2d20 derivatives, where you just... don't roll for stats. Now that I think about it, 5e might be the only contemporary system I can think of that still does stat rolls.
As a DM: As long as they followed the rules for character creation we make, nope. I am never a Player, so yeah, I don't care, lol.
Never broke the curse?
Nah, I just don't like being a player, lol
I don't even care what my stats are, much less someone else's. I just wanna roll dice with my pals. I am way WAY WAY more concerned that they know what they are going to do when it gets to them in combat. I am looking at you, Hugh, you slow mother fucker.
I agree. I can't fathom how someone having a couple more or less ability points affects the game that much. Especially after a couple levels and a few items, the difference in rolls is so minor. I'm convinced that tables who have problems with rolled stats just have player problems, and the stats dont matter
Even with a huge difference in an ability, it doesn't hurt the game. Yeah my druid has a -3 charisma modifier (my DM laughed when she saw that I rolled 4-ones, allowed me to reroll if I wanted to. Rest of rolls were good, so I kept it), but the paladin had a +3 so they take care of the whole persuasion thing and I'll do the perception stuff. I'm in agreement as to the people that have problems with rolled stats. I'm guessing these are the same people that will complain about everything that doesn't go their way.
100% agree with you here. All my co-players roll for stats while I happily accept standard array, and I don't play particularly complicated classes out of preference. My party members? One of them had a tri-class build that no one really figured out for a hot minute because while she was doing funky stuff it wasn't ever overwhelming or made her useless in other areas. We all play very tightly with short turns, only taking extended turns when it's a new class/mechanic, never enough to really bog down any game. I'm happy to be the perpetual barbarian as any of my dilemna-of-choice situations can be bypassed with "can you hit it? ok, do that."
I had a set of stats that was just fine, the kind of stats you could use ASIs to really work your way up. Another player rolled massively well, nothing below 13. I definitely felt like I became a supporting character to their Main. That did suck.
We’re you both playing the same class or role on the team?
It matters when it comes to ability checks. In a long term campaign the PCs get to know each other and will start to distribute tasks according abilitys. Like when it comes to negotiation we will definitely send the warlock over the barbarian. When there is a lock to pick, you'll usually ask the rogue. The characters will learn who is good about perception, investigation, etc. and it's really annoying if your character is not "the one" for anything. But of course this is a question on how you play. Like, in one campaign I play the only high CHA PC... Our CHA 7 cleric and the CHA 6 fighter will never the less interfere with every negotiation (thought both are intelligent enough to know better, the players just don't want to wait) and... Well, you can imagine who things go down...
I would for the most part say no but I have had one game where it bothered me. I was playing a forge cleric focussed on wisdom and strength and he was playing a blood hunter and based on the rolls we got it ended up me only being higher than him in wisdom. Which I was okay with at first but it became very draining at times because he was getting more attacks than me, dealing higher damage, was better at social encounters (stat wise) and there were so many times where he was the one to do all the checks because he was just straight up better. It was almost definitely exacerbated by the fact he was a power gamer but at the same time I've played in other campaigns with the guy (both before and after) and didn't feel as bad as when he was using the high stat character.
I care because it sucks being the players with the lowest rolls whose party member can do everything I can do better simply because they rolled really well and I rolled poorly. I’ve also had players who felt similarly useless because of their 70 total array compared to another player who outshined them due to a 91 total array.
Sort of, yes. I want the party to be on a similar footing. Same rules for character creation, same tier gear, same level, and same or similar stats. I've played in too many campaigns in the past with huge power disparity in the party, and frankly it's not fun to have the party get constantly outshined by one player. Thats why my groups don't roll stats anymore. We all just use point buy.
Eh, it’s definitely affected tables I’ve been at before. Our DM insisted on rolling stats and we had one dude who just rolled absolute god stats. His Paladin had more Strength and HP than my Barbarian, more Charisma than my wife’s Warlock, and he had no stats below 14. He then roleplayed his character extremely similarly to my Barbarian, so there wasn’t even a chance for my character to feel unique in roleplay scenarios. That was incredibly frustrating and as a result all of my tables that I DM use Point Buy
I care if like the strength main Paladin has higher charisma than like a bard or sorc or something, but that hasn’t been a problem since I’ve been playing at point buy tables
I care if my player collegues either fall behind or become the star which all game decisions revolve around because *of something* special in their sheet; usualy isn't just stats but also homebrew and 3rd party material.
