D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Ilbranteloth]

If that's the way you and your players like to play, that's cool. But if I sat at your table and you told me I had to do this bulls*it, I'd get up and leave. No offense, but I like to build my character concepts in my head long before I put them down on paper, and I don't want to be forced to play a class based off of the randomness of the dice. You might as well get the race and class dice (they do exist, a friend of mine have them) and say roll these and that's what you're going to play.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

No offense taken, other than to say if you don't like it, fine. But you don't need to be insulting about it.

I certainly don't think there's any problem with the way you like to create your character. And if I sat down at your table I'd happily play your game with your rules.

On the other hand, have you ever tried something like our approach? We roll the characters at session 0, and since they all come from the same town and know each other, we have a shared hand in helping develop the characters. I think you're missing out on what we've found to be the most enjoyable way for us to create characters - for the last 30 years or so. I'm not saying everybody will like it. But that's up to you.

More importantly, you also aren't fully understanding our approach. You aren't forced to play a class based on the randomness of the dice. Many of my players have character concepts before rolling stats. However, you also won't get a completely optimized set of stats either. As I said, each player has at least three characters, and if they are only playing one, then they roll 6 sets of stats and pick the one they like best.

If we absolutely have to, we'll allow somebody to use an alternate system, starting with pick the group you like best and swap any two scores. If that's not enough, you can go to the point buy. But in general, that's not really in the spirit of the way our group plays. It happens very rarely.

Another thing that is probably lost in discussions like these, is that the focus of our campaign is probably different. Which means you might find that you "optimize" differently to fit that campaign. Or that optimization isn't really necessary at all. The context is probably very different.

I'm not interested in the race and class dice. I'm well aware of them. It's not about randomly generating your character. It's about randomly generating the base physical and mental aspects of the character that you won't have any control of. I didn't have any choice about my "stats" when I was born. I do have a choice of what to do with what I started with, though. While race could reasonably be a part of that approach, we address that a bit differently. Two out of three of our characters are human.

 

[Yaztromo]

I´m definitely up for point buy too.

 

[Caliban]

On the other hand, have you ever tried something like our approach? We roll the characters at session 0, and since they all come from the same town and know each other, we have a shared hand in helping develop the characters. I think you're missing out on what we've found to be the most enjoyable way for us to create characters - for the last 30 years or so. I'm not saying everybody will like it. But that's up to you.

I really dislike this type of sales pitch. I've heard variations on it several times over the years. It always makes me feel like I'm being proselytized by a cult member.

"You just haven't done it the right way. You're really missing out on the "real way" of playing D&D. C'mon, just try it one more time. And have some complimentary Kool-Aid while you roll up your character."

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Fair enough. But, what if I don't want to play a wizard? Because that's the whole point. Obviously, if you don't care what character you are going to play, then fair enough, roll away. But, for anyone who actually has a character in mind, what they want doesn't matter?

And, then there's the balance issue. An 18 die rolled stat, bumped to a 19 or 20 for racial adjustment, is the equivalent of one or two free ASI's. Would die rollers be happy if I played a standard array character with two free feats at first level?

Sure, I understand that this is a preference thing, and fair enough. But, I think that a lot of the pretty large balance issues that come out of die rolled characters gets ignored in these conversations. Back in 1e or Basic/Expert, it didn't matter all that much. 14 or lower didn't net any bonuses, and, by and large, even 15 and 16 wasn't a big deal. I mean, there's no difference, really, in the effectiveness of a 15 Str fighter and an 11 Str fighter.

But, 5e doesn't work like that. There's huge differences between 16 and 20. It impacts virtually every aspect of the game. Your casters spells work 10% more often. They get bonus spells to use. They heal more per spell. The fighter's attack bonuses and damage really matter between a 15 and a 20, particularly when we're talking about bounded accuracy. It's not that easy to get +2 to hit in 5e. This isn't 3e where you had fifteen different sources of bonuses and your stat probably didn't matter that much.

I mean, a 10th level 3e fighter had a +10 BAB. Even with a 20 Strength, he only went to +15. Add in the buffs on the character and magic weapons and whatnot, and that +5 wasn't really making any difference. And if you had +3, you were still hitting just as often. In 5e, that's a much, much larger difference. A 1st-3rd level fighter with a 16 Str only has a +5 attack bonus. With a 20, he has +7. A 50% (thereabouts) jump in bonus. That's HUGE. And it's not like you're going to have six different buffs on you at high level and swinging a +4 sword, plus feats giving you attack bonuses and whatnot. With a 16 Str, your +5 only becomes a +7 at 10th level. IOW, that 20 Str fighter is attacking with the same bonus as a character NINE levels higher.

