D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Hussar]

Actually I'm not arguing in favor of stat rolling. I'm arguing against the notion that point buy is inherently fair.

I am saying that a 15 str 15 con 15 dex 8 wisdom 8 charisma 8 intelligence barbarian is probably more closesly matched with a 15 str 15 con 15 charisma 12 dex 8 intelligence 8 charisma barbarian than one that just changes 15 dex with 8 charisma as point buy would have you do.

Point buy works great for barbarian building as long as your primary 3 highest stats are str, dex and con. You can shave a point or 2 off those values and put them toward off stats. But you cannot make a highly charismatic barbarian in point buy that doesn't come out feeling pretty gimped.

Your definition of gimped is VERY different from mine. Why does a Barbarian need all that? Why not 12 Con and 15 Dex. You're only losing 1 HP. Or, conversely, what does a Barbarian need Dex for?

And, to put it another way, you're saying that to not be gimped, I'd need FOUR 15's in my stats? Seriously?

This statement makes a few rather gargantuan (and outright wrong, I think) assumptions: that every human alive is using point-buy to generate their stats, and that the statistical 3-18 bell curve for human abilities across the general population has been thrown out the window.

Lan-"in utopia there are no gimps of any kind, as the lowest possible stat is 8 on a 3-18 bell-curve equivalent"-efan

It has been thrown out the window. A 5e Ogre has a 19 strength. You're telling me that a significant portion of humans are as strong as an ogre at 1st level? After all, any human with a base 18 bumps to 19 - Ogre strength. In 1e, you had to get that 18 and THEN the 00 strength which was only available to a few classes. In fact, it was outright impossible for ANYONE outside of the fighter types to be that strong.

But, if we're going by the 3-18 bell curve, then 1 in 218 humans is as strong as an ogre. And that's considered "realistic"? Seriously?

5e is like 1e. The vast majority of beings just simply don't have stats at all. Normal Men didn't have Strength scores. In fact, outside of special NPC's and a couple of monsters, NO ONE had a strength score. Other than PC's of course.

Besides, if we're presuming that 3-18 bell curve because that's what PC's are on, why wouldn't we presume the same thing if we're using point buy? 3e specifically did this actually. NPC's were assumed to have a specific array. Having higher than that actually changed their CR value and made them "elite".

Since virtually no edition EVER presumed that the population fell on the 3-18 bell curve for stats, I'm rather baffled why this is even a consideration now.

 

[Maxperson]

Umm, how is "the strongest around" AND "smart" not a Mary Sue? Heck, how is "Strongest Around" not a Mary Sue by definition, particularly when it comes with no weaknesses?

It would take all six stats being at 16+ to be a Mary Sue PC, and nobody here is asking for anything like that. I've certainly never seen a PC rolled by a non-cheater with stats like that in the 34 years I've been playing. PCs have weaknesses, even if they have good stats. Drop the "Mary Sue" already. It's a Strawman.

Look, I get the notion of die rolling. You want to "win" the stat lottery. Fantastic. But, let's be honest here and admit that that's what's going on.

Okay, I'll be honest. You don't like die rolling and so you are going to disparage it at any cost, even to the point of twisting the arguments of those who like it.

 

[Oofta]

Actually I'm not arguing in favor of stat rolling. I'm arguing against the notion that point buy is inherently fair.

I am saying that a 15 str 15 con 15 dex 8 wisdom 8 charisma 8 intelligence barbarian is probably more closesly matched with a 15 str 15 con 15 charisma 12 dex 8 intelligence 8 charisma barbarian than one that just changes 15 dex with 8 charisma as point buy would have you do.

Point buy works great for barbarian building as long as your primary 3 highest stats are str, dex and con. You can shave a point or 2 off those values and put them toward off stats. But you cannot make a highly charismatic barbarian in point buy that doesn't come out feeling pretty gimped.

So in other words you can't have a Mary Sue*. Unless of course you and your group decide it would be fun to have a party of Mary Sues and hand out more points and let people buy up yo 18 (e.g. 3.5 heroic array).

But charismatic is in the eye of the beholder, a half-orc wit an 11 charisma is better than average.

*although there is no definition of what that means: perhaps significantly better scores than average would be better.

 

[Oofta]

With rearranging allowed, or not?

As do subsequent dice rolls, not least of which are for hit points...