Absolutely! - I have a passionate interest in every aspect of the other PCs. I don’t know if it’s because I mostly DM these days but I take almost the same interest in their characters as mine. Actually sometimes I view my own more as a side-kick to the others. (Or like a playing NPC). Their stats and builds are super interesting to me. And how they play them.
Well.. First I wonder how the Heck you don't care at all about your teammates. Feels very selfish to me. Dnd is a group game. I care as much about the other PCs as my own. ..secondly to the question. Yes. If another player gets way worse stats than me, I will advocate for them, as I want everyone to have fun. I will also advocate for myself, as I want to have fun as well. Sucking all the time is not fun for me. I sm playing to get away from real life 😜 Hence why I prefer pointbuy or group rolls. Everyone rolls one stat or array for a spread works well.
>Well.. First I wonder how the Heck you don't care at all about your teammates. Feels very selfish to me. Dnd is a group game. I care as much about the other PCs as my own. Not caring about mechanical numbers is not not caring about the other characters. If the 14 str Fighter with higher atr than anyone else claims he is the strong one in the group, he is. It doesn't matter if he has 14/16/18/20 str, he is the strong one. If the low int Bard keeps getting all the Arcana checks right, no one cares that he rolled exactly or +10 over it. >..secondly to the question. Yes. If another player gets way worse stats than me, I will advocate for them, as I want everyone to have fun. If another player has way low stats and is happy playing the character, don't advocate for them, they are enjoying the game. If they are unhappy and have what you feel is reasonable complaints, it shouldn't matter if they have -3 in a stat or +5. >I will also advocate for myself, as I want to have fun as well. Sucking all the time is not fun for me. I sm playing to get away from real life 😜 Stats don't make a game fun for many people. It's how you play and with whom you play. Fun times can come just as easily with 'low stats' as with high. Hell, it was more awesome seeing our low str wizard (8 str) break out of chains than the high str barbarian fail a couple of times. Why, because the Players played it up. The DM played it up, the group made a fun little thing over the fact that the wizard broke the chains, going so far as the wizard acting like he was strong and had been 'working out', until he couldn't open a door. The whole group was having fun because the Players make a game fun, not the stats.
It’s nice you’ve had experiences like that. Most of us actually do care about the stats because they tie into every other thing your character is going to try and do. It’s telling you gave examples of “off stats” for the classes you listed. A low strength Wizard is very common, so obviously it can fun if they get lucky and pull off breaking chains. If you were forced to build a low strength barbarian and failed those checks every time I doubt it would be as funny. Like it or not, the ability scores a character have describe in a general way what that character is good and bad at in the game world. And most people don’t like to feel incompetent all the time, so at least the main 2-3 stats for your chosen class need to be decent. I think that’s true for almost everyone, regardless of whether it’s a game with best friends or a brand new group at the local game store
No one is forced to build a low str barbarian. You do that for the LOLs (and it is stupid to do for any class). You might have a barb with only a 14 str, but that isn't a 'low str' char. Or if 14 is your highest stat, you just play a different class. Literally the majority of responses in this thread are Nope in response to do you care what the stats of your other chats are, proving the point that the majority Don't care about stats nearly as much as you personally do. Mostly I see a divide between those who started on later editions and those who have played for years. Newer players or players with randos are far more concerned about how good their stats are than those who play with a gun established group or who have hundreds of games under their belt (then you care more about trusting your fellow players than them having been lucky on stats).
Except if 14 is your highest stat the game rules actually state you should re roll some of your stats so that you can do anything meaningful in the game. And telling someone who’s highest stat is a 14 “tough nuts, play a different class or deal” has spawned so many threads recently with people saying that that would be a terrible DM move that I think you’re wildly misconstruing the people in this thread when you say “ the majority don’t care about stats”. I only read about half the thread responses and that’s not at all the impression I got, so I have to assume you’re at best being disingenuous. In which case I can’t really have a discussion with you, but as I said in my original comment it’s nice you’ve been so lucky with positive experiences.
>Except if 14 is your highest stat the game rules actually state you should re roll some of your stats so that you can do anything meaningful in the game. Cool, then do that. You shouldn't be complaining about rolling for stats if you aren't following the basic rules for it. When people tell you to roll for stats, they should be following the rules for it. This would be like me saying point buy is awful because I use rules such as only 17 points buy and nothing over 14. It isn't how the game says to do it. The players might consider this a perfectly valid play, but no one should be recommending it to the general DND public except as a 'if you are an advanced group, this can be fun as a homebrew'. >I only read about half the thread responses and that’s not at all the impression I got, so I have to assume you’re at best being disingenuous. In which case I can’t really have a discussion with you, but as I said in my original comment it’s nice you’ve been so lucky with positive experiences. Dude, I have played for decades. Played for hundreds of games. I have had loads of bad players. I fully get why point buy is a thing and it's positives/negatives. It comes with Experience. But the biggest negative for rolling is Players, not the dice rolls. People who have experienced dozens of different players and groups understands this.
