D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

If you're running high-level in a game with demi-human level caps then of course you're going to see more humans!

They mostly had one class they were U in, typically thief. The whole idea of the balance-of-imbalances-over-time scheme was that the whoa-awesome Elf Fighter/Magic-user/Thief would get his when the humans were Lords & Wizards and he was 5/8/10 thanks to level limits.

Wasn't that what the 1980s were for?

I was talking about the 80s.

Your point is good, though: one-offs or mini-campaigns don't give long-term imbalances much if any chance to correct themselves. I always look at things from a long-campaign perspective.

The one long campaign I did run back then still ended up with a similar phenomenon, though at least everyone had to play their characters up from first. It started out with one idea for the party, which the players decided they didn't like by 5th level, and most of them changed characters. The line-up at high level was all casters, though at least not all wizards, thanks in part to the CPH.

3.0 came along, and MCing became race-independent, and that phenomenon disappeared. The long 3.x campaigns I was in saw only one player (the same player in both campaigns) change characters part way through, though the multi-class characters in the first campaign settled on advancing in one caster class pretty quickly, and the second campaign had single-class casters and multi-class non-casters, mostly the former.

When you roll, you get an array at the end. Depending on the exact system, you may or may not arrange those rolls in any order.

The 5e default does let you arrange them, of course. At that point, the only difference between random and array is that you're not necessarily all using the same array, some may have strictly better arrays than others.

That's prettymuch the trade-off among the three methods. Array gives you maximum fairness & balance - everyone has the same stats to work from, system mastery impact is limited to arranging them and picking race and assigning ASIs. Point-buy comes in second, with more room for system-mastery induced imbalances from optimal stat choices. Random generation remains a fair process, but can give strictly imbalanced results.

You cannot play a 'smart' or 'charismatic' barbarian in point-buy, without choosing to make yourself an objectively worse barbarian!

Nod. That's the balance side of it, yes. You cannot just choose to play a strictly superior character to the next guy, you've gotta give something up to get something else. The better the rest of the system is balanced, the more viable the choice to deviate from an optimal design can be...
...which does point up another downside of point-buy. It's balanced to a tighter standard than the rest of the system, most critically, the relative value of stats (some classes being SAD, others MAD, DEX being das überstät, etc).

Similarly, in array or random you can't simply choose to play a 'smart' or 'charismatic' barbarian that's still as barbarian-y as the next barbarian. In the case of array, you just don't have that many high stats. In the case of random, you may or may not roll exactly the strictly-superior-to-the-next-barbarian stats that you want. If you don't, too bad for you - and, if you do, too bad for the guy now playing the strictly-inferior barbarian. :shrug:

My problem is that when you say that 'point-buy lets me create the concepts I want'
, it misleads readers into believing that 'point-buy allows players to create whatever concept they want'.

That's not misleading, actually, because the point of a comparatively balanced stat generation method is that it lets /everyone/ at the table create the concept they want, without undermining anyone else's concept.

Considered in a vacuum of a single character, point buy doesn't let you play /exactly/ the character you might hypothetically want. You can't play a character who's stronger than a storm giant or smarter than ki-rin - or both - for instance, nor can you play one with straight single-digit stats. You /can/ play a character who's 'the strongest' or 'the smartest' by maximizing that one stat, and you won't be beaten out by anyone else doing the same. Or, you can play a character who is 'strong & smart,' but you won't be as strong or smart as the guy who went all-in on one or the other.

When it comes to actually playing characters at the table, point-buy lets everyone play to the concept they want. If you happen to want something the system doesn't favor so much, you could still end up overshadowed by another character even at the things you were trying to be good at, but that's not the fault of the generation method, it's the fault of the broader system.

I'm not limited to cookie-cutter barbarians, or min-maxed barbarian clones with 16/14/16 in their physical scores and two 8s and a 10 in their mental scores. Rolling opens up an infinite idea space of possibilities.

Nod, some of which suck. Sure, you could roll 18/15/16/12/14/17 but, you could also roll 14/12/13/8/9/6. One of those is good for you, the other bad, but they're both potentially pretty bad for the rest of the table, as they're stuck with an OP character dominating in the former case, and with a weak character under-contributing in the other.

Another, perhaps minor, effect of point-buy: when creating non-barbarian front line warrior-types, point-buy results in Str/Dex of either 16/8 or 8/16. Anything else is gimping yourself. You either wear heavy armour, or light armour. There is no place for medium armour!

That is a problem medium armor has had since the concept was introduced in 3.0 and no edition has fixed (4e just plain tossed the category out). It's not a problem with any particular stat generation system, though.

Meanwhile, in the more realistic rolled population of fighting types, there are plenty of combinations of Str and Dex, many of which would benefit from medium armour!

