so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
If the DM wasn't prepared to have wildly different stat arrays between the characters and/or some PCs ending up with very high stats, they should really have implemented some kind of rule to prevent that; it's a bit silly not to anticipate something like this happening with a stat generation method that makes it possible. On the other hand, reducing those stats a little bit isn't exactly 'handicapping' yourself; you can take a few points off here and there and still have a very strong (and stronger than any of the other players') statline.
But don't look at us. You're not going to be playing with us. Whatever we say isn't going to magically make everyone in your group (including yourself) happy. Talk with them. Explain what you want, see what can be done to make everyone happy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
So it's D&D, right. As DM, my personal mindset is less me, and more we. So I look at that stat pool as a table problem to solve and not an individual problem to deal with. The easy way to solve it as a table problem is simply give everyone that same stat pool, that way everyone is playing with the same numbers. I say that because in your head, you didn't do anything wrong. You took the DMs rules, played by them and now you're being asked to make concessions because you just happened to be exceptionally lucky. It's creating a bad personal experience for you, and that's why this thread exists.
I personally wouldn't look at it as a detriment because fact is that character is exceptionally gifted and if the other players at the table are truly going to have a worse experience because you decided to not to do that, I would personally be looking at it as their enjoyment and how do I influence that and I think you've already done it. You're the Barbarian, a class/role who is pretty limited to just hitting stuff. Your job is to walk up, be a threat and hit stuff. By being so exceptional at this one very specific thing? You also made it so your mental stats suck. Sure you have some wisdom for perception, but low int and cha(not below average though) means you aren't going to excel at a lot of skill checks or social checks.
Now if you had that same stat pool as a Wizard, just swapping the STR and INT stats, starting with 20 dex, 18 con and 18 int? A naked wizard who has a 15 AC, 18 with mage armor and gets 8 HP every level, 10 at level 1? I think those are much different circumstances because now you are taking the weakness of that character class and completely eliminating them. Now that character has the potential to be on the front lines of combat, have a +7 to hit with a dagger doing 1d4+5, scaling higher in hp than d8 hit die classes and after level 4, never needing another ASI and being able to go feat heavy into things while at the same time dominating any int based skill check. Let's not get started on if you were a Bard here, because with jack of all trades you would be insane.
To summarize your question, I don't think you should have to reroll/decrease but if I personally saw the other players at the table feeling like they were being outshined and their fun was being infringed on because of this Golden God, I'd offer to lower my numbers.
From my perspective, a more experienced DM would be able to work with one character being a cut above the rest without issue. If your DM wasn't prepared for this though, I would consider asking to do Standard Array or Point Buy. That seems to be what is within the DM's comfort zone.
I appreciate the table sympathy some of the DM-sympathetic folk are trying to engender in the OP. However, a DM saying "this is how we do this!" and then the table having done this and then the DM says, "this is how we do this, except you, you now need to do something within how we do this that makes you more reflective of everyone else!" gives me pause. You're either seeing a DM who thinks they're deliberative but really hasn't thought out the possible outcomes of some of the basic assumption of their table, like stats generation, and thus short circuits their own house rules; or they're style is seat of their pants but with a propensity to go hands on and interventional when said seat of their pants arbitrary decisions leads to unanticipated outcomes. This sort of intervention saps confidence in the DM's authority.
I'm curious whether this DM may end up cancelling a few rolls if someone rolls an inordinate number of nat 20s or has a bad streak of failed rolls. If you adopt random stat generation, outliers happen. DM and tables should roll with it rather than reject the agreed upon system when outliers happen. If the table or DM doesn't like the system, it should be honest and do over with the system that produces what the table wants, probably some form of array or point buy in this case.
Of course I encourage, though don't mandate, players keep their low stats so we "can see what will come of it." I've got 5s and 6s in some of my parties, and it's funny to see at least in one case see a character whose players presumed they would basically be the party red shirt in the first few encounters be "Just amazed I'm still alive after all this..." and the good natured "How in the name of the gods are you still here!?!" exclamation from party members and even some familiar villains. Yeah, suboptimal builds tend to not thrive, but to every now and then get a PC like that, it's worth the risk for the legendary potential.