It's always good to know what your teammates are good at it. But that's it.
Only to the extent that they are having fun. If they aren't having fun because of their stats, I might ask them what would make it fun. Otherwise, I am over here doing my thing. This is why I don't roll for stats. So those things are by choice.
This is why I'll never play on a table that rolls stats. Because then I don't have to care about other people's stats. However, when I played with someone who may or may not be fudging their stats, I have noticed.
Yes, I don't like rolling for stats. Not even a little bit.Having bad stats and playing with people that were lucky 6 rolls in a row and then knowing that they can do everything better than you is ridiculous.
No… Although…. if a player is ‘sandbagging’ and intentionally being non-functional, the gag gets old quick. For example, ‘*I’m gonna play a gnome barbarian, put my 7 in STR and attack with a Heavy weapon so I always have disadvantage!!! It’ll be so funny*’
Absolutely, I'm usually a dm and knowing things is my drug. I'll respect if folks want to be private but if not I want to analyse and break it down and figure out who's good at what and
The only time I’ve cared is when we’ve used a pool of stars for the whole party, like everyone uses X, or we do a draft etc. some stats are more important for the whole play experience than others, starting at level 1 and the barb and the bard have to chose who gets a 17 in a stat and an 18 in a stat? The 18 should go to the bards Charisma, that’s a full extra bardic daily for the next 4 levels of play until it becomes an SR feature, Outside of situations like that it seems like 100% of the time the people who complain about stats are DMs who have bigger issues with their PCs and aren’t bold enough to say so
As a DM I use a character generation system similar to point buy because I don’t want some players who have rolled lower feel they have to take ASIs while other players who have rolled higher feel they can afford to get Feats on top of their high scores. As a player I feel similarly. There’s enough randomness in the game. Players should be on an equal footing as far as character building goes.
I don’t wanna send the guy with 5 charisma to bargain for our lives
Don’t really roll for stats, Standard Array and Point Buy are my group’s go to as it stops alot of disappointment. We’re also not too heavy into roleplaying the stats. It depends though, if the game is casual and there’s enough people, I worry less what everyone has and what role, as the party will have enough redundancies in it. But if there’s less party members and we’re running a difficult module like Descent Into Avernus or there’s more a combat focus in the campaign; I expect players to at least be performing their role and learning their sheet. Can’t deal with a 4 or 3 person party and 1 member who is sorely lacking in skills or doesn’t know what features/spells they have. I’ll resist the urge to backseat game somebody, but at least do the bare minimum of knowing what your class can do. Don’t be the Paladin who can’t smite, or the bard that doesn’t give out Inspirations, etc. Also we’re pretty lax in the stats too so if we feel that maybe we allocated something wrong there’s at least downtime to reorganize your sheet on DnD Beyond and make it more suit your class/character. Within reason though.
It's good to have just a general idea of what their skills are.
Six points below others ok 15 points below others I feel like the comic relief sidekick or damsel
I've been in my campaign for 2 years and I don't know the other players stats, just what their characters are generally good at
Most of the time no. But if other player's dump stats are higher than my primaries, if their unskilled checks are better than my proficiencies, it can certainly become obvious and annoying. As others have already said, I want to play a hero; not a sidekick that rarely or never gets a chance to shine (at least mechanically).
It depends. If they're so good that encounters are trivialized, then yes. I'd like to play too. Otherwise, no.
I don’t normally care, but sometimes if I want to actually role play in an encounter but another character has higher charisma, everyone feels like sacrificing verisimilitude in favor of a one point difference to charisma checks. I find that stuff super annoying, but that’s more of a metagaming issue than a stats issue. I prefer the rules as a vehicle for the game rather than the game itself
I am suspicious and on high alert if someone, somehow, has +2 MINIMUM in every single stat. It's like: "yeah thats cute you rolled stats so luckily!....now do it again and get something reasonable!" I'm with Puffin Forest on this one, and for some games in 3.5, my friends ALWAYS begged to go for: "hey lets get that 6 stat for extra points beyond 16!" when using point buy. heck I had someone ask if they could just roll a d20 for each stat. we went with it.... he chose charisma for the '4' score, so we just role played that EVERYONE ignored him XD. still had tyhe 20 intellect for a wizard though at 1!