This is why I don't like die rolled characters.

Then don't play a wizard. And why does it matter if somebody has the equivalent of one or two free ASI's? Why does everything have to be hyper-balanced like that?

Those types of differences matter only if that makes a big difference in your actual campaign. Your 50% jump in bonus is only a 10% jump in chance to-hit. As a group, those types of things can be very useful for ensuring survival. But it doesn't mean that everybody has to have the same bonus for something else. The fact that it's the same as a character 9 levels higher is much, much less important in 5e.

If you're trying to hit an AC 17 it's the difference between needing an 8 or higher instead of a 10 or higher. Very far from game breaking. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the +3/+5 in 3e. A two-point difference in 3e is still a 10% difference, just like 5e. You can't be hitting just as often with a +3 bonus in 3e as a +5. You'd hit 10% less, or actually a variable amount depending on the target AC.

In OD&D/AD&D, a 5th level fighter was as good as a 9th level thief or an 11th level wizard when it came to hitting an AC 3. That worked just fine for almost 20 years. In 3e, a 5th level fighter was the equivalent of a 6th level rogue and a 10th level wizard. In both of those (particularly 3e) AC went well beyond that 3 AC. In AD&D it went 13 points farther, and 3e it was essentially infinite. In 5e, though, the maximum published monster AC is less than 10 points higher than 17.

It's not really as big a deal as you think, although it's also very, very dependent upon the DM, the campaign, and whether there are lots of players optimizing, tying to fit specific (combat) roles, and other approaches that have come up over the years. Having said that, I do agree that the scaling is different in 5e, and it tends to be on the high side for my tastes. But that's OK, I can live with it and I can work with it.

All I can say, is that until you play in one of the campaigns where we roll for characters, you probably really can't determine how much of an impact it may or may not have within that context.

I still won't pretend that everybody would like it. I'm sure they wouldn't. Just like I'm positive that not everybody would like me as a DM. But after 35+ years of DMing and having players of pretty much any given play style playing in my campaigns, most of the time they find that it's not what they expected. And it didn't become the favorite approach for all of them. But for a lot of them it has, at least when they are playing in my campaigns.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I really dislike this type of sales pitch. I've heard variations on it several times over the years. It always makes me feel like I'm being proselytized by a cult member.

"You just haven't done it the right way. You're really missing out on the "real way" of playing D&D. C'mon, just try it one more time. And have some complimentary Kool-Aid while you roll up your character."

Nope, not my intention at all.

I think I'm pretty good at pointing out that my approach is just that, my approach. It's not for everybody, and I don't begin to pretend it is.

And the sentence you didn't include that immediately preceded that was "And if I sat down at your table I'd happily play your game with your rules."

And the response as a whole was in direct response to: "But if I sat at your table and you told me I had to do this bulls*it, I'd get up and leave."

That leads me to believe that [MENTION=6857879]neogod22[/MENTION] has not tried it. More importantly, their response, as well as those by others, regarding how the system works, or the ramifications of using such a system don't match my experience using the approach for a long time. Which also leads me to believe that the approach as we apply it in our campaign is different than what others think it is.

It's not the "real" way, it's a different way. It wasn't even the "default" way until 2e (the "default" or Method I in AD&D was 4d6, drop one, arrange as desired).

I really have no idea whether [MENTION=6857879]neogod22[/MENTION] has tried it. That was a legitimate question. And after all the time that I've played, I have honestly found that this is the approach I/we like best. That's a simple observation of my own experience and statement of fact regarding our table. The fact that we build the characters together, rather than at home by ourselves is another part of the process we use, and I think is probably pretty different from how most folks that use point buy/optimization do, and also a big part of the fun of rolling for stats instead of a point buy. At least for us.

I even ended that comment with "I'm not saying everybody will like it" and followed it with several other paragraphs as to how we try to accommodate those who really just don't like it if they decide to sit down at one of my tables.

On the other hand, I play D&D, and I'm always proselytizing that. Because it is the best game ever!

 

[Seramus]

8d6 point buy is the current method we're using.

