D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Arial Black]

* Please don't speak for everyone. I also don't see what rules written (or not written) twenty some odd years ago have to do with the current discussion. Not that it matters and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I've been using some variation of point buy since the 80s.

My statement was factually correct.

I didn't state that every player has always used rolling; I said the game itself has always used rolling, from its inception to the present day.

Back to the discussion. We both agree that I can't write up Superman.

But stronger or more charismatic than average is anything more than an 11. Or maybe I start (heaven forbid) with less than a 16 intelligence. Many of my characters don't have optimized stats. Yet again, you are the one getting hung up on numbers.

Really? I'm getting hung up on numbers? Implying that you are not? Yet you seem hung up enough that the mere suggestion of instead of having to decide whether my smith/wizard is wise or charismatic, I instead want him to be wise and charismatic, that this is equivalent to wanting my PC to have Str 100 and shoot laser beams from my eyes!

The rules give me a way of implementing the vision of my character. The rules are there as a means to facilitate that vision but also put boundaries on our characters. That's true with whatever system you use.

If I (and my group) want multiple high all-around stats all we have to do is discuss it with the DM and set the point buy higher. Maybe use the point buy options from a previous edition so I can buy an 18. Done.

Point-buy possesses many advantages. It's just that "it lets players play what they want" is not an advantages it can honestly claim.

If such a method is desired, then 'choose your stats to match your concept' (note the total lack of point-buy) is the method you are looking for.

If that seems unplayable, I have to say that this is the method my main group has been using for upwards of 20 years, including the final few years of 2E.

Other games use this as their default system. The Marvel Heroic Role-Playing Game is one such game. Choose your hero concept, apply the stats that match your concept. Do you have all maxed stats? Well, your buddies might roll their eyes, but it is not only rules legal it's how you realise concepts like The Silver Surfer.

As for realising fantasy concepts, we do this when we try to model heroes from books/films in terms of D&D. Let's look at the archtypal adventuring party in literature: did every PC in the Fellowship of the Ring start with 27 points? Aragorn was above average in Str, Dex, Con, Wis and Cha; are we really giving him 11s in all of those and suppose that it matches our Aragorn concept, on the grounds that '11 is above average'?

Point-buy simply is not up to the job of matching our concepts, unless we either change our concepts to match 27 points (which is the same process that you go through to change your concept to match what you rolled) or only think of concepts that add up to 27 points (which matches the idea that you only come up with a concept after you roll your stats).

Poor Aragorn, it wasn't old age that killed you, it was point-buy.

 

[Oofta]

Point-buy simply is not up to the job of matching our concepts,

And there you go again, speaking for everyone.


The more people throw around things like

My statement was factually correct.

The less this is a conversation and has devolved (long ago) into "This is the one true way".

I have a preference. You have a different preference. I'm done.

 

[Tony Vargas]

; I said the game itself has always used rolling, from its inception to the present day.

It has always been an option, it has not always been the default, however.

Really? I'm getting hung up on numbers? Implying that you are not?

Niether of you are hung up on exact numbers when extolling or defending your preferred chargen method - both of you do when criticising the others, though.

Point-buy possesses many advantages. It's just that "it lets players play what they want" is not an advantages it can honestly claim.

It absolutely is, if you don't get exactingly hung up on numbers, and do consider that others will be playing the same game.

Under point buy, if you want to be the big dumb barbarian, you dump a lot of points into STR and dump INT. Unless you're hung up on numbers, that's letting you play the character you want. Now, depending on the details of the system, you might well get an even higher STR and even lower INT rolling randomly - you also might roll a low score of 13 and high of 15, and come nowhere near it.

Similarly, if you want a more all-around set of stats, point buy let's you be at least a bit above average across the board, while random might deliver a bit more - or a collection of 3's and 18s...

So, yes, unequivocally, point buy let's each player 'play what you want' ...

If such a method is desired, then 'choose your stats to match your concept' (note the total lack of point-buy) is the method you are looking for.

Nope, that can easily fail completely. Without any build system, there's no common ground, so one player whose concept calls for 'very strong' might take a 16, while another takes a 24, and a third gives his 'all-around' concept straight 18s.

Point-buy puts everyone in the same page, so they actually can all build the characters they want, in the context of the campaign, and relative to eachother.

Sure, since D&D is a game, and needs to be balanced (point buy) or at least fair (rolled) to be playable, you can't always perfectly model the stats you guesstimate this or that fictional character might have. But, compared to all the game's other failings when it comes to modeling genre, that's a trivial objection - in addition to being a strike against both sorts of methods.

 

[chaochou]

What happened was that every player wanted those juicy mechanical bonuses! And so they skewed their rolling systems or just outright lied, so that their PCs had some damn bonuses! If you didn't have any bonuses, what's the point of stats? Any PC rolled without bonuses got thrown in the bin and a new set was rolled until you got some.

Well, to be fair the skewed systems were all in the DMG. Roll up 12 sets of stats and choose the one you like the most. Roll 6 values for each attribute and pick the best. Kind of undermines the point of bothering, if you're just allowed to keep rolling until you get the scores you want.

We actually played 3d6 in order rolled in front of the group for at least 2 or 3 years and in that time I never saw an 18, a 15 was exceptional and most characters had no bonuses anywhere. Did we care? Not a bit. 1e, as we played it, was a roguelike survival game in which everyone was a bad roll or saving throw away from death. It's not my favourite form of rpg play these days, but it's strange that it seems to have passed out of the memory of the roleplaying community.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, to be fair the skewed systems were all in the DMG

The 1979 DMG, don't forget. ...