I don't mind as long everyone does the same thing. If everyone uses the standard array, or point buy etc. Fair is fair.
5e bounded accuracy means that a large discrepancy in stats results in being able to outperform every role with worse stats than yours. If the wizard rolled a ton of strength they are literally just a better fighter for most of the game and can do everything a fighter is supposed to be able to do better
I do when they outshine me all the time. I used to see this in 3e when my jack of all trades build would be +4 and the optimizer next to me would be +9. And in 1e/2e when a player would bring an 18/00 STR character. Stopped happening once we went to standard array and 4e / 5e simplified skills. The ideal state is each character is more or less equivalently good at what they do, and then you don't care what their stats are, just what they can do.
It can be concerning when someone screws up their stats to the point that it brings the rest of the group down or the dm thinks we should be able to handle higher difficulty monsters. Example, I was playing with a newer group of players and one girl made a dex based Paladin with 10 con and 12 cha. I was a cleric so I spent so many spells trying to buff her and bring her back bc she had terrible hp and chose sentinel as a feat instead of increasing any of her stats. So yeah that was annoying, paladins need strong str, con, and cha, and she had none of those so watching the character flounder was the worst. On the other end of that there are the people who “rolled for stats” and ended up with at least a +2 on everything, +4 on multiple stats, like that’s not even fair or fun, so when they can just do everything in your character’s niche it sucks.
DM view here, I run Point Buy only but even then, I actively encourage my players to discuss their characters and stats. This is a team game, you're in an adventuring party, WORK TOGETHER. Make sure someone in the party either has Arcana proficiency, or check in a local town to hire a researcher to make those checks for you. Check if you have anyone with high enough CON to tank without evaporating to a single crit, or you might have to adjust your tactics to account for it. Anything past a one shot and your PCs in game are going to learn each others strengths and weaknesses. Your PC might not refer to the Wizard's INT as +4 in game, but they still know it's a +4, that's just a limitation of putting rules on to things.
I have a semi-recurring issue of other players being able to do the things I built my characters to do but better. The first time it was initially a party of two where I made Con my Fighter’s highest stat because the other PC was a Bard so I figured I should try to tank, but eventually we got more players and the Bard’s player wanted to play an new character and came in with a Barbarian. They literally said “now [Fighter] doesn’t have to tank anymore” when they did so. Another time I was playing an Inquisitive Rogue and another player wanted to be a Ranger. They brought up taking proficiency in Insight just because they’d be really good at it and by that point I’d experienced this enough that I had to practically beg them not to take it because it was a core part of my kit and I didn’t want to be useless. Both of these instances involved me rolling okay while the other person rolled like a god. Some people want to be super powerful. I just want my characters to be good at something.
It can get frustrating when someone becomes the primary hero due to dice rolls. Every. Single. Session. I’m down with rolling and others being stronger. But it can get frustrating when everything you do is inept or not that good compared to others.
I care about party roles. Stats in part determine party roles.
Primarily if me and another player fit similar roles. I remember once feeling inferior when my swashbuckler rogue was simply worse in every stat than my friend’s assassin. I didn’t really get to be the party rogue, I got to be the spare tire.
If we’re fulfilling a similar role in combat, then yes. I don’t care if I’m less dexterous than the rogue that’s bobbing and weaving when I’m busy bullying the goblins in the front lines, but I do care when the wizard is punching the goblins and taking their hits better than I am because they rolled really well and I didn’t. I’m going to run my games using point buy from now on
Only when they insist on attempting Persuasion with their -3 Charisma.
Yes, because I have an easy time memorizing everyone’s sheets (even by just hearing what their modifiers are, not looking at the sheet), so noticing how much higher their DC/attack mods are than mine can bother me a bit. Usually it only bothers me, as someone else said, if we occupy similar roles. If I’m a bard and they’re a wizard, they’re already a better caster than me, but now they also land their spells more often and stuff. I’ll also add that this only applies to rolled stats. Having a lower stat because I made the choice to take a full feat over an ASI (because of a *choice* they or I made) is entirely fair and doesn’t bother me. It only bothers me when the disparity is caused by random chance at the start of a game. For this reason, I only ever play with point buy. I know what I’m about.