While they'd theoretically 'benefit' from medium armor, they'd also be strictly inferior to their buddies who strap on the heavy stuff or dance around in light armor. It's really just system imbalance piling further inferiority on top of un-desirable rolls.

I like the realistic population better.

I'm sure the hypothetical /population/ has an aesthetic quality that's theoretically desirable, that way, but as far as individual characters go, not so much.

 

[Lanefan]

Point buy/array is roughly equivalent to the average die roll. As I've pointed out more than once. As the external site I pointed to showed.

More or less.

The average across the 6 stats for the standard array is exactly 12.0
The average for rolling 4d6k3 is something like 12.24
The average for point buy - well, there really isn't one as it's all dependent on whether the players run up a few stats or keep them all even-but-lower. Best guess: somewhere between 12 and 12.5.

The main difference between rolling and the other two methods is not the average but the possible range: 3-18 as opposed to 8-15.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

The one long campaign I did run back then still ended up with a similar phenomenon, though at least everyone had to play their characters up from first. It started out with one idea for the party, which the players decided they didn't like by 5th level, and most of them changed characters. The line-up at high level was all casters, though at least not all wizards, thanks in part to the CPH.

Having run and played in a number of long 1e-based campaigns, I have to say this really hasn't happened much if at all IME.

The game I'm DMing right now is rather short of high-level PC wizards between its two main parties - one high-end Necromancer notwithstanding - though there's lots of Clerics of various types. No shortage of Fighters. Always a shortage of Thieves.

The game I currently play in has multiple parties and loads of available PCs - yet somehow I've ended up representing nearly all the single-class wizard types. Again lots of Clerics (those of you who say nobody ever wants to play a Cleric haven't met our lot!), again no shortage of Fighters, and again not many Thieves - that's the class that doesn't get played much.

3.0 came along, and MCing became race-independent, and that phenomenon disappeared. The long 3.x campaigns I was in saw only one player (the same player in both campaigns) change characters part way through, though the multi-class characters in the first campaign settled on advancing in one caster class pretty quickly, and the second campaign had single-class casters and multi-class non-casters, mostly the former.

My experience with 3e showed the non-casters did fine at the beginning but later tended to drop out and get replaced by casters of some sort...though that's just one campaign, so a rather limited sample size.

Similarly, in array or random you can't simply choose to play a 'smart' or 'charismatic' barbarian that's still as barbarian-y as the next barbarian. In the case of array, you just don't have that many high stats.

Nor do you have the ability in array to even them out to give a jack-of-all-trades barbarian...or j-o-a-t any class for that matter. Array doesn't let you start with all 12s or all 13s and take it from there. Point buy at least allows this - 12-12-12-13-13-13 represents 27 points if my math is right. Rolling gives you a shot at this, along with a shot at all sorts of other possibilities.

In the case of random, you may or may not roll exactly the strictly-superior-to-the-next-barbarian stats that you want. If you don't, too bad for you - and, if you do, too bad for the guy now playing the strictly-inferior barbarian. :shrug:

Yeah, if you're looking to play a jack-of-all-trades type character and the dice give you 18-12-12-11-10-9 it's time to rethink. Same if you're looking for the type of sharply-focused character 3e likes, and get 14-14-13-13-12-12 to work with...time to go to plan B.

That's not misleading, actually, because the point of a comparatively balanced stat generation method is that it lets /everyone/ at the table create the concept they want, without undermining anyone else's concept.

Though let's face it, how often - particularly in a small party - do two players end up playing the same type of character?

Chances are, if I'm playing a barbarian (should be a race not a class - got to get that in at every opportunity!) I'll be the only barbarian - and possibly the only front-liner at all - in the party, so no real fear of my undermining anyone else's barbarian or fighter concept.

That is a problem medium armor has had since the concept was introduced in 3.0 and no edition has fixed (4e just plain tossed the category out). It's not a problem with any particular stat generation system, though.

Goes back farther than that, even. The only reason the mid-grade armour types (scale, chain, ring mail) ever got used in 1e was because they were the max allowed for certain classes...or because a spectacularly magical and-or usefully enchanted version was found somewhere.

While they'd theoretically 'benefit' from medium armor, they'd also be strictly inferior to their buddies who strap on the heavy stuff or dance around in light armor. It's really just system imbalance piling further inferiority on top of un-desirable rolls.

Well, maybe there's a tweaking possibility here; to somehow beef up the benefits of medium armour a bit to make it viable alongside light and heavy? (or tone down light and heavy armour benefits a bit, whatever)

I'm sure the hypothetical /population/ has an aesthetic quality that's theoretically desirable, that way, but as far as individual characters go, not so much.

Just one more place where there's a choice between realism and gamism, I suppose; and I'll go with realism.

Lan-"I've been giving serious thought to re-doing the whole armour system in 1e anyway"-efan

 

[JesterOC]

Just coming into this debate but this was an interesting point.

