D&D 4E Point buy, 4e & you.

[UngeheuerLich]

I’m with Mr Jack on this. We typically go with one of two methods:

1. All characters start with the following array of dice results, which can be assigned any way a player wishes, under the limitation that each score should have three dice assigned:
 6,6,6,6,6
 5,5,5,5,5
 4,4,4,4
 3,3
 2,2
Total: 81 points.

2. Roll 24d6; drop 6; assign the rest: 3 dice per ability.

Yes, I know that it is high-powered, but then we tend to go spare on the magic.

i quite like that method... maybe i will try it out...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm a big fan of point buy however one thing I've never quite understood is why there is a weighting for points above 14.

In 3.x and even more prominently in 4e, there is the concept that bonuses ability scores are flat. Bonuses equal the same no matter how many you get. A +1 has the same inherent value as any other +1.

Alternity was a TSR/WotC game system came out before 3e, and it functioned as a test for some 3e rules (in addition to being its own game system).

It had unweighed point buy, and IME, that was a bad idea. A low stat is frequently not a big penalty,* while a high stat is, of course, a bonus. Unless you deliberately targeted a PC's low stats (eg used lots of psychics because someone had a low Wisdom-equivalent score) the penalty hardly mattered.

*In 4e, a character who doesn't really need Wisdom but wants a high Charisma can just take a high Charisma. Having a low Wisdom in 3.x hurt some skills as well as Will saves. In 4e, their Will save would be affected only by the higher stat (in this example Charisma), so the penalty is less. (This character's low Wisdom will penalize a couple of skills -- namely Insight and Perception -- and little or nothing else.)

As for me, I've been a gamer for 15 years, and my experience tells me to use point buy. I have no intention of using dice-rolled stats in any game I run.

 

[MindWanderer]

Where have you guys seen a new version of the point buy? And if so what source, has it been confirmed, and how does that confirmation compare to say the pregens. Also.. if you could post the formula that your presenting as 4E's.

It was reverse-engineered from the preview characters:

Start at 8.
1 point cost per increase from 9 to 13.
2 point cost per increase from 14 to 16.
Cost of a 17 is unknown, but it costs 7 points to increase a 16 up to an 18.

 

[Nytmare]

We currently do a stat array (17, 15, 13, 11, 9, 7), where no two characters can share the same high or low stat. I'm not sure if we're going to carry this over to 4th Ed yet.

 

[Verys Arkon]

Where have you guys seen a new version of the point buy? And if so what source, has it been confirmed, and how does that confirmation compare to say the pregens. Also.. if you could post the formula that your presenting as 4E's.

Not confirmed, but this method that Totoro came up with on the Gleemax boards works for all the pregens, and the two set of stats we have from the KotS now. It is referred to as "Method B" in the PrRC.

32 point buy

Ability 	Point Cost (Method “B”)
Score
8	0
9	1
10	2
11	3
12	4
13	5
14	7
15	9
16	11
17	14
18	18

 

[Kzach]

A +4 (or 5 with racial modifiers) in your primary stat is almost always more powerful than +2 in multiple stats.

Why is this a bad thing though?

Previously people have mentioned that more well rounded PC's are better but at the end of the day, if you have a primary stat, then it's better to have that maxed.

The ideology that weighting encourages a more even spread of points is flawed. Most people I know and most characters I see made are given the highest score in their primary stat, which in turn means less points to distribute for a more even spread.

It works against itself, in other words.

With point for point, you're still having to spend more points to get higher scores, you're just not punished for it.

 

[Kzach]

It's already looking like an optimal array for 4e would be along the lines of 18, 18, 12, 8, 8, 8 - and that you'd happily drop those 8's lower if you could.

Not quite sure what you're getting at by posting the optimal array when that array is impossible to get under the 4e point-buy system when it's maximum is 32 points.

Are you saying that as a design goal for balance that you don't want people to get the optimal array?

 

[Kzach]

*In 4e, a character who doesn't really need Wisdom but wants a high Charisma can just take a high Charisma. Having a low Wisdom in 3.x hurt some skills as well as Will saves. In 4e, their Will save would be affected only by the higher stat (in this example Charisma), so the penalty is less. (This character's low Wisdom will penalize a couple of skills -- namely Insight and Perception -- and little or nothing else.)

Hrm, I didn't know that defences only use the highest stat. That changes a lot of things and yes, I could see a reason why you'd want heavy weighting.

Still, that also means having just one high physical and one high mental stat is far more desirable. That'll just mean people will do the 18, 16, 8, 8, 8, 8 thing.

 

[Lurker37]

Hrm, I didn't know that defences only use the highest stat. That changes a lot of things and yes, I could see a reason why you'd want heavy weighting.

Still, that also means having just one high physical and one high mental stat is far more desirable. That'll just mean people will do the 18, 16, 8, 8, 8, 8 thing.

That still leaves you with one low defence. (There are three defences, each using the highest of two stats : Fort is Str or Con, Ref is Int or Dex, Will is Wis or Cha)

 

[3 Man]

The two competing ideals with point buy vs. random roll is balancing the fun of real world variability with the playability of like powered players. I have found that allowing a roll system with min/max total scores works real well for my group. For example, we roll 6 + 2d6 six times, place the scores and then total up the character's attributes. If he is under 72 we move him up to 72 (max 18 in any given attribute before racial mods), and if he is over 78 we move him down to 78 (min 8 in any given attribute before racial mods). Its not perfect, but it works for us.