Point-buy or rolling? Your preference and why?

[Plane Sailing]

We always used to use rolled, but in 3e the inequities between characters became too great when someone rolled insanely well for stats. It led to unhappy gamers.

We now use the incredibly simplistic "74 points divided up exactly how you like on a 1 for 1 basis".

I don't like the point buy system in the books because they can give elves/dwarves/halflings/gnomes a bonus 4 points to spend since they can save more on bonus attribute high scores than they lose on their penalty attribute.

Cheers

p.s. point buy naturally favours the fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue (IMO) because they can most afford to concentrate on just one stat. It is probably worst for monks, bards, rangers, paladins.

 

[Psion]

The original comment by Psion insinuated that point buy allowed a specialist player to make the exact same character every time ("Greetings, I am Zeldon 4.") Making the statement as a negative side to point buy suggested that only rolling randomly could force that player to play something different. Sounded to me like it was considered a problem. If the situation is not a problem, then how does point buy enter into the equation?

It's not black and white, you know. On one hand, having all characters by the same player be virtual clones is a problem. At the same time, I don't beleive it is my place to tell players what to play; they know what they enjoy.

So I find rolled stats a good solution as it makes it so they are working with a different set of stats each time. Perhaps zeldron 4 had a good strength and dex (say 16 each) but mediocre other scores, but next time the player finds he only has one 16 but two 14s, meaning he cannot just make a clone of his previous character AND will have to consider ways in which this character is different than the last one.

By "overlapping" do you mean some shared traits? Or do you mean identical [identicle? I'm tired] characters?

I mean "very similar in play". Sure they are likely to have personality differences unless something is up in the players, but I have seen players act rather disappointed when another player is playing off of the same concept, like "two handed weapon fighter with best stat in strength, second in con, and cha as a dump stat." Sort of like some women don't like anyone to be wearing the same dress that they are.

So by giving them a random array of stats, it doesn't feel like they are treading quite so much on each other. So Larry can say that of his brothers Darrel and Darrel, Darrell is the smart one.

 

[Mallus]

When I'm DM'ing, characters get rolled. I'm old-school like that. If a player is really unhappy w/their rolls, I let them roll again.

I have nothing against point buy systems. I see their advantages. But chance is inherently part of the game. And I've always found random die rolls provide their own not-so-subtle kind of inspiration when it comes to character creation. So rolling it is.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Point buying all the way!

If the players don't like 28 I'll bump to 32, or whatever they're looking for, but I don't want Superman and his band of lackeys to adventure again.

 

[AEtherfyre]

Point buy.

Two reasons, for me:

A). With point buy, you can always get (approximately) the character you want, as you have absolute control over your ability scores.

B). Equal Power. All characters should, in my not - so - humble opinion, enter the game with the same "potential." Intentionally adding chance in - by rolling for stats - makes as much sense to me as rolling a d4 at the beginning of a campaign and adding the result to every die roll you make for the rest of the campaign.

My opinion about the uniqueness of characters -

It should come through in the personality and actions, not the stats. If two players wanted to make characters with the same stats, and the same class, but played them in entirely different fashions - I'd love it. Two characters of different classes, with completely different stats, with the exact same personality would irritate me much more than number-crunching.

 

[nHammer]

Point buy. 70+1D10 The points get spent on a one-for-one basis.

I feel a player should be able to make the character they want. I think it makes a person play better if they are happy with their character. You're not always happy with what the dice created.

 

[Umbran]

For long campaigns, I tend to use DM-moderated die rolling. Meaning that the DM watches to make sure that no single character is too far above or below the party average.

I find that my players have preferred to use the dice as inspiration. The character you make up when you make all the decisions is not the same one you make when some bits are decided for you.

 

[Shemeska]

4d6 all the way. I've always loathed point buy since there's no aspect of randomness involved at all, it constrains you far too often. Of course, maybe I just like giving up control when creating something. *fiendish preen of ego*

I usually don't make a concept till I know the dice rolls I've made.

And I don't honestly get the problems with some folks just rolling till they have two 18's. Why allow them more than one set of rolls unless its at a net negative or somesuch. That's almost cheating to get a higher stat character. I'd look at someone long and hard and then boot them while sadistically laughing if they tried that on me. But I'm unrepentantly evil, what can I say. *cackles and plays with razorvine tiara*

 

[Hackenslash]

Points, Points, Points.....!!!

I actually started a Thread on this very subject a while back(DnD Rules Forum - some good feedback actually, and really helped me define my own points system) and if I could figure out how to insert "links to threads" I would put it here but as I can't, I will say that I do definitely prefer a point system because it is fairer to all concerned and less work to supervise. Now as to the amount of points to use, well that could be debated all day and night. I think it is up to the DM and the type of campaign he/she has in mind. I must admit to being favorable to a high end point system, but not too high, (I did make one up myself and was posted on ENWorld in the DnD Rules Forum) as that really does allow the Player to create the exact, if stereo typical, character he/she wants and not be disappointed. However if you operate a more realistic campaign then a lower end point system would be better as that would generate the typical average character with maybe slight advantages over a standard commoner, but with maybe more character traits to ponder over and of course roleplay. Oh well thats my 2 cents....cheers all

 

[BVB]

Point buy is fair and balanced and allows players to end up with the characters they really want (as long as that character isn't Superman).

And 28 points is perfectly fine. It's a good value. Potential attribute combinations would include:
18 12 10 10 10 10
16 16 12 10 10 8
17 15 12 10 9 8
14 14 14 14 10 10 ... and there's nothing wrong with that.

If you want a teensy bit of randomization, I'd suggest allowing 27+1d4 points per character. Or, after the player assigns his attributes in order, add a single point to the one attribute determined by the roll of 1d6 (1=strength, 2=dex, etc.); maybe do it twice.

Interestingly enough, the point-buy system benefits non-human, non-orc races with truly remarkable attributes the most. Consider a human designed with the stats 18, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10, for example. If the player really wanted an 18 attribute (not 20, just 18) via one of the other races, he'd only have to buy up to a 16 (duh!), which would give him an additional 6 buying points to spend elsewhere. If he wanted to shore up his penalized attribute (+2/-2), that still leaves 4 points to spend. So the human has 18, 12 and 10x4, but a non-human would end up with 18, 12, 12, 12, 10, 10.