• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

Oofta

Legend
The real heroes are the ones who are weak and scared, but do the job anyway. You aren't really a hero if you're strong and it's easy.

Sigh. We have this conversation every time this comes up.

I misspoke. I don't have a problem playing Bob the Janitor. I have a problem playing Bob the Janitor with a high of 14 as a stat and a couple of 6s, while on the same team Super Dave starts with a couple of 20s and nothing lower than a 14. For that matter, I wouldn't want to play Super Dave either, since there would be less of a feeling of growth.

But of course, I'm just a power-hungry noob who doesn't know the one true way (tm) of playing D&D. Obviously you win D&D and I'm just a lozer for not wanting random stats. My bad.

Heaven forbid I want everyone playing the game to feel both empowered and have room to grow.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
The real heroes are the ones who are weak and scared, but do the job anyway. You aren't really a hero if you're strong and it's easy.
Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
 


Ilbranteloth

Explorer
I've been playing D&D and other RPGs for 25 years starting with 2e. Sure I rolled stats, and rolled them for various other games as well. You know why I prefer point buy? 1. it saves time. 2. you don't have to make stupid rules for people to get good rolls. 3. everyone can play what they want to play, because there will be no way they won't be locked out of a class for not having stats (Paladins were the worst). 4. You don't get overpowered characters. 5. No need to roll 6 characters because the 1st 5 were s#itty. 6. you really won't need a session 0, because it only takes a few mins to make a character.

Just because something is tradition, doesn't always make it good. Which is why all of you "rollers" are using special house rules for your rolling and not a single one of you are rolling straight 3d6 and take the result which is what it's supposed to be. I have literally sar at a table, asked everyone what they were playing and made a character in 10 mins and was ready to play with point buy on multiple occasions. It's just simple.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

So I have a legitimate question, and I'm asking in good faith. Is there a reason why your posts seem to be angry and insulting? Is it intentional, or do you not realize it?

Because I have no problem with you (or anybody) preferring point buy. The standard array and point buy are essential approaches if you prefer to plan your character out ahead of time, especially if you've preplanned things like multi classing, feats, etc. If you are the type that likes character builds, it gives you a known foundation to work from. They are usually fast approaches as well, and ensure "fairness" when people are creating characters at home.

My reasons for preferring rolling are because my preferences differ from those and also in several areas you've stated, and for several reasons you haven't.

1. Not a primary concern of ours.

2. See below.

3. We are playing what we want to play - D&D. As for specific classes, we prefer that that certain classes are as rare in the campaign as they are in the game world, and develop rules for that purpose (part of the response for #2).

4. Any character that fits within the boundaries of the rules cannot be, by definition, overpowered. They can be more powerful than other characters. We're OK with that. If we think something is too much, then we alter the rules (boundaries) to fix that.

5. We allow folks to roll more characters for many reasons, the primary reasons, however, are not because the first 5 were bad.

6. We enjoy session 0 for character creation, along with many other reasons. If we were having a session 0 only to create characters and we were trying to save time at the table, then the players would create their characters at home. We've done that plenty as well (and still do), but we prefer to do it at the table (also part of the response below).

I have literally sat tat the table too and had people create characters in 10 minutes too. If speed is your primary goal, then great! That's not our primary goal in character creation.

As the home group came together, and I/we* started tweaking the 5e rules, character generation was naturally one of the areas that we addressed.

We didn't like that 5e felt "too easy" as written, and that the characters felt "too powerful" either. This is entirely subjective, and there are a lot of reasons we felt that way. In addition, the characters tended to feel very similar, again for various reasons. In regards to generating ability scores, we asked what everybody preferred. Without exception, they all preferred to roll. There were a variety of reasons, but that was the result.

So as I'm tweaking the rules, with that information as well, I started questioning what I/we liked (or not) and why.

1. We much preferred to generate characters together. The social aspect of it is a big part, but also because there are more people available for ideas, and we're also tying that character to the ongoing campaign. This is an important enough aspect for us that when somebody new joins, or when somebody is creating a new character, we either make time to get together, or we do it at one of the regular sessions, instead of playing.

2. We strongly disliked that with point buy or a standard array that it became difficult to create "interesting" arrays. That is, when you are deciding where to put particular scores you tend to default to what makes the most sense for a specific class. So characters of those classes were very similar stat-wise. If you don't have a class or goal in mind, it can be quite difficult to assign stats.