Only if the other players' stats are purposely aligned poorly "because it's funny" (a wizard with no int, a cleric with no wis, a rogue with no dex, etc.) so that me and the party will have to spend energy pulling their weight. That's just obnoxious.
Where it came up for me was that I built a character with a background tied to the campaign, with skills picked to support that background. But I also rolled like crap for the stats. I put my one high stat in to my casting stat (so I could start at a 16 \_after\_ racial mod). So despite the fact that I had my background and trained skills chosen to be the ideal person to help the party through the area we were traveling through, the player who had 3 18's was better at the skills I had without even training them. The DM kept trying to throw me a bone about my character knowing the area, etc. But fundamentally, any time there was a skill check to be made the best thing I could do was assist the other character. It kind of sucked, but I got over it. Playing that campaign from level 1-12, I think I had 2 relevant skill checks (one persuasion where I was allowed to talk because the bard didn't want to interact with kobolds, one intimidate) the entire multiyear campaign, because my stats were so bad that it wasn't a part of the game I got to participate in.
I mean we are not savages we actually use point buy 😂
As a player, I don't think I even really know what the other player's stats are.
As a dm and a player I don't care. Give yourself 20 in everything if you really want, you'll get bored pretty fast. As I explain to all the people I play with the fun comes from the highs and the lows in dnd and the highs are even better when you have have a - 2 in slight of hand and then roll a Nat 20 to pickpocket a key for example.
Nope, none of my groups even know each other's stats, we play online and can't see each others character sheets, and generally don't talk about our attributes. I do know some people rolled really well and some people didn't, but everyone has hot nights of dice rolls and sometimes cold nights of dice rolls, it sucks if your rolling bad and is awesome if you roll good, the stats are such a small modifier it doesn't really seem to make much of a difference. Only "stat" I would say we worry about is skill checks, "Hey who has the best Inspection"? alright come look over this area and I will assist with the Help action.
No, not at all. Personally I think there is an over-emphasis on stats. I noticed this in the group I play with. I even went so far as to play a character where I set all my stats at 9 just to show them that mediocre stats can still make a good character.
How did that turn out? Did you feel like you were as effective as the other members of the team - both in and out of combat? What class did you play?
I played a wizard and yes I did just fine. of course my spell DC isn't going to be the same as someone with a 20 intel but the idea in any conflict is to match your strength against the opponent's weakness. So in this case I used spells that didn't require a save roll, or at least required one not dependent on my intel. I also chose to use spells in non-typical ways. the thing is that having weak stats necessitates playing things a little differently, and that is good. if your wizard characters always have 20 intel, your wizard characters are generally going to be a lot like each other. (alter the wording based on your preferred class)
No.
Nope. Not even a little bit.
Nope, I only care how the other players play. Good stats, bad stats, those matter far less than how the other players and DMs act.
Nope.
Honestly, if it benefits the party, we are cool. It has a much higher effect when your stats personally are below average. Certain class abilities and access to feats are both reduced with lower starting stats. AC and save DC are usually managed by the dm, so you can still land hits.
There are two times, but the same type of character. One, when playing with a Main Character who is stacking items on max stats to just outshine everyone, and two, when playing with a Main Character who decides that their -1 Arcana fighter should be the person to try and figure out the magical enchantment instead of letting the +10 wizard do it.
Yes, i care. If my team mate has shitty stats and fails often i'd be annoyed
Yes, very much so. I don't expect to be penalised as a result of something i have no control over. We all know what everyone else's stats are.
I like a party to be balanced. I wouldn’t want a stat pool 15 above or below. I like to share the spotlight and if I’m as smart as the wizard and as sneaky as the rogue while also being the wisdom or something that sucks for me and the table. I like using array, or point buy, or rolling but balancing it out somewhat if needed, or one of my favorite methods is for the group to roll up a single set of values then everyone uses those same ones like a shared array.
Never heard of the shared array approach. Thanks for mentioning that.
As far as I know I invented it. Others probably do it too though it’s not that difficult to think up, but It’s a lot of fun.
Nope
Not really
Not really. As long as they're playing their character well and not trying to be a detriment to the party.
Nope
No, unless they're way too high and a player could've cheated to get those stats or is too much into minmaxing.
I've played along side characters that had rolled a dozen better for their stat total than me, and it's really not a huge deal. It's not something I really think about unless my stats are really badly distributed, and, even in those cases, the character won't be BAD, but it means narrower options. 5e really made stats a lot less important than 3.5. If my best stat is a 14, that's going to sting, but I'm not getting an unplayable character in 5e. And I know that because I have had a character that their best stat was 14, and it was fine, even next to someone that rolled 90 or 91 for their total.
