Hopeless Characters

I've been looking over a few posts on other web sites in the past few weeks regarding characters with low ability scores, or "Hopeless" characters. This sentiment has been around for a while now, even appearing in the rules for AD&D and Basic/Expert D&D back in 1979/1980. The thing about it is that I don't think that a character is truly hopeless unless the PLAYER thinks it is.

The premise of the original D&D game appears to be that of a bunch of people who have apprenticed in a chosen profession (class) heading off to a dungeon to recover treasure and make a name for themselves. Along the way they face terrible monsters, deadly traps, and devious puzzles. Those that overcome these become rich and famous. Those that don't...? Well, they become dungeon dressing to be found by those who later enter said dungeon in search of their own glory.

But here's the thing... abilities are MEANT to be random. If they weren't, then why roll the dice at all? If you won't play a character with any score lower than 10, why even roll the dice? It's statistically possible to have a character with all 3's. The same probability exists to roll a character with all 18's. But it's more likely that your score will fall in the 9-12 range.

Let's face it. No one wants to play someone JUST LIKE THEM in real life. No one who plays D&D or AD&D wants to play the couch potato with the huge gut who can barely lift a sword, no less swing one. No one wants to be the bumbling klutz or the moron who can't remember where he left his glasses (which are on his head...). No one wants to be known as the guy who foolishly agreed to some plan suggested by an NPC, just because he wasn't savvy enough to realize he was being duped. No, everyone wants to be the god-like hero of myth, the mighty warrior who gets all the girls, the powerful magic-user able to routinely hold dozens of spells in his memory at once, or the wise cleric who can see through deceit and resist the most potent charms. Let's face it, no one wants to play themselves in their fantasy.

But, I have to tell you, playing the foibles of lackluster characters is sometimes fun. Our most memorable characters were not the ones with 18 percentile strength, but rather the weakling mage who can't even hold his own cat familiar without becoming tired; or the fighter whose wisdom was so low that she could be convinced of just about anything; or the charismatic fighter who really wanted to be a paladin but just could not cut it. These low scores that "prevent" us from enjoying a character really give the character personality and background. However, this is not for everyone.

One of my friends once put this in terms I could understand. Superman is invulnerable, he's the fastest hero around, he's the strongest hero around, he has a computer-like brain, and he's dashing and charismatic. However, the character is boring as hell. Even the writers couldn't figure out how to write good stories about him. However, his bumbling sidekick Jimmy Olsen, or not-so-wise love Lois Lane (always getting into trouble) were much more interesting to write about. And so, although Superman could be said to have 18s in all his stats, he was still just a ho-hum character. You always knew he would save the day. There was no doubt about it. And when something becomes an absolute, when there's no chance of failure, the action becomes routine and boring.

Some players yearn to be Superman from 1st level. They want to win all the time. They need to succeed and be the best. They hate losing. Low stats means they have lost or aren't good enough. There is a section in the beginning of the Players Handbook regarding such a thing. In fact, later versions of the game assume that the characters are a cut above the rank and file of humanity (or dwarf-, elf-, and halfling-kind). But this is not how swords & sorcery fantasy should be. Everyone has to start somewhere. The game assumes that you are beginning at the ground floor and working your way up to fame and fortune, power and prestige. If you START at the top, as the saying goes, there's nowhere to go but down.

The definition of "hopeless character" has changed over time. Original D&D had no such thing. But if you look at the way the game played, ability scores were not very important. Basic D&D, which is based on OD&D, stated that characters whose ability scores were all under 9 were unplayable, but this was the first time that minimum scores were stated in the rules for each class. Before this, you could be a fighter with a 7 strength, or a magic-user with a 5 intelligence. You wouldn't be very good, but you could still exist. By AD&D, all the major classes needed at least a 9 in their "prime requisite" to qualify for a class. It was recommended that you have at least two scores of 15 or higher and no more than one score in the very low range (3-6).

The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm trying to figure out why people hate 3d6 rolled in order as a method of generating characters. To me it makes little difference. But there are some people who adamantly despise this method of rolling. It seems that it boils down to two real ideologies here:

1. The camp that believe that all characters should be a "cut above" and be heroic in all ways. They believe that such characters should have no flaws, because weakness is no fun to play (for them). These people already know exactly what character they want to play.
2. The other camp seems to like organic character creation. These folks have no idea what they want to play and allow the dice to tell them what they can play. They don't go into the game needing to play a certain type of character, but rather learn about what character they just rolled.