Point Buy between 6 and 48? This is really interesting. Maintains the gambling aspect, while ensuring balance between characters. I would absolutely hate to be the poor bastards that roll a 6 point buy.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Why on earth would your players being rolling stats on their own? Forget cheating, part of the fun of rolling ability scores is the whole group meeting together and watching the lottery numbers roll out one by one. I mean, seriously, after the stats are rolled and the character is already created, you've already missed half the value of the experience.

I don't always roll stats, but when I do, it's in front of everyone.

 

[Hussar]

At that point, I'm honestly wondering why you'd bother rolling [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]. Those arrays you listed are pretty much standard arrays. Certainly within a couple of points anyway. Besides that guy with the 17 Dex and 15 con who's pretty much just begging to be a fighter or rogue.

So, he's going to start with an 18 or 19 Dex. Effectively a bonus feat at first level. Sweet. He's actually better than EVERY rogue will ever be who starts with a point buy. Nice. As a fighter, he attacks several levels higher and has a better AC than the heavy armor characters for a fraction of the cost. Again, sweet.

Never minding that poor schmuck you force to play the 12, 10, 10, 11, 14, 10 array. Whoohoo. I have to be a fighter or rogue who will never, ever be equal to Bob sitting beside me. Fantastic. Gimme more of that please.

Yeah, no thanks.

It's funny. We play with array or point buy (player choice) and yet, despite my current campaign of no casters (two rangers, a paladin, two fighters and a monk) none of the characters have even remotely similar stats.

 

[Hussar]

All I can say, is that until you play in one of the campaigns where we roll for characters, you probably really can't determine how much of an impact it may or may not have within that context.

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, realized it didn't fit and wasn't worth a penny. We switched to point buy years ago and haven't looked back.

 

[Lanefan]

But, I think that a lot of the pretty large balance issues that come out of die rolled characters gets ignored in these conversations. Back in 1e or Basic/Expert, it didn't matter all that much. 14 or lower didn't net any bonuses, and, by and large, even 15 and 16 wasn't a big deal. I mean, there's no difference, really, in the effectiveness of a 15 Str fighter and an 11 Str fighter.

The cause of that isn't random-rolled characters, it's the linear bonuses we've seen from 3e onward.

But, 5e doesn't work like that.

Though without much effort it could quickly be made to.

If that's the way you and your players like to play, that's cool. But if I sat at your table and you told me I had to do this bulls*it, I'd get up and leave.

Fine. See ya.

No offense, but I like to build my character concepts in my head long before I put them down on paper, and I don't want to be forced to play a class based off of the randomness of the dice.

Fair enough. Some of us, however, are ready willing and able to adjust said character concept(s) to suit the whims of the deities of dice...and if all the shoehorning I can do still won't make that concept work then hey, there's always next time.

And rest assured there will be a next time: I never assume the character(s) I start a campaign with will be the one(s) I finish it with, and thus far I've been right every time.

Never minding that poor schmuck you force to play the 12, 10, 10, 11, 14, 10 array. Whoohoo. I have to be a fighter or rogue who will never, ever be equal to Bob sitting beside me. Fantastic. Gimme more of that please.

Of course you'll never be equal to Bob. Sometimes you'll be better, sometimes worse; depending what you're trying to do at the time - but rarely will you be equal.

12-10-10-11-14-10 is, I freely admit, a bit...lacking. There's no one decently high stat, nor a decently low one. Here I think I'd gladly allow the player to knock 2 off one stat to put 2 on another on a one-time basis, just to shake it up. 12-10-8-11-16-10 has way more potential, both for fun and for success...and the 8 is just as important as the 16 for this.

One of the most successful, longest-lasting, and fun characters I ever had...and this was in 3e...was a Part-Elf Wizard (Illusionist) who started out after racial adjusts with something like S-10 I-15 W-7 D-12 Co-12 Ch-11 - by far the worst stat average in the party, and she started at raw 1st so it's not like she could pile on the Christmas lights right away. This was randomly rolled on (if memory serves) a system that was more generous than flat 4d6k3.

So anytime I hear something like "Oh woe is me, my starting stats aren't as good as someone else" I just point to her as evidence that stats aren't everything.

It's funny. We play with array or point buy (player choice) and yet, despite my current campaign of no casters (two rangers, a paladin, two fighters and a monk) none of the characters have even remotely similar stats.

Which seems odd, given that other than the monk that's a martial-centric group. Are they all different races?

Lan-"and multiple character campaigns are not just the one true way, they're the multiple true way!"-efan