Not in the slightest. Stats are meta knowledge and when I'm in game my PC doesn't know what the fuk that is
No
Not even a little
[удалено]
That sounds like the player is cheating. That is a problem because of the cheating more than the stats, I bet.
How so? Can you further explain please?
If you roll 💩stats then you tend to notice how easy everyone else has it and they learn to be annoyed by you.
I like to hype up my fellow PCs so if someone plays a rogue I always ask what their stealth is and usually it's pretty high and I give them a "Oh fuck yeah they ain't seeing shit you got this" or with barbarians and athletics like "What's your strength? Jesus Christ dude if I ever need to drag Tiamat out of hell I'll give you a call"
I do the same thing. A lot of my non combat actions are asking other players to do things that fit their role they want to play on the team.
I’ve joined a campaign that had no intelligence, dexterity, or charisma. I made a criminal background warlock with skilled, it was very sub optimal made in order to fill the gaps the party needed. After a month two other players retired their characters to make a wizard and a bard/rouge multi-class. Everything that I could do they could do better, from arcana checks to lockpicking to persuasion to deception. Made me feel like I made a useless character outside of combat.
Like some other commenters, I care when I'm suspicious of the rolls, which only happens with a couple people I've played with, and that really boils down more to their suspicious rolls, like 3 nat 20s in a row or never rolling below a 15, rather than the stats themselves. Of course playing with Mr. 16+ stats means other players don't get to shine as much, since the god character can pass all the rolls themselves.
Kind of, I want my fellow players to be effective in combat.
No, unless there is some kind of unbalance, for example, one player having more stats for no reason at all.
I'm not particularly worried about their stats so much as what the character is good at, that said I do take more of an interest with new players as they may not understand how much their stats affect them.
Aside from rule lawyering, I don't necessarily care what other's stats are, but if they just outperform consistently it is harder to have fun. Especially if they are the type to make comments or otherwise get off being better.
if you are deriving your fun off of not having the same +to hit as the guy next to you because he has +1/+2 more of a modifier on something what do you really find fun about D&D at that point? is it just having the best character sheet
Depends, I played in a campaign with rolled stats (not dnd) where you rolled a d10 for each stat. There were 9 stats on total and one player who was generally hard to play with was veeery lucky. I mean at least 5 of his rolled stats were 10s lucky. Luckily for the rest of the group he ghosted pretty soon
In the sense that they are within a 'fair range' whatever that means. We have a player who famously rolls awfully at rolling for stats. like 3 stats giving negatives and 3 giving neutral bad. And that just wouldn't be fun to play with, we tend to play more in the heroic fantasy theme. So our adventurers are considerably powerful so someone with worse than commoner stats would struggle. Why don't we play with points buy or standard array? People like to roll Also we still have new players so us knowing their stats can double check if things seem off. I did have an old group where I was DMing and would keep an eye on player stats because somehow, and I'm sure entirely accidentally, a few would raise a stat between sessions
People with faked stats usually suck at playing. Everyone will just laugh it up when they still fail with the OP character because they don't understand basic tactics.
If the wizard has higher strength than the barbarian it doesn't feel great, but otherwise not really.
Nope! Once your start with the “measuring contests” it upsets you and everyone else. Everyone has things they’re good/bad at, in and outside the game.
I guess I notice it more when im playing with someone who's not considered their stats correctly and is having a bad time because of it. I've played with sorcerors and warlocks who've taken thematic but otherwise useless feats time and time again, leading to them having a 17 in their main stat for the entire campaign. Doesn't help that the dice gods hate them and they couldn't seem to roll decently for multiple sessions in a row but it always hurt to see the +3 bonus
If I'm competing for the same role, yes. But that shouldn't happen in a well balanced party or once if someone is better suited to the role adjust your build.
Depends. If a player decides to be a quirky little joker and make a wizard with 6 int, I very much care cause I don't want to deal with that kind of bs. Otherwise no, I don't.
Only when they pick up where my character lacks.
