Should point buy be discouraged?

[billd91]

The randomness of 6 people rolling 24 random dice to determine thier level of fun for the campaign is always going to be unfair to someone.

Always? Not even close.

 

[DonTadow]

Always? Not even close.

Or you play with people who don't care about the evenness of charcters, which is fine, but, game design wise, fair makes a game. There are a lot of things that are difficult to balance in dnd, equal stats for all isn't one of them. If people want the more random approach by all means. But asa game, it needs to have a default where all players start on the same playing field.

 

[DonTadow]

There's a difference between "useable" and "munchkin."



It doesn't necessarily mean that; between the careful allocation of your remaining points and racial ability bonuses, you can end up with an 18 in your primary ability score and having your dump stat being only 10 - a statistical "average."

Add in ability points gained as you level and stat-boosting items, and even that can be raised with surprising quickness (while the primary ability score will inflate even further).

That's not to mention the fact that PCs are great at finding ways to minimize reliance on their dump stat; the party is very good, in my experience, at working together for this. Yes, that fighter has a Charisma of 10, but guess what? The group won't want him to be the "face man" for them anyway - they'll want the guy who started with an 18 in Charisma to do it, and he'll be more than happy to.

Min-maxing allows the PCs to specialize in their "role" in the party, and they'll work together as such that they'll each cover their role well enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to use that min-maxing against them by making a situation where they'll have to play to their characters' weaknesses.

It's natural for the party to work together, to shore up their strengths and cover each other's weaknesses. But the min-maxing that point-buying allows, and that they then capitalize on, makes it very easy as well as obvious to inflate their strengths to a ridiculous degree while simultaneously minimizing their individual weaknesses to near-nonexistence.

Sure if you only use charisma as a talking skill, but charisma doesnt mean that, it means mere presence. It means standing in a room while important things are going on and being crass. It means everytime you speak you just don;t say the right thing and it easier costs you money or health. It means that your dumpstat becomes a liability for the group, not just you. Last charisma dump stat character got a stint in jail.

 

[Alzrius]

Or you play with people who don't care about the evenness of charcters, which is fine, but, game design wise, fair makes a game. There are a lot of things that are difficult to balance in dnd, equal stats for all isn't one of them. If people want the more random approach by all means. But asa game, it needs to have a default where all players start on the same playing field.

You're not wrong about this, but actually implementing it is problematic at best. I've yet to see any two gamers who agree on a strict definition of "balance," and even if they were, I've never seen an unequivocal example of it in actual play.

Chess doesn't have the players starting on the same playing field, simply because some moves are better than others (castling lets you move two pieces at once; a pawn's first move can be two spaces while the rest are just one), and because some players are more experienced and so have greater insight; if Chess can't be balanced, what hope does D&D have?

Sure if you only use charisma as a talking skill, but charisma doesnt mean that, it means mere presence. It means standing in a room while important things are going on and being crass. It means everytime you speak you just don;t say the right thing and it easier costs you money or health. It means that your dumpstat becomes a liability for the group, not just you. Last charisma dump stat character got a stint in jail.

But how do you enforce that in actual play? I'm struggling to imagine it.

GM: Alright, the king agrees to sign the charter allowing you to claim the eastern wilderness.

Player 1: Excellent. I bow deeply and thank His Majesty.

Player 2: I also respectfully offer my gratitude.

GM: The king hollers for his guards to throw you *points to player 2* in jail.

Player 2: What?! Why?! Player 1 did all the talking! All I did was thank him at the end!

GM: You were scratching yourself the entire time. And you farted rather loudly during the negotiations-

Player 2: That was OUT OF GAME!

GM: -and you relieved yourself in a nearby potted plant.

Player 2: Oh come on! I never said my character did any of those things! I control what my character does and says!

GM: You have a Charisma of 7. You did them.

 

[Herschel]

How many cries of "You have to put an 18 in your prime stat!" have I heard from point buyers? Sheesh. Enough.

How is that any different than "You have to put your highest roll in your prime stat!"?

Once again, the words of E. Gary Gygax from Page 9 of the PHB.

"The range of these abilities is between 3 and 18. The premise of the game is that each player is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 and above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

 

[SensoryThought]

A few points:
1. My favorite campaign I ever played in was as a 13 Str Mariner (fighter) in a 2e Dragonlance game with 3d6 play them how they fall. Great characters can still feel powerful and cool with mediocre scores and the right DM.