To the OP, would the DM have let you re-roll if you had a bad statline? I don't know if its completely relevant, but it can make for a good thought experiment. As others have said, though, if they weren't expecting the possibility of an outlier, they shouldn't have let you roll in the first place.
Also, while I understand that some people disagree, I don't find it to be a problem if there's one character with better stats than everyone else. The party I play in, we all rolled stats, and I have no idea what any of the other characters have for their stats. It doesn't impact me at all if someone across the table from me hits or misses 5 or 10 percent more often than I do. I'm just cheering when they hit and boo-ing when they miss. And for that matter, I can't say I could even figure it out. They roll, do some math in their head and say "I got a 16." I don't know if that was a 12+4 or a 15+1 or a 17-1. So, it would be really tough to even figure out their base stats. (I guess online, you do see the rolls, so maybe me playing in person is skewing my perspective a bit.)
I do agree with pangjurjan, though. You need to be having this conversation with the rest of your table, not the Internet.
I can appreciate that a DM may make a mistake about their choice and want to retcon it, I don't object to that, but singling you out is where I have an issue. Consistency is key; the sooner the DM can establish that the same rules apply to everyone always, the more comfortable and trusting the players are going to be. If they don't like the results of your dice rolls, they're going to have to either choose another system or, in my opinion, be inappropriate. But as others have rightly pointed out, this is a discussion to be had with your DM. We have zero authority over your game; at best we can only advise you and your DM.
I'd recommend asking them if they'd be willing to consider the alternatives (point buy or standard array, etc.) that's much more within their control.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
This is why my table doesn't roll for stats. Too good, and it messes up the game. Too bad, and it messes up the game. People want the rush of randomness without any of the consequences. Play a game of yahtzee first to get it out of your system, and then do something fair like point buy. You won't even notice the difference (aside from a lack of Mary Sues and Useless Jerrys) once you've started playing.
This is why my table doesn't roll for stats. Too good, and it messes up the game. Too bad, and it messes up the game.
Little bit dramatic, that. Rolling for stats was the norm for decades. And saying it messes up the game is like saying characters that aren't optimized mess up the game, or characters that are too optimized, or magic that's too strong, or players who only want to roleplay and check out during combat or vice versa. All of these things can mess up a campaign but only if ignored and even then that won't always be the outcome. Stats are just as manageable as small or large parties, clueless or metagaming players, or characters that for whatever reason don't fall within expectations. Doesn't mean rolling for stats is the best option for everyone, it certainly isn't, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is why my table doesn't roll for stats. Too good, and it messes up the game. Too bad, and it messes up the game.
Little bit dramatic, that. Rolling for stats was the norm for decades. And saying it messes up the game is like saying characters that aren't optimized mess up the game, or characters that are too optimized, or magic that's too strong, or players who only want to roleplay and check out during combat or vice versa. All of these things can mess up a campaign but only if ignored and even then that won't always be the outcome. Stats are just as manageable as small or large parties, clueless or metagaming players, or characters that for whatever reason don't fall within expectations. Doesn't mean rolling for stats is the best option for everyone, it certainly isn't, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it either.
I think another way of saying that is D&D (and a lot of other TTRPGs) are swingy and there's actually nothing inherently wrong in that swinginess, even in character generation. It does challenge a little bit of the player agency adjacent thinking on rules capacity to accomodate character conceit and player expectations; but both the random swings and the more modern balanced foundation approach are in the end ways of playing.
My only real objection of the account starting this thread is a DM saying "we do it this way!" turning to "we did it this way! but we're challenging your particular results!" Don't get me wrong, I'm generally fine with DMs, and as DM I myself have "so I made a ruling on the fly, turns out I think there's a better way going forward so that's what we'll be doing." But this is sorta a foundational step of the campaign and the the DM has a retroactive choke? Nah, bodes bad for the DM's confidence in their own decision making. More likely than not the game will be ok, but the out the gate read doesn't lean toward what I'd call best practices or at least best DM's manners.
so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
The real question here is if you are already both starting out in a adversarial position (DM wanting you to change your stats and you refusing to do so), how long do you really think you will be staying in this new game? You may want to rethink your choice to join the group, if you refuses to "play ball" so to speak, the DM may not be willing to "play ball" with you going forward. This is already the start to a bad D&D experience.
so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
The real question here is if you are already both starting out in a adversarial position (DM wanting you to change your stats and you refusing to do so), how long do you really think you will be staying in this new game? You may want to rethink your choice to join the group, if you refuses to "play ball" so to speak, the DM may not be willing to "play ball" with you going forward. This is already the start to a bad D&D experience.