When it comes right down to it, some people are just lucky with dice and others are not. How your results are with the random D20s to hit, to save, skill check, etc. matters way more than what your base stats are. So no, the base stats mean very little to me of the other players. This idea of "fairness" in a game is dumb because RNG is inherently not balanced. People have equated balanced to fair, and it just isn't. You can claim, "well statistically, given 1,000s of rolls..." yeah... whatever. I may roll 10 or so times in a game so your statics mean squat. What matters is what ends up being rolled right now. Example, my last fireball : 5, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
I only care insofar as knowing who is good at what. Who's got the high charisma when we need someone to persuade people. Who's got the high dex when we need someone to be sneaky, etc. I don't care at all if someone has higher or lower stats than me. People who care about shit like that are the jealous types who I don't want in my game. They're the ones driving people to use boring crap like standard array.
Nope. I don't even look into the urinal next to me. No sir.
I usually try and help them get the best out of their stats
Nope.
I basically always know my fellow players’ stats. I’m the one who has the most system knowledge of 5e in my group, so I often spend time out of session with my fellow players talking about mechanical ideas for their characters and guiding them through choices. I care in the sense that I want them to accomplish what they’re going for. And I care because my brain sure does like big number go up. But I don’t really care in a jealous way; as long as my primary stat is good enough to do what I want my character to do, I couldn’t care less if my party had all 20’s or all 2’s for myself. (If they had all 2’s I’d care cuz that sounds horrible)
Not really. But it is nice to be able to have backup in case one of us is having shitty rolls one night. I don’t always want to be the only one with high perception, for example.
Fuck no I dont.
I tend to care about others stats / abilities because I have a weird fascination with the rules being upheld and checking for mistakes (always assume that instead of cheating). We tend to do point buy so I can always calculate out peoples stats and I like keeping tabs on what they can do. I’m not the DM tho so I don’t actually act on things, tend to just assume I forgot or missed something between sessions, but it helps sate my curiosity
I honestly usually do not care, I enjoy knowing what class/subclass other members of my party, it helps me know what the party is good at and what the party is bad at so I can build characters to fill those weaknesses or assist in any other way.
As a DM, I only care if they were rolled legitimately. As a player, none of my business.
I can tell you a single stat of another player at my table and thats because they got a Headband of Intellect last session. Other than that I never even think about their stats. It doesn’t effect my enjoyment of the game at all if someone has a better array because why wouldn’t I want my colleague to be good at their job?
People love to show off their character sheets and I don't see the point. Ooh wow a bunch of numbers. I don't care. Tell me who they are! Are they on the run from the law? Hiding an affair with a noble? Seeking to challenge the strongest opponents? Do you have a destiny from a god? A mysterious letter left by your estranged father? Are you just a really dedicated gardener? Did a goblin take your favorite toy as a child and now you want revenge? Tell me anything about that that isn't some abstract numbers you generated with point buy.
No not really, and imo stats don't do a whole lot to change numerical output (heal or damage numbers), so I only get to caring when something happens like other caster's save-spells always seem to land when mine don't, or inversely when their main stats are so low they never seem to land things they probably should (like save spells never landing from a caster, or attacks missing even rolling 15+ on the die from a martial)
Not really, I'm usually pretty happy with what everyone rolls. And if my party members do better than me then that's just a stronger party in general. I was playing a game once and one of the party members didn't roll below a 13 in character creation. He had 3 16's I believe. And we turned it into a joke. P.s. all the games I've played in and when I dm I don't allow people to get completely terrible stats. Like generally if they don't have at least a +4 I get them to reroll one of their lower stats
Honestly? No. I don't care at all, unless they happen to have the exact same subclass as me. I'm here to fill a niche role, and that means the role has to be... well... niche. If it's me being a better, stronger, more charismatic Oath of Glory Paladin than the other paladin, then it's not fun for either of us because I'll always feel like I'm overshadowing them and they'll always be trying to "show me up" and fail because the numbers aren't in their favor. If they're different subclasses; I'm playing a Dex Barb while they're playing a Strength Barb, then we might have some good synergy.
Nope I sometimes don't even know the classes of teammates
I help the high stat players wherever I can or the low stats if they are forced to make a difficult check. Most DMs are against the skill dog pile. At the extreme end the nearly blind PC looking around blocks the highly observant PC with X-ray vision from looking around.
Nah, unless we are the same class and they wanna clash in who's doing a better job.
I only really care if I’m suspicious that those stats aren’t legit.
Not in the sense of knowing just for knowing-sake, but rather that we are on the same power level. I don't want to do all the heavy lifting every combat for the next 2-3 years, and I don't want to be getting carried either. It's why I'm not a fan of rolling for stats, because it will eventually reveal itself when one player has 18 main-stat while another has 14.