2. My problem with 4e points buy is it pretty much precludes a low attribute character - the fighter with 5 Int or Ranger with 5 Cha. These can be a fun/challenge to experience.

2. The 80s TSR Dragonquest game had a cool random points buy system. You rolled on a table for the number of attribute points you had, but this also inversely correlated with the max value you could have. IE you could end up with a high best score or scores with the rest being at or below average. Alternately all could be above average but nothing stand out stellar. And this was random.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

How is that any different than "You have to put your highest roll in your prime stat!"?

Once again, the words of E. Gary Gygax from Page 9 of the PHB.

"The range of these abilities is between 3 and 18. The premise of the game is that each player is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 and above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

Are you aware of what having a 15 in a stat got you over a 9? Because this is one of the major differences between pre-3e D&D and post-3e D&D.

Str: +20 Weight allowance, +80 Max press, +3 Open doors, +6% Bend bars/Lift gates
Con: +1 HP per level, +25% System shock, +24% Resurrection survival,
Dex: -1 Defense adjustment
Int: +2 Languages, +3 Max spell level(able to cast 7th level spells)*, +30% chance to learn spells*, +5 max spells known per level*
Wis: +1 Magic Defense, 2 1st and 1 2nd level bonus spells**, -20% chance of spell failure**
Cha: +3 Max # of Henchmen, +3 base Loyalty, +3 Reaction adjustment

*Magic-users only
**Priests only

 

[SSquirrel]

How many cries of "You have to put an 18 in your prime stat!" have I heard from point buyers? Sheesh. Enough.

I have never allowed point buy in my campaign and I never will. If that's a group's preference, I have nothing against them following that preference, but both as a player and as a dm, I loathe point buy.

Like I said before, I tend to use an 18 and accept a weak stat b/c my rolls suck hard. Fun fact. Browse the CharOp boards over at the WotC site. You will find people using 18s in builds a lot less than you would think, often b/c if they use an 18, they will be out of luck when it comes to a lot of feats for the build. There are plenty w/that 18->20 from the racial bonus, but there are less of them than people knocking a bit off the top to balance things out better for defenses and feats.

I've always figured, if I'm going to be, say, the party's wizard, I need to be the best wizard I can be. Which means being smarter. Which in earlier editions meant I had more spells before I would be stuck hurling daggers or darts or pew-pewing w/a crossbow. Which, we all know, is what the Wizard is all about. *sigh*

 

[SSquirrel]

2. My problem with 4e points buy is it pretty much precludes a low attribute character - the fighter with 5 Int or Ranger with 5 Cha. These can be a fun/challenge to experience.

In prior editions, the shorthand for Intelligence in most groups I played in seemed to be about 10 IQ points per point of Int. If you had a 50 IQ, you wouldn't be doing a lot of adventuring. Here is a list of what you are capable of w/some of the lower IQs (from the wikipedia IQ entry:

• Adults can harvest vegetables, repair furniture 60
• Adults can do domestic work 50
• Adults can mow lawns, do simple laundry 40

Only 5% of the population is under 75 IQ. 50 IQ would make you about the equivalent of a second grader as far as caring for yourself. At 80 IQ you are on the bottom end of low average, approaching the borderline. I've watched people try and roleplay someone of severe intelligence handicaps and it was generally not a pretty picture. Playing the dumb Dudley DoRight Paladin, sure, but even he was never like that.


8 as a minimum (especially if you are using the 10 IQ per Int gauge) makes for a much more believable player experience. I've played characters w/8's. Heck, my Daggermaster has a 9 right now and that's only b/c we're Paragon He has some tactics he was taught over the years by his family, but he isn't solving any dungeon puzzles, tends to get bored and do things like push our dwarf fighter off a waterfall so people will stop arguing and get a move on, etc. He's a redneck halfling who has half the group grossed out or scared of him and REALLY glad he's on their side I have to hold in a lot of my natural tendency to answer and solve things and it's fun. We already had someone playing a Wizard this time.

 

[Hassassin]

In prior editions, the shorthand for Intelligence in most groups I played in seemed to be about 10 IQ points per point of Int. If you had a 50 IQ, you wouldn't be doing a lot of adventuring. Here is a list of what you are capable of w/some of the lower IQs (from the wikipedia IQ entry:
[...]
Only 5% of the population is under 75 IQ.

In that case you should probably consider Int 5 to be IQ 75, as if 3d6 is taken to model the population, 5 or lower comes up about 5% of the time.