I fall into this latter camp. I never make a character knowing what I want before I begin. I prefer to roll and see what I can be based on the rolls. I realize that I can't control the roll of the dice - it's random. Plus, it might allow me to run a character class or race that I don't get the chance to play all too often. Others have preferences and don't want to even try another class or race. For example, one of my friends would only play fighters or magic-users, and always human. He would not even consider demi-humans. His favorite character type was a fighter with extremely high strength who could swing a sword multiple times per round and decimate all his enemies without getting hurt himself. Is it any wonder that he loved Conan the Barbarian? But the game is supposed to fun, and this is a valid view. Just as valid is the player who rolls 3d6 in order to see what they can be. I guess the problem comes when a DM enforces his views of character creation on players who do not share the same view. This is why there are so many different methods of rolling characters in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide and Unearthed Arcana. In essence, the DM is supposed to know the likes and dislikes of his players before rolling characters. This is not always possible. However, allowing one person to roll with one method and letting others roll with another is not really fair and goes against the spirit of the game.

Call me a grognard, but I think that everyone should try and play a 3d6-straight rolled character at least once. Old style gaming can be a real fun time if everyone is on the same page. Just for kicks, I rolled up three characters using 3d6 rolled in order. These are my stats

1. Str 7, Int 7, Wis 9, Dex 12, Con 14, Cha 8 (possible thief)
2. Str 10, Int 11, Wis 12, Dex 9, Con 11, Cha 14 (any base class, leaning towards cleric)
3. Str 15, Int 18(!), Wis 9, Dex 11, Con 13, Cha 5 (likely fighter/magic-user, or MU at least)

As you can see, the stats tend to cluster in the middle range. This is due to probability with rolling multiple dice - you get the bell-curve. Obviously, most of your scores are going to be in the 9-12 range. This is average. Some people don't want to be average. Low scores and high scores are supposed to be rare, but they can and do happen. Look above. I managed to roll an 18 on one of those scores; I also managed to roll a 5 on the same character. Some ability scores are known to be "dump" stats. For example, if you're playing a fighter, Int and Cha become dump stats. If you're a thief, Int, Wis, and Cha become dump stats. Typically, Charisma is seen as useless to the base classes. Not so with sub-classes (mainly an AD&D thing). Suddenly Charisma becomes very important to druids and paladins. It SHOULD be considered for clerics as well, since they must preach to the masses and project the will of their god(s). Charisma is still a useful stat - it just depends on the style of play.

For example: It was assumed that players would seek out NPCs to assist them in their adventures. The concept of hirelings and henchmen has been around since the beginning. Of course, the terms "meat shield" or "red-shirts" have also, unfortunately, been around for that long as well. Let's face it - adventuring is risky business; you're going to get hurt and will most likely die unless you are very careful. The more targets there are, the less likely a casualty will be a player character. It's not a very heroic concept, sacrificing others so that you can survive. Then again, the premise of the game is not very heroic either - entering dank dungeons and stealing away with treasure that belonged to someone else (or guarded/protected by magic and traps). These are things that THIEVES are meant to do. They sneak into bad places and steal away with treasure, hopefully without any harm coming to themselves. So, in essence, ALL characters are really thieves (or "murder-hobos" as some refer to them). And the typical depiction of a thief is a rough-and-tumble scrawny guy who lies, cheats, and wheedles his way through life, avoiding combat when possible, and making out with as much treasure as he can carry. THIS is the way the game was envisioned by the creator(s). It didn't matter much what your strength, intelligence, wisdom, or dexterity were. What mattered is that you lived - by any means possible!

But back to "hopeless characters." We can now see that "heroic" characters were made to cater to individual desires. They were not meant to be adventurers in the original D&D sense. But let's face it, when you think medieval society, you assume knights, dragons, and damsels in distress. Enter the paladin. I believe that this sub-class was created to cater to those who needed to be the superhero. They needed high stats and a moral code. Strangely enough, no one I knew back in the day wanted to play a paladin as Lawful and Good. All they really wanted were the stats. And who wants to play a lowly fighter when you can play a demi-god of holy prowess? Eventually, sub-classes came to rule the D&D landscape. Since they needed higher scores to qualify, people started seeing 3d6 as "not good enough." So alternate methods were devised. Looking at the characters I generated above, I don't think any of them qualifies to be a sub-class (perhaps #3 could be an assassin?). And if your only goal in the game is to "be the best" or, more disturbingly, "be better than everyone else playing the game," then 3d6 isn't going to cut it. The added character classes and races in Unearthed Arcana continued this disturbing trend with barbarians, cavaliers, dark elves, duergar, etc. The new method of rolling characters (Method V) had players rolling multiple dice for certain key stats and taking the best 3 rolls. If you wanted to play a human fighter, you got to roll 9d6 and take the highest 3 rolls. Soon, if you were a fighter without percentile strength you were "doing it wrong."

To me, no character is truly hopeless. The lack of a stat does not mean that the character is worthless. In a truly randomly-rolled game, there is just as much chance of your 18/00% Strength fighter dying as there is my 10 Strength fighter. That 9 Intelligence magic-user may not know as many spells as your 18 Intelligence magic-user, but the game plays the same regardless. What needs to be addressed BEFORE THE GAME BEGINS is which type of characters the players prefer. Once a consensus is achieved, the Method of rolling can be established and the game can proceed. The DM also should establish guidelines for when a character may be scrapped because scores are not high enough for survivability; but even this can be waived if the player really wants to play such a character. They can be just as much fun, and usually more memorable, than those with god-like stats. Remember that magic items typically enhance abilities, and once the characters are beyond 1st level ability scores take a back seat to class mechanics.