You cannot play a 'smart' or 'charismatic' barbarian in point-buy, without choosing to make yourself an objectively worse barbarian!

Very true in a limited sense. If you define barbarian as only a combat focused being. However there might be occasions that the barbarian will need to solve a puzzle of make a diplomatic check. At those times, they are actually the better choice.

But lets go with the idea that for a given class there are certain attributes that if you are not above average (10-11) then you are worse.

Rolling opens up an infinite idea space of possibilities. Point-buy does not. It fails to live up to the promise that it lets players create the concepts they want.

Not sure if point buy was designed to let players create ALL the concepts they want. It just ensures that they can pull off the most common configurations.

Rolling does not even grant you that. Rolling allows you the chance to try to make a workable character from a chaotic beginning. It is a completely different kind of fun.
Sometimes it will allow you the character you want, most of the time it won't, and sometimes it will give you a fantastically amazing powerful character.

As for the infinite amounts of design space, not really.
You have a few results lets allow you to arrange the rolls as you see fit (vs in order) to keep it sain.

1) You get all below average rolls. You get to play a terribly infective dude. (You can do this with point buy as well if you decide to not use all of your points).
2) You get all average rolls. You get to play a mostly infective dude. (You can do this with point buy as well if you decide to not use all of your points).
3) You get one good roll with the rest average or below. You get to play a narrowly effective dude.
4) You get two good rolls with the rest average or below. You get to play an effective dude
5) You get three good rolls with the rest average or below. You get a lot of options, you can go for a very competent dude, or an effective dude with a quirky bonus perk
6) You get four or more good rolls with the rest average or below. You are good to go with mostly anything you want you have rolled to have your cake and eat it too.


Point buy cuts out the randomness and allows either a 3 with a really high stat or a 4 with fairly good stats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... Rolling gives you a shot at this, along with a shot at all sorts of other possibilities....
Yeah, if you're looking to play a jack-of-all-trades type character and the dice give you 18-12-12-11-10-9 it's time to rethink. Same if you're looking for the type of sharply-focused character 3e likes, and get 14-14-13-13-12-12 to work with...time to go to plan B.

That's kinda the whole point of rolling, and why rolling can't be said to let you 'play what you want,' while point buy can.

Though let's face it, how often - particularly in a small party - do two players end up playing the same type of character?

IDK why it'd be limited to a small party, but it definitely happens.

Chances are, if I'm playing a barbarian (should be a race not a class - got to get that in at every opportunity!)

Lol. True.

The only reason the mid-grade armour types (scale, chain, ring mail) ever got used in 1e was because they were the max allowed for certain classes...or because a spectacularly magical and-or usefully enchanted version was found somewhere.

Sure, prior to 3.0, it wasn't just medium armor that was inferior, armor was strictly a hierarchy, the best armor was plate mail (or full plate or field plate, if it existed), and you wore anything less only because you couldn't afford/steal something better or you faced an class proscription.

Well, maybe there's a tweaking possibility here; to somehow beef up the benefits of medium armour a bit to make it viable alongside light and heavy? (or tone down light and heavy armour benefits a bit, whatever)

Yeah, it's been tried, it's never quite worked, for whatever reason. I think part of it is just the way the system tends to favor a single high stat for most applications. Going all-DEX or no-DEX works very well, with light or heavy armor, respectively, but the compromise of medium armor doesn't. :shrug:

 

[Maxperson]

Point buy/array is roughly equivalent to the average die roll. As I've pointed out more than once. As the external site I pointed to showed.

Right, but I'm not going to assume that the designers are stupid. That means that they know the rolls don't all pan out as average and account for that fact. The game has to be designed in a way that people with higher and lower than average stats can do well and the game will function properly.

 

[JesterOC]

Chances are, if I'm playing a barbarian (should be a race not a class - got to get that in at every opportunity!)

Side note. Should be a background.

 

[Oofta]

Right, but I'm not going to assume that the designers are stupid. That means that they know the rolls don't all pan out as average and account for that fact. The game has to be designed in a way that people with higher and lower than average stats can do well and the game will function properly.

It is. There's this role called "DM" that makes adjustments as necessary.

But anyway the quest for the "impossible magic formula that can account for all party variance" is on a different thread.

 

[Maxperson]

That's kinda the whole point of rolling, and why rolling can't be said to let you 'play what you want,' while point buy can.

I don't agree, but that might be due to how I approach character building. I'm constantly coming up with character concepts that I want to play. Far too many for me to ever be able to put into action. Rolling can't prevent me from playing what I want. It can only help me decide which of the many concepts I'm going to play this time.

 

[Maxperson]

It is. There's this role called "DM" that makes adjustments as necessary.

But anyway the quest for the "impossible magic formula that can account for all party variance" is on a different thread.

Heh. I haven't seen that one. I'll go over and take a gander.