D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

So if you were given a job with an average of $10.50/hour and rolled 3d6 to see what your actual salary was, would you think it was fair if you got a 3?

How would that be fair?

It's as fair as any other sort of gambling. Probably not legal in all states, though.

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

It's inherently fair - everyone gets the same number of points. It's only as balanced as the stats are. And, when you start factoring into it the 'needs' of various classes for various stats, well, that balance becomes even more tenuous, but also gets into class (im)balance.

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

That's the difference between 'fair' and 'balanced' in the context of a game. Fair is, everyone has the same n% chance of getting an OP high-stat character. 'Balanced' is everyone gets a decent character, and a bunch of choices to customize it without wrecking it or making it OP.

Balance is a much higher bar to clear than fairness.

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.

Some editions more than others. 4e had it /really/ bad. The treadmill demanded that you keep your primary stat maxxed, so that was half your stat boosts obligatorily relegated to one stat, an 'all round' character was off the table, and moreso the higher level you got. The best you could do was split-secondary, and that, to be really viable, split between two stats in different pairs than your primary. So a Wizard could go INT/CON/WIS, for instance, but INT/WIS/CHA or INT/STR/CON was off the table, non-viable. Want a high INT/DEX character concept, like an Eladrin, who had a racial bonus to those two stats? You're hurt'n yourself because your FORT & WILL are both going to be sub-standard if you spend your stat boosts on INT & DEX the whole time. Sure, 4e gave you a wealth of character-customization options among many Classes, a plethora of Themes, a super-abundance of Backgrounds, a chaff-storm of feats, and the right to re-skin powers. But if your concept called for an 'all round' paragon, or even all-round well-above average, while the point-build system would let you do it, it simply wasn't viable, especially as you progressed to higher levels - you'd fall off the treadmill.

3e was about as bad, classic terrible (an 'all round' PC with 12-14, say in all stats wouldn't even have meaningful bonuses in any of 'em, he'd be little better off than the guy with straight 9s), and 5e, with BA and the hard 20 stat cap and the brutal six-save system, has probably brought the 'all round' PC closer to viability than ever before. It's just barely practical with point-buy, which is frustrating, and it's not at all likely with random generation, nor possible at a reasonable level with array (you could throw ASIs at your lower stats to get there eventually).

One thing that might help a little is consolidated saves and weapon-attack/AC options that combine stats instead of always choosing the higher. For instance, a weapon, like the longsword, might be used with a style that adds both STR & DEX, instead of finesse DEX /instead/ of STR - up to a maximum of +4. Not broken, makes going for modest stats efficient, but not OP. Similarly, since seeing attacks coming should help with avoiding them, DEX+WIS up to +4 as an alternative to DEX alone to AC. That kinda thing.
Could get quite complex, if you wanted. (My ideas tend towards excessive complexity, as a general rule.) ;(

 

[TwoSix]

One thing that might help a little is consolidated saves and weapon-attack/AC options that combine stats instead of always choosing the higher. For instance, a weapon, like the longsword, might be used with a style that adds both STR & DEX, instead of finesse DEX /instead/ of STR - up to a maximum of +4. Not broken, makes going for modest stats efficient, but not OP. Similarly, since seeing attacks coming should help with avoiding them, DEX+WIS up to +4 as an alternative to DEX alone to AC. That kinda thing.
Could get quite complex, if you wanted. (My ideas tend towards excessive complexity, as a general rule.) ;(

Makes sense. I've been leaning towards adding proficiency to attacks and damage, instead of STR/DEX, if proficiency is higher. (Not for generic 5e, but for a Beyond the Wall game based on the 5e engine.) Makes a high stat valuable, but not nearly as required.

Making each kind of save apply 2 bonuses could also work nicely, especially if one is concerned about the lack of scaling of non-proficient saves at mid-high levels. Say,
Strength saves: Add Str and Dex.
Dexterity saves: Add Dex and Int.
Constitution saves: Add Con and Str.
Intelligence saves: Add Int and Wis.
Wisdom saves: Add Wis and Cha.
Charisma saves: Add Cha and Con.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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.

Ok, I did mention this earlier that perhaps we have slightly different ideas of what is a Mary Sue character. Basically, in my mind, if you have nothing but bonuses, you're probably over powered for what I want to see at the table. Granted, 6 12's probably isn't an issue, but, if you have 3 sixteens and nothing lower than a 12, that's overpowered AFAIC.