3. Point buy and standard arrays didn't provide any inspiration. It was OK if you were sitting down with an idea of what you wanted the character to be, but without any random generation of anything, there was no catalyst for an idea. On the other hand, sitting down and rolling (as I'm doing now) STR 13, INT 12, WIS 11, DEX 10, CON 14, CHA 13 might.

4. Those stats I just rolled are perfect, because they also play into the next point. We like the rules to support the game world. So one of our rules (rather than a mechanical one) is that at least two of every three characters is human. We're not trying to incentivize ourselves by making the mechanical aspects of the race in the game more attractive. It's just a simple demographic thing, 80% of the world is human, and we want that to be largely represented in the characters we make. In addition, we want the stat generation to reflect the general population. So we do have mechanical rules for level limits, qualifying for classes, etc. We like that it's hard to roll a paladin. That's the way we want it. We want the most common characters to be fighter and rogue, and we want that to be supported by the rules.

Part of that is that most people are average, or slightly above average in the area they focus. Our point-buy number is 69 - enough to make three 11s and three 12s. We didn't stick with a traditional method of rolling, because 4d6dL trends higher than we like, and 3d6 trends lower. So we came up (after testing the math) with 3d6 reroll 1s, once. It's not perfect, but it's much closer.

Because I/we aren't the only people that play in our games, and we recognize that we haven't set any boundaries for low/high rolls, we want to make it more feasible for other players who don't share the same thought process as us. In addition, we recognize that sometimes you just roll something bad that's not working for you. And really, our rules of "roll 6 sets and pick one" are to put something on paper. We really haven't limited people to 6, but on the other hand, if somebody is on roll #18, then they probably have different goals in mind. It's also why we allow the standard array or point buy too.

When you're sitting at my table, I encourage you to use the system that the table has chosen for their preferred method. But the other options in the PHB are open to you as well. Recognize that you will probably have higher abilities than most characters at the table (which is usually why they want it, since they are used to a point buy/array of 72 points or more). But that's fine, we can work with that.

--

So I'll respond more directly to your point #2. We aren't making stupid rules to get good rolls. We're making (in my opinion) well considered decisions to identify our goals, look at the process, and attempting to develop a process that meets our goals, while retains a core D&D "feel" and simplicity.

Roll 3d6, reroll 1s once, and record them in order (we still use SIWDCCha - I guess that's a nod to tradition, or more likely just the way I automatically say them after all these years). It's simple, and doable.

I don't think "tradition" is a good reason to do just about anything (and in a prior life, my job was specifically to challenge the processes we used in our business, and if "tradition" was the only reason we were doing it, it probably wasn't a very good process). On the other hand, whenever I'm making changes to the rules, I think it's quite important for them to still "feel" like D&D. Even though we have a lot of house rules, and can explain the reasons for them, somebody who has played D&D should be able to sit down at our table and agree that we're actually playing D&D and not another game.

I've come up with several approaches to the goals we have. One that I'm still considering is that you generate each stat as 6 + 2d6. That guarantees you'll never have less than 8 for a stat, and that would trend at a 12 for every stat, I think (72). Feels like it would trend higher.

Quick test: S18, I17, W16, D15, C12, Cha17. Yes. I just rolled that. A definite outlier, although not being a math guy, I'll have to go do some work to see if my 12 trend is right...it still seems like it should work!

Anyway, use what works for you.

*I'm pretty much the author of the house rules. But they are sparked by, tested, and approved by the table. Some of them are my idea, some are one or more of the player's ideas. No rule (official or house) survives at our table without the support of the players.
 

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
Yep. You can raise your prime ability score, but you cannot lower Dex, Con, or Cha at all, and Str, Int, or Wis cannot be reduced below 9.

Yeah, in Holmes basic it was even more complex:

Magic-users and clerics can raise their prime ability by 1 for every 3 points they reduce Strength
Fighting men, clerics, halflings and dwarves can increase their prime ability by 1 for every 2 points they reduce Intelligence
Fighting men, halflings, and dwarves can increase their prime ability by 1 for every 3 points they reduce Wisdom
Magic-Users can raise Intelligence by 1 point for every 2 points they reduce Wisdom
Theives can raise Dexterity by reducing Wisdom by 1 and Intelligence by 2 for each point
Constitution and Charisma cannot be altered at all, and Dexterity can't be lowered, and no ability lowered below 9.
 

TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
I've come up with several approaches to the goals we have. One that I'm still considering is that you generate each stat as 6 + 2d6. That guarantees you'll never have less than 8 for a stat, and that would trend at a 12 for every stat, I think (72). Feels like it would trend higher.

Quick test: S18, I17, W16, D15, C12, Cha17. Yes. I just rolled that. A definite outlier, although not being a math guy, I'll have to go do some work to see if my 12 trend is right...it still seems like it should work!
Nice post. Thoughtfully identifying your play goals and implementing rules to meet them is the single best way to have consistently good game sessions.

Just a quick point...the average of 2d6+6 is actually 13. Your rolls are definitely an outlier! (95 total points, as opposed to the expected 78 average).
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Then why are you using a chargen system that produces, consistently, strong characters where it's easy?
The point is that it's not perfectly consistent. It produces 'stronger' PCs than array or point-build, most of the time, but can sometimes result in a weaker one - who might, y'know, die fairly quickly in 5e's somewhat deadly 1st level or two, especially if it's played more than a tad recklessly (and, if not, wow, you were so effing heroic there!)

Of course, it's politic to emphasize the less-common 'weaker' result. That's how it generally goes when championing imbalance, harp on the fun of the low-stat unlucky random-rolled PC (even though higher-stat is the expected mode average) or the low-versatility 'simple fighter' (even though it's one of a handful of 'simple' sub-classes, and all the rest of the 40 or so in the PH are significantly more complicated than the 'too complex fighter' was).
 

Arial Black

Adventurer
A while back I thought it would be fun to have an all-dwarf campaign. Some people didn't want to do that so I changed the campaign. Had I insisted that everyone must play a dwarf, I would have lost a player or two. Instead I changed my campaign idea to allow for flexibility and to accommodate my players.

I never would have told them "you have to suck it up like a big boy and play a dwarf".

'Forcing someone to play a dwarf' would mean that they have to play a PC they don't like for an entire campaign. That could be a long time!

'Forcing someone to create their PC using 4d6k3'.....actually is not forcing them to play a PC they don't like! You are the one who makes your PC, even if it begins with six scores that you didn't choose. Guess what, using the standard array is also starting with six scores you didn't choose! Using point-buy is starting with a total you didn't choose! It's a complaint which doesn't hold water.

The reality is that each and every stat generation has its own set of advantages and disadvantages, whether that method is array, point-buy, roll in order, roll with conditional re-rolls, simply choosing whatever scores match your concept, whatever.

It's perfectly okay to prefer one method over the others, perfectly okay to dislike a method. It's almost impossible not to have a preference. I've got no problem with anyone's preference, even if it doesn't match mine.

But two things: first, it is possible that people make provably incorrect statements, or misleading statements, about their reasons for their preferences. 'Point-buy means that everyone can play what they want to play' is such a statement. Second, the idea that a game uses your second favourite method means you'd walk away from the game? Really? That is either hyperbole or a revealing insight into your personality.

I like ice cream. My favourite flavour is raspberry ripple! I also like vanilla, strawberry ripple....strawberry ice cream is okay....I don't like chocolate ice cream though, even though I like chocolate. Weird, huh?

If I can choose any three scoops from a choice of 20 flavours I'd choose 3 scoops of raspberry ripple every time! But if someone wants to buy me one, but one scoop has to be vanilla, fine; free ice cream!

Imagine someone wants to buy me an ice cream. They don't have any raspberry ripple left. Would I really say, "Strawberry ripple? Are you kidding me? I'm outta here!"?

You don't want to play Joe the Plumber. Fine. You don't want to play Superman. Fine. But the idea that you would rather walk away and not play at all, rather than play a 26 or 28 point PC of your own design, is absurd.

If it is really true that you are unwilling to play any PC who doesn't add up to 27 points, then how could you object if the system was 'choose whatever scores match your concept'? You already have an idea-space that is exclusively filled with 27 point PCs, so you can go ahead and use one of your concepts. Would you stay with the game on the grounds that you can play a PC you find acceptable? Or would you walk away because other people might make PCs that you wouldn't like? Or would you walk away because any system that isn't 27 point-buy is...what? Immoral?