Eh, I don't think it's like that. At least I don't want to think it's like that.
I can absolutely see the DM looking at that stat array and going "Well, now I have to balance stuff based on this person" and because of that the rest of the party continually gets rolled. I could see them going "The other players aren't going to have fun with this God around, how do I deal with that?". Sure, there's the flip side of that where I can see the DM going "Man, this dude rolled like a God, screw him" but I don't want to think like that. I want to be positive because 5th is the most positive iteration in our hobbies history, both public facing perception as well as the people playing. We have less gatekeeping and more acceptance and inclusion and I want to foster that.
On these forums a lot, there seems to be this huge jump to always think the DM is out to get the players when the reality is that isn't the case. We're dealing with a hobby where typically people who aren't the best at being social are getting together and trying to have fun, and sometimes things just aren't communicated the best up front. So person makes post and asks for advise and a lot of people ignore the OPs request and just talk about what they'd do or why the DM is bad or why the OP is wrong instead of just trying to answer the question. All this conjecture then derails the thread into a death spiral of negativity.
My interpretation of the OPs post is purposeful in that I want to see the good and hopeful honest intent of both sides because it's easy to see all the negatives. I've played in plenty of games where I ****ed up a rule and made someone have a bad experience. Where I've communicated poorly and caused someone to get upset and then have potential resentment and dwelled on it. My post is there to give some insight as to why I don't think it's an issue, present a potential resolution and then offer insight as to why the DM might think it's an issue. Context is key and understanding both sides of the fight is key when trying to find resolution.
At it's core, D&D is a social exercise and when people ask for help it's because they don't feel like they have the tools at their disposal to ask. It's far easier to ask a white and black text box for advice and hope it spits out something helpful than the humans in front of you. Processing information and being able to formulate arguments before hand is a skill learned, not taught.
so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
The real question here is if you are already both starting out in a adversarial position (DM wanting you to change your stats and you refusing to do so), how long do you really think you will be staying in this new game? You may want to rethink your choice to join the group, if you refuses to "play ball" so to speak, the DM may not be willing to "play ball" with you going forward. This is already the start to a bad D&D experience.
Eh, I don't think it's like that. At least I don't want to think it's like that.
I can absolutely see the DM looking at that stat array and going "Well, now I have to balance stuff based on this person" and because of that the rest of the party continually gets rolled. I could see them going "The other players aren't going to have fun with this God around, how do I deal with that?". Sure, there's the flip side of that where I can see the DM going "Man, this dude rolled like a God, screw him" but I don't want to think like that. I want to be positive because 5th is the most positive iteration in our hobbies history, both public facing perception as well as the people playing. We have less gatekeeping and more acceptance and inclusion and I want to foster that.
On these forums a lot, there seems to be this huge jump to always think the DM is out to get the players when the reality is that isn't the case. We're dealing with a hobby where typically people who aren't the best at being social are getting together and trying to have fun, and sometimes things just aren't communicated the best up front. So person makes post and asks for advise and a lot of people ignore the OPs request and just talk about what they'd do or why the DM is bad or why the OP is wrong instead of just trying to answer the question. All this conjecture then derails the thread into a death spiral of negativity.
My interpretation of the OPs post is purposeful in that I want to see the good and hopeful honest intent of both sides because it's easy to see all the negatives. I've played in plenty of games where I ****ed up a rule and made someone have a bad experience. Where I've communicated poorly and caused someone to get upset and then have potential resentment and dwelled on it. My post is there to give some insight as to why I don't think it's an issue, present a potential resolution and then offer insight as to why the DM might think it's an issue. Context is key and understanding both sides of the fight is key when trying to find resolution.