But, you did ignore the other part of the argument. When an Ogre is Str 19, how is the 3-18 curve even remotely believable? When .5% of your human population is as strong as an ogre, and your base argument is that this is "realism", I'm having a problem seeing how that's plausible.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When an Ogre is Str 19, how is the 3-18 curve even remotely believable? When .5% of your human population is as strong as an ogre, and your base argument is that this is "realism", I'm having a problem seeing how that's plausible.

Realistically a humanoid as big as a ogre would have severe health issues that might bring it's effective strength down. Of course, you couldn't have giants at all, nor dragons, nor magic, at that level of realism, but that's never been a deterrent, before...

.... or that could just be an 'average' villainous Ogre, the same way the 13 STR guard is the average militant human, so the STR curve for ogres might be 9-24....

... yeah, this rabbit hole ain't look'n so nice...

 

[Hussar]

Realistically a humanoid as big as a ogre would have severe health issues that might bring it's effective strength down. Of course, you couldn't have giants at all, nor dragons, nor magic, at that level of realism, but that's never been a deterrent, before...

.... or that could just be an 'average' villainous Ogre, the same way the 13 STR guard is the average militant human, so the STR curve for ogres might be 9-24....

... yeah, this rabbit hole ain't look'n so nice...

And the rabbit hole gets even deeper when you realize that if you are presuming the 3-18 bell curve (modified by race) for PHB races, then why doesn't that apply to everything? After all, when's the last time you met a 9 Str ogre?

It's no secret that I really, really don't see D&D as a world building system. AFAIC, it isn't. So, arguments about how PHB races should fit on a 3-18 bell curve fall on rather deaf ears in my case. After all, the PHB NPC's are never presented that way. They have "standard" arrays in 3e. In AD&D, they didn't even have stats, other than an Int score. 4e went the AD&D route and flat out stated that NPC's don't need stats.

Now, that all aside, my primary issue with die rolling PC's is the knock on effects with game balance. Having a high stat character, or worse a high stat party, makes the entire game wonky. Imagine an AD&D group of 6 PC's, 3 of which have percentile strength. They are obliterating opponents WAY above their pay grade. And, I really believe, that there is a strong correlation between DM's who have issues with CR and die rolling chargen groups. When you use point buy or standard array in 5e, a LOT of those CR balancing and encounter building issues go away. It becomes a real choice as to whether you have a feat or an ASI. When you start with an 18 or 19 in your base stat, why bother with an ASI? It's just gilding the lily. Go for the feat and you're prodding some serious buttock.

As I said earlier, if your idea of a "normal" PC is one which has no stat penalties at all and nothing but bonuses otherwise, that PC is acting a level or possibly two higher than what it says on the character sheet. No wonder DM's have encounter building issues. They are lowballing the PC's power level. The problem then becomes those self-same DM's start blaming the system for being broken. "Oh, CR is borked" goes the cry. No, it really isn't. Not if you actually understand the underlying assumptions and what happens when you deviate from those assumptions.

But, yeah, when your idea of a "normal" PC has no score below a 10 and several at 15 or higher, you're just begging for problems during the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

How many times do I need to repeat that "Stats are not equal in the things they do for a character"? A fighter with 13str 8con 10dex 12cha 14wis 15int isn't no where near balanced with a fighter that has 15str 14con 13dex 12wis 10int 8cha. The stat values are "equal" but those 2 stat spreads on a fighter are not fair or balanced.

Adding more points to a point buy or array doesn't solve this problem at all. The only way to address the problem is to realize that certain unequal values can and should be considered balanced and fair in the right situations.

So I think you are saying point buy:
1. Prevents Mary Sues
2. Is fair and balanced enough for your preferences

I either agree or can understand your position on those things.

My positions are:
1. I also prefer to see characters with strengths and weaknesses both.
2. I also don't like to see PC's be very different in power level.
3. However, as mentioned above the power level isn't obtained by having equal stats values.

I've not heard a peep from you about #3?

 

[FrogReaver]

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!

You have an interesting system but it doesn't solve the issue i'm bringing up. You mention the problem may be with D&D itself but I don't think it is. It's just about finding the proper weights and making those weights somewhat dependent on class IMO. For example if we are doing a point buy then buying 16 wisdom on a fighter should be cheaper than buying 16 str. Exactly how much cheaper and so on is a matter for science but that's a specific example of the general principle guiding my position.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How many times do I need to repeat that...?

The old saw just goes:

"...repeated often enough becomes the truth."

It's not specific on how many times 'often enough' is.