What would you think of someone who gets the 3 ice cream scoops they ask for, but walks out of the shop without any ice cream on the grounds that someone else choose different scoops?
 
Last edited:

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
For me, and this is just for me, it's all about cost/benefit analysis. And, to me, the costs of die rolling - forcing players to play characters they may not want to play, mechanical issues, balance issues, and frankly the fact that pretty much every die roll generation system gives higher than standard array characters most of the time - far, far outweighs any notion of "realism" or "organic character building".

See, because my first D&D was Moldvay Basic/Expert. And even there you didn't do 3d6 in order. You did 3d6 in order, but, then you can spend and buy stats at 2:1 to raise stats. Meaning that pretty much every fighter had an 18 strength, every cleric an 18 wisdom and so forth.

I like point buy because it does away with all the balance issues PLUS it makes the game about the "everyman". None of these 18 percentile strength gods with every fighter.

Like I said, you can play what you like. Fair enough. But, for me, the costs are just too much.

So this is an interesting statement, because it's pretty much exactly how we developed our system. Look at the goals, and choose or design what works for your goals. And I totally agree, if the standard array or point buy meets your goals, then use it.

But there are a few fallacies in your statement that continue to come up, and while it might be true at many tables, it certainly isn't at mine, and can be addressed in any system - random, point buy, hybrid (like the Moldvay basic).

1. Forcing players to play characters they may not want to play. I don't think I'm alone here in saying that even though I prefer rolling that I would never, ever force a player to play a character they do not want to play. That includes stats. That's why the standard array is always an option at my games.

2. That rolling gives higher than standard array most of the time. First, I'd dispute this because statistically it can't be correct. Observationally, I'd suggest that people tend to remember the ones that were higher than normal. Particularly if they are the type of player that has a focus on ability scores, character builds, etc., it's probably more noticeable. Not all folks rolling are doing so because they might roll higher than the standard array. I'm sure some do. I'd say to some degree, if that's the goal, then they should be held to the result of their roll.

And that's probably where this does become a problem and present an uneven distribution. If people aren't playing in good faith, and they are rolling simply to get around the limits, or roll higher than the standard array, then yes, that will skew the numbers. If they aren't required to stick with what they roll (see #1), then they won't be "happy" until they see something they think is better.

But that's also easy enough to address with the design of the random rolling system. For example, if you don't want anybody to have lower than an 8 or higher than 14, then start with 6 + 2d4. They can't exceed the standard array's limits, but they still might be able to roll a little better than the standard array. Or you can set a total point limit, and value anything above a number (like 15) as counting as two points, or whatever variation you want. Of course, if rolling randomly isn't important to you for other reasons, this is more complex than just using the standard array.

Perhaps that's a good test to understand why a particular player does roll randomly. If the option for me was 6 + 2d4 or standard array, I'd still roll. Because it's not about rolling high for me.

3. Mechanical and balance issues. What I think some are really saying is that you want everybody to have the same number of points to work with, potentially with some flexibility and boundaries. That at the end of character creation, everybody's numbers add up to the same total.

That's one method of balance, but not one I agree with. In many of these arguments, a single point of difference is virtually game breaking to some folks. And I just don't agree with that. But if it's that important to the group, then yes, there will be no random generation system that will meet those goals.

Your example of the Moldvay basic is interesting, in part because it's a hybrid random/point buy system. But your objection is that people used it to make sure every fighter had an 18, etc. But that's simple enough to eliminate by the design of the system. They said you couldn't reduce an ability below 9, and you could just as easily introduce a roll that says you can't increase an ability above 15 or 16, or something like that. If so, you could roll an 18, but not buy it, and that would address your overabundance of 18s.

That's not evidence that rolling was bad, especially since it then let you SKU the roll probabilities by altering the abilities. But the design of the system might have been poor. On the other hand, that was the line that eventually let you become a god, and from an old AD&D guy, BECMI always seemed to favor the (super) heroic type of fantasy, and that very well may have been intentional.

I don't recall BECMI well enough, but in Holmes basic, only your prime ability had any sort of benefit, outside of Constitution (which you couldn't modify) and Dexterity (which you couldn't lower) which would grant you a +1/-1 modifier to missile attacks. Other than that, ability scores were virtually useless from what I recall, so there was no reason to maintain anything higher than a 9 Intelligence or Wisdom unless those were your prime abilities. So the design intent was different.
 

Remove ads

Top