At it's core, D&D is a social exercise and when people ask for help it's because they don't feel like they have the tools at their disposal to ask. It's far easier to ask a white and black text box for advice and hope it spits out something helpful than the humans in front of you. Processing information and being able to formulate arguments before hand is a skill learned, not taught.
I didn't say that the DM was out to get anyone, but this "should i handicap myselfbecause everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?" is fairly adversarial. This could very well lead to further problems between them. It also points towards a very self centered stance rather than a team player stance. IF they go back to the DM and say, "Nah, I don't want to adjust or reroll, why should I handicap myself because they rolled poorly?" They are already starting the game on a sour note. I am only advising them to think ahead and decide from there what they want to do.
Whether the DM is right or wrong is a whole other thing and would require hearing from both sides to decide that. I can only provide advice based on what was typed in the original post.
Whether the DM is right or wrong is a whole other thing and would require hearing from both sides to decide that. I can only provide advice based on what was typed in the original post.
Sometimes it's best to ignore who was wrong and who was right and just look for the most amenable way forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
yeah man of course you're justified in wanting to keep your good rolls. Especially if the reverse of them not raising your stats if you rolled shit is true. Obviously blah blah blah, rule 0, blah blah blah, whatever. So see if this is more of a mere question or more of a demand, and then decide whether staying to play is something you want to do anyway. Is leaving over this even worth it for ya? Some folks online in these kinds of AITA/advice threads are too quick to suggest "break up with them", essentially.
EDIT: as well consider whether or not your stats are appropriate for the type of game the DM is attempting to run. I doubt they're trying to run a more down to earth and gritty game with that kind of stat generation method, but ya never know what's going on in someone else's head.
so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
The real question here is if you are already both starting out in a adversarial position (DM wanting you to change your stats and you refusing to do so), how long do you really think you will be staying in this new game? You may want to rethink your choice to join the group, if you refuses to "play ball" so to speak, the DM may not be willing to "play ball" with you going forward. This is already the start to a bad D&D experience.
Eh, I don't think it's like that. At least I don't want to think it's like that.
I can absolutely see the DM looking at that stat array and going "Well, now I have to balance stuff based on this person" and because of that the rest of the party continually gets rolled. I could see them going "The other players aren't going to have fun with this God around, how do I deal with that?". Sure, there's the flip side of that where I can see the DM going "Man, this dude rolled like a God, screw him" but I don't want to think like that. I want to be positive because 5th is the most positive iteration in our hobbies history, both public facing perception as well as the people playing. We have less gatekeeping and more acceptance and inclusion and I want to foster that.
On these forums a lot, there seems to be this huge jump to always think the DM is out to get the players when the reality is that isn't the case. We're dealing with a hobby where typically people who aren't the best at being social are getting together and trying to have fun, and sometimes things just aren't communicated the best up front. So person makes post and asks for advise and a lot of people ignore the OPs request and just talk about what they'd do or why the DM is bad or why the OP is wrong instead of just trying to answer the question. All this conjecture then derails the thread into a death spiral of negativity.
My interpretation of the OPs post is purposeful in that I want to see the good and hopeful honest intent of both sides because it's easy to see all the negatives. I've played in plenty of games where I ****ed up a rule and made someone have a bad experience. Where I've communicated poorly and caused someone to get upset and then have potential resentment and dwelled on it. My post is there to give some insight as to why I don't think it's an issue, present a potential resolution and then offer insight as to why the DM might think it's an issue. Context is key and understanding both sides of the fight is key when trying to find resolution.
At it's core, D&D is a social exercise and when people ask for help it's because they don't feel like they have the tools at their disposal to ask. It's far easier to ask a white and black text box for advice and hope it spits out something helpful than the humans in front of you. Processing information and being able to formulate arguments before hand is a skill learned, not taught.
I didn't say that the DM was out to get anyone, but this "should i handicap myselfbecause everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?" is fairly adversarial. This could very well lead to further problems between them. It also points towards a very self centered stance rather than a team player stance. IF they go back to the DM and say, "Nah, I don't want to adjust or reroll, why should I handicap myself because they rolled poorly?" They are already starting the game on a sour note. I am only advising them to think ahead and decide from there what they want to do.