And the rabbit hole gets even deeper when you realize that if you are presuming the 3-18 bell curve (modified by race) for PHB races, then why doesn't that apply to everything? After all, when's the last time you met a 9 Str ogre?

Maybe if I'd gone to an ogre banquet I'd've met one - on the table.

After all, the PHB NPC's are never presented that way. They have "standard" arrays in 3e. In AD&D, they didn't even have stats, other than an Int score. 4e went the AD&D route and flat out stated that NPC's don't need stats.

AD&D NPCs in the MM only had int, sure, but in other context they had more - or, alternately, even more compressed stats.
3e & 4e gave just about everything in the MM all six stats, as does 5e. 5e's commoner, with straight 10s can be seen as a mode-average 3d6 person.

Now, that all aside, my primary issue with die rolling PC's is the knock on effects with game balance. Having a high stat character, or worse a high stat party, makes the entire game wonky

Sure, in the case of 1st level 5e, though I've had some positive experiences running for parties of random-roll PCs, where one or two were 'OP.'
It can blunt the wonky lethality of that level.

Imagine an AD&D group of 6 PC's, 3 of which have percentile strength. They are obliterating opponents WAY above their pay grade.

I remember parties like that - they didn't languish at 1st level as long or have to constantly go back to town to rest for a week.

 

[Oofta]

How many times do I need to repeat that "Stats are not equal in the things they do for a character"? A fighter with 13str 8con 10dex 12cha 14wis 15int isn't no where near balanced with a fighter that has 15str 14con 13dex 12wis 10int 8cha. The stat values are "equal" but those 2 stat spreads on a fighter are not fair or balanced.

Adding more points to a point buy or array doesn't solve this problem at all. The only way to address the problem is to realize that certain unequal values can and should be considered balanced and fair in the right situations.

So I think you are saying point buy:
1. Prevents Mary Sues
2. Is fair and balanced enough for your preferences

I either agree or can understand your position on those things.

My positions are:
1. I also prefer to see characters with strengths and weaknesses both.
2. I also don't like to see PC's be very different in power level.
3. However, as mentioned above the power level isn't obtained by having equal stats values.

I've not heard a peep from you about #3?

My issues don't really have anything to do with Mary Sues per se (although I think the game works better with standard stats).

The issue is that i don't want to use a system that can result in a party that has sub-standard PCs and Mary Sues on the same team. Heck, I don't want to play a game where I could accidentally end up with a Mary Sue.

As far as #3: PCs don't have to have exactly the same numbers, but I prefer games where they are roughly equivalent. I suppose there are some variants of randomness that could come close to that (4d6 drop lowest does not IMHO), but if you've taken that much randomness out ... why not just use point buy or arrays? It's easier.

Well, that and I don't want to run a random character.

Beyond that I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

3e & 4e gave just about everything in the MM all six stats, as does 5e. 5e's commoner, with straight 10s can be seen as a mode-average 3d6 person.
/snip

But, the problem is, the 3d6 bell curve results in ludicrous settings, if we're actually going to follow that. Populations do not fall on a bell curve. There aren't equal numbers of Swartzenegger's as weaker people. There are FAR FAR more people at the bottom end of the pool than the top. Populations, when we talk about physical or mental capabilities, fall on a logarithmic scale, not a bell curve.

Think about it. With a +1 bonus for being human, anyone with a 17 or 18 base roll is now at the absolute peak of that stat (or close enough anyway). That means 4 in 216 people have either an 18 or 19 in any given stat. That's insane. In any town of 1000 humans, you'd have TWENTY Einsteins. It's ludicrous to think that that's true.

Trying to apply Chargen rules to world building leads to completely unbelievable results. The system just can't handle it.

And the system accepts that. NPC's are NOT built using Chargen rules. They simply aren't. There's absolutely no reason to apply them that way.

---------
[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] - I'm a little baffled why you are arguing this though. No one, using ANY of the Chargen methods would play your fighter with 13str 8con 10dex 12cha 14wis 15int. Why would they? This is a bit of a red herring isn't it? We're discussing the strengths and weaknesses of chargen systems after all. Why would anyone make that character, unless they are specifically playing against type, I suppose. In which case, they would make that character knowing specifically that it's a weaker character.

However, using those stats to build a cleric or wizard would be fine and the fighter uses your second set. Meaning that the characters now are working on an even field.

IOW, what you're saying is that deliberately choosing to make a weak character makes a weak character. It's a bit obvious.