Lan-"and yes, hit points are always rolled for"-efan

As I've said before I normally have a character concept before I sit down for a session 0, so yes, I would want to do the standard "put 'em where you want 'em".

As far as rolling for HP? I've always thought that was dumb, and every group I've played in (since the 70s) has had some variation of average or roll until you get average or better. I remember from an early book (1E?) reading "If you roll poorly for HP your fighter may just have to become an archer instead" or something along those lines. So ... yeah. So much for my character vision. Of a fantasy character. Someone that I wanted to be a kick-ass hero but because I rolled 1's every level has fewer HP than the wizard.

As always, if it's what turns your crank, more power to you. Just don't be surprised when we go over how you run your game if I politely decline.

 

[FrogReaver]

So in other words you can't have a Mary Sue*. Unless of course you and your group decide it would be fun to have a party of Mary Sues and hand out more points and let people buy up yo 18 (e.g. 3.5 heroic array).

But charismatic is in the eye of the beholder, a half-orc wit an 11 charisma is better than average.

*although there is no definition of what that means: perhaps significantly better scores than average would be better.

So the goal isn't fairness. It's instead to prevent Mary Sues?

 

[Oofta]

So the goal isn't fairness. It's instead to prevent Mary Sues?

I don't see how it adds value to the game for some PCs to have better overall stat than others. If you want to do it for your game, that's fine.

If my group and I wanted higher ability scores, we would use more points and consider allowing buying up to an 18.

How many times do I need to repeat it?

 

[TwoSix]

You achieved the concept well enough but at what cost? You have slightly different skills and saving throws but the bonuses equal out in those areas IMO. So you are essentially down 1 AC compared to the more optimized barbarian. That's enough to show that it was an uneven start.

Isn't the argument for point buy primarily about having an "even start". But as we just showed, point buy doesn't achieve an even start unless everyone is playing more or less cookie cutter characters.

I mean, if your argument is that point buy restricts you from having high tertiary stats to realize a concept, because the system requires you to put your best stats into the primary and secondary stats of your class, then yes, I recognize that point as valid. But that's a flaw in the design of D&D, not the rolling system.

Maybe a baseline floor for your primary stats? Say, lower the baseline points for point buy (or lower the die type for rolling), but you get a +4 bonus to your two saving throw proficiency stats at 1st level. But the +4 bonus can't raise a stat over 15.

Edit: I like 17 point buy for this. +4 bonus to 2 stats is, at best, worth 12 points. This method would let you get a 15 15 13 12 10 8, or 15 15 14 10 10 8 before race adjustments, at the cost of not having as much flexibility as to your stat allocation. I kind of like it!

 

[Oofta]

I mean, if your argument is that point buy restricts you from having high tertiary stats to realize a concept, because the system requires you to put your best stats into the primary and secondary stats of your class, then yes, I recognize that point as valid. But that's a flaw in the design of D&D, not the rolling system.

Maybe a baseline floor for your primary stats? Say, lower the baseline points for point buy (or lower the die type for rolling), but you get a +4 bonus to your two saving throw proficiency stats at 1st level. But the +4 bonus can't raise a stat over 15.

It's also based on the assumption you have to have the maximum/same number in all 3 scores. Many of my characters have a high stat of 14 (before racial adjustments) at first level.

I accept that as a constraint of the game our group decided to play. If we wanted multiple maxed out ability scores, we'd simply use more points.

 

[TwoSix]

It's also based on the assumption you have to have the maximum/same number in all 3 scores. Many of my characters have a high stat of 14 (before racial adjustments) at first level.

I accept that as a constraint of the game our group decided to play. If we wanted multiple maxed out ability scores, we'd simply use more points.

Well, maybe not maxed, but I think most people aiming for relatively optimal play are going to try to have at least a 16 in their main attack stat at level 1, after racial adjustments. So either a 15 or 14 with optimal racial adjustments.

 

[Oofta]

Well, maybe not maxed, but I think most people aiming for relatively optimal play are going to try to have at least a 16 in their main attack stat at level 1, after racial adjustments. So either a 15 or 14 with optimal racial adjustments.

If I really want a 16 in 3 stats for a human I can do that.

I don't think that's ever necessary because it's all about scale. As long as all PCs are on roughly the same scale I don't see that it matters.

Admittedly if you do the 3 high stats and you don't want any dump stats then it goes back to the thought that you only want Mary Sue characters.