Whether the DM is right or wrong is a whole other thing and would require hearing from both sides to decide that. I can only provide advice based on what was typed in the original post.
Well, the DM is quite literally asking OP to make their character worse for the sake of others. That's literally OP handicapping themselves on the basis that everyone else rolled worse than them; so now the DM has brought up the idea of hanging the "labor" of game balance in OP's hands instead of doing it himself (like he should, IMO). If the DM didn't want high stats then they shouldn't have made them roll at all, let alone twice and dropping the worse array.
It may be self-centered, in the sense that OP is literally coming at this from their own POV, but nobody enjoys having other's fun come at their own expense. Which is what is going on here, whether we think it's useful or not for it to happen.
"would it be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of your stats?"
"Sure, no problem. It's a bit of a buzz-kill of course, but I didn't expect to get stats like this, I don't need to get stats like this to have fun, and I can see how it might lessen the fun for the other players and make your job harder"
"Just a suggestion, but maybe next time we are creating characters we use a method that doesn't allow for outliers like this?"
Congrats on the great rolls! I love having players roll for their stats, it creates excitement out of the box.
There are some considerations for how to handle really, really band and good rolls depending on the style of play of course, but you rolled what you rolled, and since that is the mechanism, I would accept them as a DM. I hope the rest of the players are happy for you, and see this as a great addition to the team.
It depends a little how "roll-heavy" the playing style at the table is as well. For example, if the group relies entirely on the dice outcome of persuasion with little to no RP - then the ability scores are way more important for the game experience as a whole. However, as a DM I tend to try and get to the "What are you wanting to achieve, and how do you go about it" before rolling dice. Obviously, a better ability score still increases chances of success, but creative players with lower scores can achieve great outcomes too. So in some ways my main concern about such an impressive array is to make sure it doesn't make you "lazy" in your RP, and solely rely on the better statistical chances.
so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
I think it would have been fair if they made it clear beforehand... but otherwise it doesn't seem fair. This is one of the large reasons many people prefer point buy/standard array: you don't have some PCs be wildly OP while others are wildly under powered. Personally, I think that if the DM didn't want large stat differences between PCs they should have asked you to use point buy/standard array.
On the other hand, it may be a good idea to do it anyway. I would reroll stats that high personally. It can ruin encounter balance, make rping less enjoyable (you're good at everything), and be incredibly annoying to the party (you're so much more powerful). So while the DM probably shouldn't of asked you given that they chose to use rolling for stats and they didn't make it clear beforehand.... It'll probably be more enjoyable for everyone if you switch IMO.
so i joined a campaign yesterday and the dm had everyone use !randchar to roll stats, keep best of 2. I rolled a 93(18,18,17,17,12,11) noone else in the group rolled over a 78. after finishing my character(halfling barbarian@lvl1) i ended up with 18str, 20dex, 18con, 17wis, 12int, 11cha. this gave me 19ac/16hp@ lvl one no armor/shield.
when the dm saw my character he asked if it would be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of my stats. I feel it would be. the way i see it it was a lucky roll and if i had rolled low he wouldn't be asking me to increase my stats so why should i lower them bc i got lucky?
what are all of your opinions on this? should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?
If the DM wasn't prepared to have wildly different stat arrays between the characters and/or some PCs ending up with very high stats, they should really have implemented some kind of rule to prevent that; it's a bit silly not to anticipate something like this happening with a stat generation method that makes it possible. On the other hand, reducing those stats a little bit isn't exactly 'handicapping' yourself; you can take a few points off here and there and still have a very strong (and stronger than any of the other players') statline.
But don't look at us. You're not going to be playing with us. Whatever we say isn't going to magically make everyone in your group (including yourself) happy. Talk with them. Explain what you want, see what can be done to make everyone happy.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So it's D&D, right. As DM, my personal mindset is less me, and more we. So I look at that stat pool as a table problem to solve and not an individual problem to deal with. The easy way to solve it as a table problem is simply give everyone that same stat pool, that way everyone is playing with the same numbers. I say that because in your head, you didn't do anything wrong. You took the DMs rules, played by them and now you're being asked to make concessions because you just happened to be exceptionally lucky. It's creating a bad personal experience for you, and that's why this thread exists.