My rule of thumb for "Hopeless Characters" is if you have more penalties than bonuses, you probably should rethink your character's chance to survive or even perform adequately in the chosen class. In the above examples, character #1 has 4 scores below 10. In Basic D&D one of these (strength) would result in a -1 penalty to hit and damage. But this is balanced by the +1 bonus gained from Constitution. In AD&D Strength of 7 would only cause a -1 to hit. This is a perfectly valid character, although some people see the lack of bonuses as a problem. After all, thieves don't really NEED strength to perform as thieves. Character #2 is dead average - he could qualify for any of the base classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, or thief). Again, this is a valid character. However, the lack of bonuses seems to turn some people off. Character #3 is an amazing example of the randomness of rolling 3d6. This character would make a powerful magic-user.... or would it? What benefit does a Basic D&D magic-user gain from such high Intelligence? They can still only cast a limited number of spells, same as a 9 Int M-U. Sure, they can speak 3 extra languages, but this doesn't affect their survivability all that much. In AD&D, that magic-user has a better chance of knowing more spells, and has more spells in their spellbook, and will likely level faster thus getting the character out of danger of dying too soon. However, they can still only cast ONE of those spells for the day, regardless of Intelligence. So you see, a high score is only desirable in the mind of the player. The game doesn't care WHAT your score is. The only classes that really suffer from low scores are fighters and clerics. Fighters with lackluster Strength can't kill things very fast, and may miss more often than one with high Strength. Low Wisdom clerics in Basic D&D have no real penalties; however, those with low wisdom (9-12) in AD&D have a chance of miscasting their spells! Thieves in D&D are not terribly impacted by average or high Dexterity in their class abilities; however, it provides a penalty or bonus to thief abilities in AD&D and high Dex may improve the chances of survival in combat by lowering AC in either system.

Comparing the ability bonuses in Basic D&D and AD&D, one can see that in Basic D&D, bonuses and penalties occur immediately beyond the average 9-12 range. In AD&D it depends on the ability score; some gain penalties/bonuses at very low/high numbers and some give benefits a bit above average. But generally speaking, in AD&D you want scores of 15+ to gain the bonuses provided on the charts. And this is the reason why Gygax made that statement of wanting at least two scores in the 15+ range. Also, if you peruse the charts in the Players Handbook, you will see that if an ability score is lower than a 6, it locks you into a particular class. For instance, a character with a 5 or lower strength can ONLY be a magic-user. It doesn't matter what your intelligence is (so long as it is 9 or higher). If you had scores of Str 5 and Int 8, then that would truly be a hopeless character. In the examples above, the only character with a score of 5 or lower is #3. That character has a Charisma of 5. Sure enough, consulting the PHB states that this character can ONLY be an assassin! However, the character has an 11 Dex and needs a 12 to qualify for assassin. Interestingly enough, this character is considered HOPELESS according to the rules since he cannot qualify for ANY class based on those stats. The DM would require the player to reroll, despite having rolled an 18 in Intelligence!! If the player wanted to still run the character, the DM would likely enforce the need to be an assassin and have the player run an elf to get the Dexterity up one point. However, elves must have a minimum Charisma of 8 so this character is unplayable!! The only way this character could work is if the DM made an exception to the rules, something the other players may not agree with as it seems as if the DM is playing favorites (especially if they are settling for a character they didn't really want to play based on their stats). The same does not apply to Basic D&D characters. Character #3 could be an intelligent fighter, a strong magic-user, or an elf character with no problems. It could also be a thief character (with good strength and great intelligence). The charisma in Basic D&D really has no effect on character choice at all.

So, as you can see, "hopeless" characters are really dependent on the version of the game you are playing, the rules/guidelines being used by the DM, and the desires/needs of the players. A 3d6-straight character is no more or less valid than any other method of rolling. The only way to get a character you truly want to play with the stats desired is pretty much selecting from a given array or selecting the class and rolling ranges between the minimums and maximums. For example, monks are one of the hardest classes to qualify for in AD&D. They require 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex and 11 Con. Rolling that with 3d6 is really hard - it's even pretty tough with 4d6 drop the lowest. Some DMs allow a player to choose their class before rolling dice, then roll ability scores. For example, a DM might allow a player to choose monk, then have them roll 1d4+14 for Str, Wis, and Dex, and 1d8+10 for Con while all other stats are rolled using the normal method. Again, it is the DMs prerogative and the player's desires which drive this. The rules used are not "lame", "broken," or antiquated, they simply have evolved over time to suit different needs.