D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

Was specialization in the base game?

it was in 1e UA, c1983 - Its not like there were a ton of 1e splatbooks or a 'core' distinction back then...
It was in the 2e PH, as well of course, as were a lot of things that appeared in UA (I almost said 'first appeared,' but a lot of UA content first appeared in The Dragon...).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Then you were trying to decide whether he is sociable, OR whether he is perceptive/agile/tough. You cannot have 'what you want' if 'what you want' is all three! That concept cannot be realised through point-buy.

/snip

But, at that point, aren't we back to "I die roll so I can play more powerful characters"? I mean, your concept here is strong, intelligent, perceptive, agile AND tough. The only thing he isn't is charismatic (and he might very well be if you rolled well enough).

I'm not really interested in playing or playing with Mary Sue characters that are good at everything.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Linear stat scaling has done away with all that. Now you can't ever be a good GreatWeapon fighter if you keep a 13 str your whole career. It's just not possible. No matter what your concept says, to be a good fighter you must be super strong. You can't just be stronger than average (as a 13 would indicate). Instead you have to be super strong. You can't just be skilled at fighting well and be slightly above average strength. Instead you must be super strong and skilled at fighting well.

I think this discussion is missing the most important points. Character concept should be about your class first and foremost. Stats should help you describe a particular fighter or a particular wizard or a particular rogue but as long as a minimum stat threshold is reached those classes should perform nearly the same at least until the exceptional threshold is reached.

Modern games linear stat bonus system may make stats more important than class when it comes to function. For example. A 20 str Wizard at level 5 can probably outfight a 13 strength fighter at level 5 even though the fighter gets extra attack and has better weapon choices. That's absurd IMO.

No, no they really, really can't. That 20 Str wizard is going to get curb stomped in a weapon contest simply because of the extra attacks. Sure, the wizard has +3/hit and damage over the fighter, but, that fighter is getting two attacks per round and has a significantly higher AC and about twice as many HP.

But, the funny thing is, my 16 Dex archer ranger has been perfectly fine up to 8th level (that's where the campaign has been hung up on due to real life stuff) and is probably the number 2 damage dealer in the group (the GWF barbarian does take top spot). It's not like you NEED maxed out stats. A 16 in your prime stat is perfectly fine.

 

[Hussar]

Was specialization in the base game?

In 2e yes, it was.

1e introduced weapon specs in Unearthed Arcana and they were just unbelievably over powered. Yes, let's give my 1st level character +3 to hit and damage and 3/2 attacks for the cost of one weapon proficiency (of which I got 4 at 1st level). O.O

 

[Lanefan]

1e introduced weapon specs in Unearthed Arcana and they were just unbelievably over powered. Yes, let's give my 1st level character +3 to hit and damage and 3/2 attacks for the cost of one weapon proficiency (of which I got 4 at 1st level).

Looking at my UA tells me this:

There was weapon specialization, and "double specialization" to further enhance that one weapon. You needed both to get the +3, and each cost a proficiency slot (or two slots if the specced weapon was a bow other than crossbow). You could only double-spec. in handheld melee weapons.

When this came out we only adopted the single-spec., for Fighters only (UA gives it to Rangers too); and toned it down so the benefits came in slowly over the first four levels. For melee weapons the (non-cumulative!) benefits by level are:

1st - +1/+0
2nd - +1/+1
3rd - +1/+2
4th - +1/+2 and 3/2 attacks
5th and further: as per the UA write-up.

Bows and missile weapons are more of a mess, with about the same amount of toning down being the (intended) end result.

This has worked really well for us over the years, except we keep having to fine-tune the archery spec. benefits so they don't get out of hand at higher levels.

Oh, and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - UA was published in 1985. The Dragon articles on which a lot of it was based, however, came out over the preceding several years.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

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

The idea of gaining stats as a straight result of levelling was, as fate would have it, also first seen in the 1e UA as percentile stat increments for Cavaliers.

We took one look at this idea, thought it was brilliant, gave it to all classes, and still use it today.

Lan-"though to make the percentile increment system work with Fighters' exceptional strength did take a bit of tweaking"-efan

 

[FrogReaver]

No, no they really, really can't. That 20 Str wizard is going to get curb stomped in a weapon contest simply because of the extra attacks. Sure, the wizard has +3/hit and damage over the fighter, but, that fighter is getting two attacks per round and has a significantly higher AC and about twice as many HP.

But, the funny thing is, my 16 Dex archer ranger has been perfectly fine up to 8th level (that's where the campaign has been hung up on due to real life stuff) and is probably the number 2 damage dealer in the group (the GWF barbarian does take top spot). It's not like you NEED maxed out stats. A 16 in your prime stat is perfectly fine.

Yes armor and hp do matter

The point is that 20str wizard is competitive enough. Give him mage armor (his ac fix) and he has a good chance of winning that fight (its a +4 difference not +3 btw). Alternatively look at a level 4 fighter vs a level 4 wizard in the same scenario and the extra hp and ac don't really matter. A high str wizard becomes better at fighting than a low str fighter for a significant proportion of his career. Somethings not right there. At least to me, but I imagine something isn't right there to a great many people.

 

[Maxperson]

In 2e yes, it was.

1e introduced weapon specs in Unearthed Arcana and they were just unbelievably over powered. Yes, let's give my 1st level character +3 to hit and damage and 3/2 attacks for the cost of one weapon proficiency (of which I got 4 at 1st level). O.O

It cost three of those proficiencies. One to be able to use the weapon, one for +1, +2, and a third for +2, +1. Sure you were amazing with that one weapon, but if you lost that weapon which was pretty easy back in the day, you were screwed.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes armor and hp do matter

The point is that 20str wizard is competitive enough. Give him mage armor (his ac fix) and he has a good chance of winning that fight (its a +4 difference not +3 btw). Alternatively look at a level 4 fighter vs a level 4 wizard in the same scenario and the extra hp and ac don't really matter. A high str wizard becomes better at fighting than a low str fighter for a significant proportion of his career. Somethings not right there. At least to me, but I imagine something isn't right there to a great many people.

You said modern games. In 3e that fighter will have base attack to compensate, specialization, weapon focus, power attack, and more to move him well past the stronger wizard. 4e I don't know. 5e will have things like superiority dice, action surge for another attack, great weapon fighting to re-roll low rolls, maneuvers, and improved critical.

So now you've done the following, which happens a lot when people try to compare wizards to fighters. You've got a wizard with a 20 strength, who has fewer hit points, does less damage, but hits a bit more, and who is spending one of his 4 first level spells in order to be almost as good as a fighter.

That's such a corner case to be almost as good as a fighter at low levels only, that it's really not even worth bothering to consider.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. A high str wizard becomes better at fighting than a low str fighter for a significant proportion of his career. Somethings not right there. At least to me, but I imagine something isn't right there to a great many people.

Its a consequence of BA. Proficiency is uniform for all classes and not a large bonus, so, outside of expertise at higher levels, you can't really look at d20 checks to judge competence, you have to look at hps/damage.