I personally wouldn't look at it as a detriment because fact is that character is exceptionally gifted and if the other players at the table are truly going to have a worse experience because you decided to not to do that, I would personally be looking at it as their enjoyment and how do I influence that and I think you've already done it. You're the Barbarian, a class/role who is pretty limited to just hitting stuff. Your job is to walk up, be a threat and hit stuff. By being so exceptional at this one very specific thing? You also made it so your mental stats suck. Sure you have some wisdom for perception, but low int and cha(not below average though) means you aren't going to excel at a lot of skill checks or social checks.
Now if you had that same stat pool as a Wizard, just swapping the STR and INT stats, starting with 20 dex, 18 con and 18 int? A naked wizard who has a 15 AC, 18 with mage armor and gets 8 HP every level, 10 at level 1? I think those are much different circumstances because now you are taking the weakness of that character class and completely eliminating them. Now that character has the potential to be on the front lines of combat, have a +7 to hit with a dagger doing 1d4+5, scaling higher in hp than d8 hit die classes and after level 4, never needing another ASI and being able to go feat heavy into things while at the same time dominating any int based skill check. Let's not get started on if you were a Bard here, because with jack of all trades you would be insane.
To summarize your question, I don't think you should have to reroll/decrease but if I personally saw the other players at the table feeling like they were being outshined and their fun was being infringed on because of this Golden God, I'd offer to lower my numbers.
From my perspective, a more experienced DM would be able to work with one character being a cut above the rest without issue. If your DM wasn't prepared for this though, I would consider asking to do Standard Array or Point Buy. That seems to be what is within the DM's comfort zone.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I appreciate the table sympathy some of the DM-sympathetic folk are trying to engender in the OP. However, a DM saying "this is how we do this!" and then the table having done this and then the DM says, "this is how we do this, except you, you now need to do something within how we do this that makes you more reflective of everyone else!" gives me pause. You're either seeing a DM who thinks they're deliberative but really hasn't thought out the possible outcomes of some of the basic assumption of their table, like stats generation, and thus short circuits their own house rules; or they're style is seat of their pants but with a propensity to go hands on and interventional when said seat of their pants arbitrary decisions leads to unanticipated outcomes. This sort of intervention saps confidence in the DM's authority.
I'm curious whether this DM may end up cancelling a few rolls if someone rolls an inordinate number of nat 20s or has a bad streak of failed rolls. If you adopt random stat generation, outliers happen. DM and tables should roll with it rather than reject the agreed upon system when outliers happen. If the table or DM doesn't like the system, it should be honest and do over with the system that produces what the table wants, probably some form of array or point buy in this case.
Of course I encourage, though don't mandate, players keep their low stats so we "can see what will come of it." I've got 5s and 6s in some of my parties, and it's funny to see at least in one case see a character whose players presumed they would basically be the party red shirt in the first few encounters be "Just amazed I'm still alive after all this..." and the good natured "How in the name of the gods are you still here!?!" exclamation from party members and even some familiar villains. Yeah, suboptimal builds tend to not thrive, but to every now and then get a PC like that, it's worth the risk for the legendary potential.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To the OP, would the DM have let you re-roll if you had a bad statline? I don't know if its completely relevant, but it can make for a good thought experiment. As others have said, though, if they weren't expecting the possibility of an outlier, they shouldn't have let you roll in the first place.
Also, while I understand that some people disagree, I don't find it to be a problem if there's one character with better stats than everyone else. The party I play in, we all rolled stats, and I have no idea what any of the other characters have for their stats. It doesn't impact me at all if someone across the table from me hits or misses 5 or 10 percent more often than I do. I'm just cheering when they hit and boo-ing when they miss. And for that matter, I can't say I could even figure it out. They roll, do some math in their head and say "I got a 16." I don't know if that was a 12+4 or a 15+1 or a 17-1. So, it would be really tough to even figure out their base stats. (I guess online, you do see the rolls, so maybe me playing in person is skewing my perspective a bit.)
I do agree with pangjurjan, though. You need to be having this conversation with the rest of your table, not the Internet.