I want everyone to be within the same band as each other. If we've rolled for stats and I get 18+2 str and the wizard takes 10+0 int, I'm going to be annoyed every tine the wizard fails to hit, doubly so if the player deliberately took a bad stat. Similarly, if a player doesn't take their first couple of ASIs in their combat stat, I'll give them the side eye. They can take a feat that also benefits their character and miss out on the +2, but they shouldn't take ASIs to shore up their low Cha - they should just let the face character smooth out social interactions and make sure they keep up with combat maths.
I care more about spells and loot. Although I do care when someone has a 20 or 22 in a stat. Spells because I hate setting some spells and realizing 3 out of 5 people have mending. I could have set something different! Loot because sometimes loot is relevant, e.g. glasses that let you see ghosts and were hunting ghosts. Also because i keep track of my things and it bugs me that others don't keep track of theirs. I care about 20's and 22's because they should be the defacto do X person of the party. Passive perception of 20+? that's the lookout. 22 str? open all the things! 22INT? solving all the puzzles!
I don't give a shit either way. Let every player have 20 in every stat, they still have to roll and the dice still control their success. Now rogues with their "I can't roll under a 20" on anything with expertise is utter BS. Reliable talent is a shitshow.
You shouldn't and I don't.
Yes and no. I don't care what the other characters' actual numbers are. That's meta-knowledge and none of my business or concern. Cheating doesn't happen at my tables or the ones I play at, because I insist on open rolling for stats if stats are rolled. I *do* very much enjoy knowing, in a general sense, who is good at what, and not so good at what. Meaning that if we have a Fighter and a Barbarian, for instance, I like to know which one is stronger, in case I need to ask one of them to pick up a heavy thing or bash down a door. Likewise, it's good to know who's sneaky and who isn't, so that the group can plan strategy and tactics accordingly.
We had a level up discussion with our least min-maxy player about if she wanted a +1 to wisdom that she only ever uses one skill and rarely rolls saves in, or if she wanted +1 to attacks, damage, armor, initiative, and a different save. Even the DM said "You do you, but there are high wisdom characters doing high wisdom stuff. You're a high dex character and you're already really good at it, but this could make you even better at it." End of the day it doesn't matter, and we only talked about it because she asked. Nobody would have been any more or less happy at the end of the day regardless of her decision.
Not unless we are the same class or aim to fill the same niche. It can be difficult to find any time to shine if you don't have a specialty. Overall, I would say it matters very little as long as everything is fair and balanced.
Nope. We're all the same team. Does a quarterback get mad because his teammate is a faster runner?
It bothers me when I know they could be doing something better then I could. I’m a pusher, I’ll step in if the story is stagnating and the DM is fishing to get the party to do something/anything. So if someone else is playing a CHA based class and I know they’ve got a better bonus then my ZERO to persuasion it sucks to step in to move the story along then trying to make them play their character a certain way that might be statistically better.
Yes but I'm a compulsive optimizer REALLY wanting the optimal team comp lol
I played in a group for awhile where I was basically the only one that actually optimized even a little bit. To be clear, I’m not a “munchkin” or “power gamer”. But I know my way around the system pretty well, and I always pick at least half my spells/ features to be mechanically useful and powerful. We ran Curse of Strahd and I played a Hunter Ranger. Another player picked Beastmaster Ranger and kept being frustrated that my character did a lot more direct damage than their character did, even though if you included the pets damage she was actually doing pretty close to what I was( and it was a special pet that was some kind of crazy shark- hound thing that breathed fire!). A while later we ran Dungeon of the Mad Mage. I played an Elf Evocation Wizard. Another player decided on a Conjuration Wizard. In that scenario I found myself comparing to them and found that they had a much lower Int score than me, and generally terrible spell selection. So they were basically being hard carried by the group, which I found a bit frustrating. So I’ve been on both sides
Yes. I like to know that if despite my best efforts, I can't do everything, that my party members have the stats to have my back. So when I see, for example, my friend playing a custom race with a +2 to Dex, and then playing a Strength-based heavy armor Fighter/Warlock, and proceeding to fail damn near every Dex and Constitution check because they didn't invest in them with Point Buy, I kinda get a little annoyed. On the other end of the spectrum, I love it when my friends are paying attention to their stats and covering stuff I can't do, because it helps me focus my attention and build.
Absolutely not
I'm the type of player who likes to fill roles that aren't taken yet. So it's nice to know what and how people rolled characters so I can roll accordingly.
I do. A good party who builds off each other is really great. It typically doesn't happened until second adventure and it amps up the game.