We actually played 3d6 in order rolled in front of the group for at least 2 or 3 years and in that time I never saw an 18, a 15 was exceptional and most characters had no bonuses anywhere. .., but it's strange that it seems to have passed out of the memory of the roleplaying community.

To be fair , 4d6 in order was arguably the norm in the fad years, and as or more generous random & point-buy methods ever since.

 

[Volourn]

Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. I prefer rolling (fairly) as it , as suggested, random, while point buy is way more limit. But, in the end, the stats don't matter as much as the DM does.

 

[Lanefan]

I was brought up on 1E, and the situation you describe, where stats less than 15 gave you no mechanical benefits, did not result in a sea of PCs with stats around 14 with the occasional 15! Oh, no, no, no!

What happened was that every player wanted those juicy mechanical bonuses! And so they skewed their rolling systems or just outright lied, so that their PCs had some damn bonuses! If you didn't have any bonuses, what's the point of stats? Any PC rolled without bonuses got thrown in the bin and a new set was rolled until you got some.

Not always the case, IME; I can remember some pretty bad-stat characters being played. Worst I can think of was one whose highest stat was a single 14 and stat average was just over 10 - in other words it barely made it above the line for each of my "DM perogative" cutoffs (highest stat 13 or lower or stat average less than 10 = start over). It lasted 3 adventures, would have gone longer except its player left the game for other reasons.

I've never seen a character rolled that was all 14s or even all 13s and 14s (though I did once roll one that was 3 14s and 3 15s).

That said, the valid reason to keep an all-14 character in 1e is that other than Paladin and Illusionist it could be whatever class you want...particularly Ranger, which wasn't always that easy to get to. And, are we talking all-14 before or after racial adjusts if non-human?

The advantage of the linear bonus thing is that every stat has a bonus associated with it (well, modifier). You don't feel the need to throw away a PC who has six 14s. In 1E, six 14s was a totally useless PC, no better than six 7s. In 5E, six 14s would be cheating-style good!

The corollary disadvantage of linear modifiers is what it does to the bell curve. In a normal population there's not all that much difference between 9 and 12 or even 8 and 13 in a given stat - 10.5 is the average - but there's a huge difference between a 13 and an 18, or an 8 and a 3. Linear modifiers destroy that rather than reflect it.

Even expanding the +0 range to 9-12 and leaving the rest linear from there would be a start.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

The game wasn't 'balanced,' in that sense, at all. That one fighter could hit the ground at 1hp, +0 to hit, and 2-8 damage, and another at 14hp, +4 to hit, and 11-26 damage (and an extra attack every-other round) does not exactly paint a picture of 'balance.'

How are you giving a 1st-level fighter 3/2 attacks? Two weapons (and thus sacrificing AC)? Also, how are you getting +4 to hit at 1st level? 18.00 strength gives +3/+6.

We actually played 3d6 in order rolled in front of the group for at least 2 or 3 years and in that time I never saw an 18, a 15 was exceptional and most characters had no bonuses anywhere. Did we care? Not a bit. 1e, as we played it, was a roguelike survival game in which everyone was a bad roll or saving throw away from death. It's not my favourite form of rpg play these days, but it's strange that it seems to have passed out of the memory of the roleplaying community.

Not here, it hasn't.

We've always had a much more generous rolling system than 3d6 in order, but our games have always had (and still have) that somewhat rogue-like feel to them. Works for me.

{rolling} has always been an option, it has not always been the default, however.

True, which explicitly means the statement "rolling has always been part of the game" remains true notwithstanding.

What is also factually true is that both point-buy and stat arrays have not always been part of the game; though I'm not sure exactly when they were introduced I know they weren't part of 1e even as an option and am reasonably sure they also didn't appear in any of the various versions of 0e (except maybe Rules Compendium?).

Poor Aragorn, it wasn't old age that killed you, it was point-buy.

I also blame Drizzt Do'Urden; both because I can and because it's true.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

How are you giving a 1st-level fighter 3/2 attacks? Two weapons (and thus sacrificing AC)? Also, how are you getting +4 to hit at 1st level? 18.00 strength gives +3/+6.

Specialization, of course.

True, which explicitly means the statement "rolling has always been part of the game" remains true

Didn't say it was false, just clarifying that it was not obligatory, and not even the default in all editions.

though I'm not sure exactly when they were introduced

Yeah, arrays kinda snuck up on me. They were the default chargen method in Essentials, and an option in 4e that corresponded precisely to the default point buy. Point but in 3e was similar, but not what my group at the time used - and I don't recall if arrays were a 3e thing - though a campaign could use an 'array' in any other chargen system by applying it once and having all players arrange the result as they like - so whenever it happened it wasn't a quantum leap or anything.

Point buy and gaining stats as you level weren't unheard of variants back in the dau, either, of course.

I also blame Drizzt Do'Urden; both because I can and because it's true.

Lanefan

Sounds fair to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Specialization, of course.

Didn't say it was false, just clarifying that it was not obligatory, and not even the default in all editions.

Yeah, arrays kinda snuck up on me. They were the default chargen method in Essentials, and an option in 4e that corresponded precisely to the default point buy. Point but in 3e was similar, but not what my group at the time used - and I don't recall if arrays were a 3e thing - though a campaign could use an 'array' in any other chargen system by applying it once and having all players arrange the result as they like - so whenever it happened it wasn't a quantum leap or anything.

Point buy and gaining stats as you level weren't unheard of variants back in the dau, either, of course.

Sounds fair to me.

Was specialization in the base game?