D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[FrogReaver]

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.

Tony, not everything is caused by BA. This is not something that BA causes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tony, not everything is caused by BA. This is not something that BA causes.

The over-arching design consideration that limited advancement in attack bonus to the same 4 over 20 levels for all classes has nothing to do with a 20 STR wizard having a higher attack bonus than a fighter with somewhat lower STR?

 

[Maxperson]

Tony, not everything is caused by BA. This is not something that BA causes.

But it is the reason that combat effectiveness is based far more on class abilities, than ability scores.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Though any such character, unless it had the wisdom of a shoe, would carry a backup or two (or have a hench carry a backup or six) of their specialized weapon, to avoid just this problem.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Which edition are you referring to?

That's not 2nd edition. In 2e, Weapon Specs cost a single weapon prof (after the initial to get proficient with that weapon). That was it. Now, you could blow a weapon prof to be able to use two weapons with no penalties, but, that was in the Complete fighter and not the base game.

In the Unearthed arcana, the first prof got you weapon specs and the second got you double specs. Which I think is what you are referring to.

But, so what? Two weapon profs for a character that starts with 4 isn't really a cost is it? For getting +3/hit and damage and 50% more attacks? Bit of a no brainer there.

And, just to put that in perspective, remember these are editions where the monsters didn't have a lot of HP. 5/HD on average, with no Con bonuses. A troll averages 33 hp. Mr. Specialized 2e fighter with two weapons and an 18 percentile strength deals up to 45 points of damage in a single round to a large creature at 1st level. Even without percentile strength, he's still dealing up to 36 (longsword and shortsword). Fighters were combat GODS in 2ed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You said modern games. 4e I don't know.

Weapon exploits (at will, encounter, & daily), weapon talent, combat challenge, & combat superiority, 150% the hps & surges... from 1st.
The wiz would have nothing but basic attack to use with a weapon unless he went WorST at Paragon.

...because, y'know, 'samey.'

3e that fighter will have base attack to compensate, specialization, weapon focus, power attack, and more to move him well past the stronger wizard. 5e will have things like superiority dice, action surge for another attack, great weapon fighting to re-roll low rolls, maneuvers, and improved critical.

To be fair, an individual fighter won't have all those things - maneuvers & improved crit, for instance, being from different 5e sub-classes, 3e only one bonus feat at 1st and specialization requiring 4th, etc.

Also to be fair, the Fighter SUX debates did go into whether other classes could pull off strict melee superiority to the Fighter, and I don't recall wizard even being in the running.

, and who is spending one of his 4 first level spells in order to be almost as good as a fighter.

Only 3 spells left? It's hard out there for a mage...

 

[Immoralkickass]

Though I had been playing D&D for almost 2 years now, I haven't had the chance to try rolling for stats. Last week was my first experience of rolling for stats, and boy was it horrible. Everyone around me was rolling 15s and 17s, while my rolls were 14,11,5,11,12,12. Luckily my DM allowed one complete reroll, and the 2nd set was much better.

 

[Oofta]

Though I had been playing D&D for almost 2 years now, I haven't had the chance to try rolling for stats. Last week was my first experience of rolling for stats, and boy was it horrible. Everyone around me was rolling 15s and 17s, while my rolls were 14,11,5,11,12,12. Luckily my DM allowed one complete reroll, and the 2nd set was much better.

At least most of your numbers were above 10. I've been in a game where someone rolled a character with 1 14, a 10 and all other numbers all below 10, with no rerolls.

 

[Arial Black]

And there you go again, speaking for everyone.

If the method does not cater for concepts that don't add up to exactly 27 points, and there are players that have such concepts, then point-buy does not let those players play the concepts they want.

Before you mention 'hung up on the numbers', remember that you say that while being hung up on 27 points!

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.

At no point in this conversation have I EVER denied that point-buy has both advantages and disadvantages, like every other method.

I have never expressed any 'One True Way-ism'. I've always been okay with people extolling the virtues of their favoured system.

My entire debate with you is centered around a claim which is demonstrably not true: the claim that 'point-buy lets players play the concept they want and rolling doesn't'.

Shout your love of point-buy from the rooftops! Remind us of its actual advantages, which include balance and the freedom to make a character unsupervised and be confident that it will be allowed.

But if you shout something which is not true, and someone points out that one of your claims was untrue, accusing them of 'One True Way-ism' is, at best, dodging the issue.

Be honest about the strengths and weaknesses of your favoured system. I am. The 'freely choose your stats to match you concept' method that I favour has its own weaknesses, including its unsuitability for use in tournaments or organised play, and the ability to be easily abused if the players have wildly divergent ideas about appropriate power levels.

Anyone posting anything as 'fact' on these forums is doing so knowing that others will point out factual inaccuracies. That's what I've been doing in regards to that false claim. I've never said that you are wrong to prefer point-buy, or wrong to mention the virtues of that method; just wrong about that particular claim.

 

[Arial Black]

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

So 'point-buy lets people play the concept they want', does it? Let's look at your own arguments intended to demonstrate that:-

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.

It lets you play the character you want if you want the strong-but-dumb barbarian, but does not let you play the equally strong but smart barbarian! In life, you can get to be stronger by lifting weights, exercise, that kind if thing. In point-buy, you get stronger by banging your head against a brick wall until you lower your intelligence!

Look around you. In real life, people are not made equal. If you were to assess every adult in terms of D&D ability scores, they would not all add up to the same points total; far from it!

Even our celebrities, even our figures from film/TV/books are not churned out of a machine that ensures 'fairness' in ability scores.

Now, I grant that 'balance' has its place, and how valuable balance is depends on the game. But in terms of realising concepts we want to play, the smart, charismatic 'noble savage' that's just as strong, tough and agile as any barbarian (like Tarzan) are perfectly valid concepts, and point-buy will not model that.

Dwayne Johnson, The Rock. What's his Str score? Dex, Con? Right up there. That doesn't leave us with any points left over for Int and Cha. But The Rock is both smart AND charismatic, and he doesn't become weaker as he gets more charismatic! Quite the reverse actually; his physicality is part of his appeal.

The Rock, or a hero like him, is a perfectly valid character concept.

But point-buy will. Not. Do. The. Job.

That doesn't mean that 'point-buy is worse than rolling'. It doesn't mean that point-buy has nothing going for it.

It just means that the claim of 'point-buy lets you play the concept you want' is untrue.