D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Yardiff]

Never said I was. I just stated what my opinion on 27pt buy was.

 

[Oofta]

For that to be the case, there could be no inherent advantages or disadvantages to any method.

But that is not the case. For example, point-buy means each player assigns their points to the available scores as they see fit. This is not a subjective opinion, it is a fact. How much weight you give to this fact is up to you, but the fact that this method has that advantage is an objective truth.

It is also true that point-buy has the objective disadvantage (compared to rolling) that scores below 8 and above 15 are unavailable. How much weight you give that disadvantage is up to you, but it is an objective truth.

Whether it's a good thing to have a character with an ability score below 8 or above a 17 at 1st level is also an opinion.

See? We can both play this game. Still an opinion/preference.

 

[Caliban]

If your allowing a higher point buy why not allow a higher roll potential? The differences will be whether you pick your specific stats or have random but potentially still good stat choices from rolling.

It really all depends and what you consider good enough. I don't think one 16 and a couple 14s is good enough.

Exactly. It all comes down to preferences and opinions.

 

[Yardiff]

Yes.

 

[Arial Black]

Whether it's a good thing to have a character with an ability score below 8 or above a 17 at 1st level is also an opinion.

See? We can both play this game. Still an opinion/preference.

From your own criteria: 'making the character I want', then if I want to have a stat less than 8 or more than 15 (before racials) then point-buy has an objective disadvantage.

That is not mere 'opinion'; that is 'fact'.

 

[Caliban]

From your own criteria: 'making the character I want', then if I want to have a stat less than 8 or more than 15 (before racials) then point-buy has an objective disadvantage.

That is not mere 'opinion'; that is 'fact'.

Nope, it's a rather tiresome opinion based on your personal preference.

 

[Oofta]

From your own criteria: 'making the character I want', then if I want to have a stat less than 8 or more than 15 (before racials) then point-buy has an objective disadvantage.

That is not mere 'opinion'; that is 'fact'.

Dude, seriously. You need to get over it and stop twisting my words which I've explained ad-nauseum.

You see value to the possibility of numbers outside of the range of 8-15. I don't. That's an opinion and a preference.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For that to be the case, there could be no inherent advantages or disadvantages to any method.

Nod. I'd prefer to acknowledge the advantages of systems I don't necessarily prefer, and the disadvantages of those I'm more comfortable with.

It is also true that point-buy has the objective disadvantage (compared to rolling) that scores below 8 and above 15 are unavailable.

One specific implementation of point-buy has those specific limits. Above you offered using /cards/ in random generation, clearly we're not limiting the discussion to one specific implementation! Minimums & maximums, like total points, could be set wherever best fits the campaign, that could include 3-18. Heck, it could be 1-25. (And, in the specific case of 5e, stats up to 20 are available with point buy, just not until higher levels, FWIW.)
Rather, putting limits/floors on point-buy stats mitigates against extreme high-primary/low-dump-stat builds.

Which brings us to a more general way of expressing the disadvantage: point-buy is most susceptible to optimization/powergaming/min-max shinanigans - it can over-reward system mastery (wow, there's no shortage of terminology for that issue, is there?). Like random generation, balance is not its strongest suit.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm curious. What's the fatality level in your campaign?

High.

I suspect that most people - myself included* - expect to play their character for the length of the campaign.

My expectation - and that of most of our crew in general - is to play a character as long as it may last, in full knowledge that it might not last through its first session or might end up lasting for many years. That said, it's also quite acceptable to retire characters and bring in new ones as the campaign goes along.

In addition, most campaigns I've been involved in last a year or more. If I remember correctly around a year is a general average they found when designing 5E.

Ours tend to run about 10 years or a bit more, often with multiple parties either sharing table time (a few adventures with group A, then a few with group B) or being played concurrently.

There are all types of games, all types of groups. Perma-death is rare in the games I've played unless the player wanted the character to die for some reason.

Perma-death is a fact of...well...life at low levels. At mid-levels once a character has built up some wealth revival comes into play, and at high level when revival is available in the field death becomes much less of an issue. However, there's still the resurrection-survival roll - none of this auto-success that 3e brought in and subsequent editions have kept.

1e PHB pg 9.

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

A suggestion, to be sure, but not a rule: nowhere does he say that characters without 2 15+ scores must be rerolled.

If your allowing a higher point buy why not allow a higher roll potential? The differences will be whether you pick your specific stats or have random but potentially still good stat choices from rolling.

It really all depends and what you consider good enough. I don't think one 16 and a couple 14s is good enough.

It really all depends on what you're willing to play. 16-14-14-x-x-x before racial adjust looks pretty good when held up against some things I've played...or am playing. That said, allow me to be blunt: if someone insists on playing 18-18-16-x-x-x all the time and supports rolling for stats because that's the only method in which one can achieve this, then as far as I'm concerned they're supporting the roll-up method for the wrong reasons.

Lan-"if I do roll 18-18-16-x-x-x I'll happily play it, knowing full well I'll likely get 15-13-11-x-x-x for the next one"-efan

 

[Oofta]

Nod. I'd prefer to acknowledge the advantages of systems I don't necessarily prefer, and the disadvantages of those I'm more comfortable with.

One specific implementation of point-buy has those specific limits. Above you offered using /cards/ in random generation, clearly we're not limiting the discussion to one specific implementation! Minimums & maximums, like total points, could be set wherever best fits the campaign, that could include 3-18. Heck, it could be 1-25. (And, in the specific case of 5e, stats up to 20 are available with point buy, just not until higher levels, FWIW.)
Rather, putting limits/floors on point-buy stats mitigates against extreme high-primary/low-dump-stat builds.

Which brings us to a more general way of expressing the disadvantage: point-buy is most susceptible to optimization/powergaming/min-max shinanigans - it can over-reward system mastery (wow, there's no shortage of terminology for that issue, is there?). Like random generation, balance is not its strongest suit.

I would say that just about any system that allows you to place numbers wherever you want is going to reward system mastery.

Unless of course your system is that everyone starts out with the ability scores of a commoner.