I can appreciate that a DM may make a mistake about their choice and want to retcon it, I don't object to that, but singling you out is where I have an issue. Consistency is key; the sooner the DM can establish that the same rules apply to everyone always, the more comfortable and trusting the players are going to be. If they don't like the results of your dice rolls, they're going to have to either choose another system or, in my opinion, be inappropriate. But as others have rightly pointed out, this is a discussion to be had with your DM. We have zero authority over your game; at best we can only advise you and your DM.
I'd recommend asking them if they'd be willing to consider the alternatives (point buy or standard array, etc.) that's much more within their control.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
This is why my table doesn't roll for stats. Too good, and it messes up the game. Too bad, and it messes up the game. People want the rush of randomness without any of the consequences. Play a game of yahtzee first to get it out of your system, and then do something fair like point buy. You won't even notice the difference (aside from a lack of Mary Sues and Useless Jerrys) once you've started playing.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Little bit dramatic, that. Rolling for stats was the norm for decades. And saying it messes up the game is like saying characters that aren't optimized mess up the game, or characters that are too optimized, or magic that's too strong, or players who only want to roleplay and check out during combat or vice versa. All of these things can mess up a campaign but only if ignored and even then that won't always be the outcome. Stats are just as manageable as small or large parties, clueless or metagaming players, or characters that for whatever reason don't fall within expectations. Doesn't mean rolling for stats is the best option for everyone, it certainly isn't, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rolling for stats/standard array are the RAW ways of character generation. Point Buy is a variant rule. It's always funny to point that out.
I think another way of saying that is D&D (and a lot of other TTRPGs) are swingy and there's actually nothing inherently wrong in that swinginess, even in character generation. It does challenge a little bit of the player agency adjacent thinking on rules capacity to accomodate character conceit and player expectations; but both the random swings and the more modern balanced foundation approach are in the end ways of playing.
My only real objection of the account starting this thread is a DM saying "we do it this way!" turning to "we did it this way! but we're challenging your particular results!" Don't get me wrong, I'm generally fine with DMs, and as DM I myself have "so I made a ruling on the fly, turns out I think there's a better way going forward so that's what we'll be doing." But this is sorta a foundational step of the campaign and the the DM has a retroactive choke? Nah, bodes bad for the DM's confidence in their own decision making. More likely than not the game will be ok, but the out the gate read doesn't lean toward what I'd call best practices or at least best DM's manners.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The real question here is if you are already both starting out in a adversarial position (DM wanting you to change your stats and you refusing to do so), how long do you really think you will be staying in this new game? You may want to rethink your choice to join the group, if you refuses to "play ball" so to speak, the DM may not be willing to "play ball" with you going forward. This is already the start to a bad D&D experience.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Eh, I don't think it's like that. At least I don't want to think it's like that.
I can absolutely see the DM looking at that stat array and going "Well, now I have to balance stuff based on this person" and because of that the rest of the party continually gets rolled. I could see them going "The other players aren't going to have fun with this God around, how do I deal with that?". Sure, there's the flip side of that where I can see the DM going "Man, this dude rolled like a God, screw him" but I don't want to think like that. I want to be positive because 5th is the most positive iteration in our hobbies history, both public facing perception as well as the people playing. We have less gatekeeping and more acceptance and inclusion and I want to foster that.
On these forums a lot, there seems to be this huge jump to always think the DM is out to get the players when the reality is that isn't the case. We're dealing with a hobby where typically people who aren't the best at being social are getting together and trying to have fun, and sometimes things just aren't communicated the best up front. So person makes post and asks for advise and a lot of people ignore the OPs request and just talk about what they'd do or why the DM is bad or why the OP is wrong instead of just trying to answer the question. All this conjecture then derails the thread into a death spiral of negativity.
My interpretation of the OPs post is purposeful in that I want to see the good and hopeful honest intent of both sides because it's easy to see all the negatives. I've played in plenty of games where I ****ed up a rule and made someone have a bad experience. Where I've communicated poorly and caused someone to get upset and then have potential resentment and dwelled on it. My post is there to give some insight as to why I don't think it's an issue, present a potential resolution and then offer insight as to why the DM might think it's an issue. Context is key and understanding both sides of the fight is key when trying to find resolution.
At it's core, D&D is a social exercise and when people ask for help it's because they don't feel like they have the tools at their disposal to ask. It's far easier to ask a white and black text box for advice and hope it spits out something helpful than the humans in front of you. Processing information and being able to formulate arguments before hand is a skill learned, not taught.
I didn't say that the DM was out to get anyone, but this "should i handicap myself because everyone else rolled poorly or am i justified in keeping my superior stats?" is fairly adversarial. This could very well lead to further problems between them. It also points towards a very self centered stance rather than a team player stance. IF they go back to the DM and say, "Nah, I don't want to adjust or reroll, why should I handicap myself because they rolled poorly?" They are already starting the game on a sour note. I am only advising them to think ahead and decide from there what they want to do.
Whether the DM is right or wrong is a whole other thing and would require hearing from both sides to decide that. I can only provide advice based on what was typed in the original post.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Sometimes it's best to ignore who was wrong and who was right and just look for the most amenable way forward.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
yeah man of course you're justified in wanting to keep your good rolls. Especially if the reverse of them not raising your stats if you rolled shit is true. Obviously blah blah blah, rule 0, blah blah blah, whatever. So see if this is more of a mere question or more of a demand, and then decide whether staying to play is something you want to do anyway. Is leaving over this even worth it for ya? Some folks online in these kinds of AITA/advice threads are too quick to suggest "break up with them", essentially.
EDIT: as well consider whether or not your stats are appropriate for the type of game the DM is attempting to run. I doubt they're trying to run a more down to earth and gritty game with that kind of stat generation method, but ya never know what's going on in someone else's head.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Well, the DM is quite literally asking OP to make their character worse for the sake of others. That's literally OP handicapping themselves on the basis that everyone else rolled worse than them; so now the DM has brought up the idea of hanging the "labor" of game balance in OP's hands instead of doing it himself (like he should, IMO). If the DM didn't want high stats then they shouldn't have made them roll at all, let alone twice and dropping the worse array.
It may be self-centered, in the sense that OP is literally coming at this from their own POV, but nobody enjoys having other's fun come at their own expense. Which is what is going on here, whether we think it's useful or not for it to happen.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
"would it be inappropriate to ask me to lower some of your stats?"
"Sure, no problem. It's a bit of a buzz-kill of course, but I didn't expect to get stats like this, I don't need to get stats like this to have fun, and I can see how it might lessen the fun for the other players and make your job harder"
"Just a suggestion, but maybe next time we are creating characters we use a method that doesn't allow for outliers like this?"
Congrats on the great rolls! I love having players roll for their stats, it creates excitement out of the box.
There are some considerations for how to handle really, really band and good rolls depending on the style of play of course, but you rolled what you rolled, and since that is the mechanism, I would accept them as a DM. I hope the rest of the players are happy for you, and see this as a great addition to the team.
It depends a little how "roll-heavy" the playing style at the table is as well. For example, if the group relies entirely on the dice outcome of persuasion with little to no RP - then the ability scores are way more important for the game experience as a whole. However, as a DM I tend to try and get to the "What are you wanting to achieve, and how do you go about it" before rolling dice. Obviously, a better ability score still increases chances of success, but creative players with lower scores can achieve great outcomes too. So in some ways my main concern about such an impressive array is to make sure it doesn't make you "lazy" in your RP, and solely rely on the better statistical chances.
I think it would have been fair if they made it clear beforehand... but otherwise it doesn't seem fair. This is one of the large reasons many people prefer point buy/standard array: you don't have some PCs be wildly OP while others are wildly under powered. Personally, I think that if the DM didn't want large stat differences between PCs they should have asked you to use point buy/standard array.
On the other hand, it may be a good idea to do it anyway. I would reroll stats that high personally. It can ruin encounter balance, make rping less enjoyable (you're good at everything), and be incredibly annoying to the party (you're so much more powerful). So while the DM probably shouldn't of asked you given that they chose to use rolling for stats and they didn't make it clear beforehand.... It'll probably be more enjoyable for everyone if you switch IMO.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<