D&D 5E (2014) Is Point Buy Balanced?

[Cergorach]

Is Point Buy Balanced?

Nope. Not in the least.

How unbalanced depends on the specific build, the player, the DM, the adventure, the style, the group, the mood, and the phase of the moon.

As long as the whole group uses the same generating method, everyone starts equal and the end result depends on the specific players/group builds.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As long as the whole group uses the same generating method, everyone starts equal and the end result depends on the specific players/group builds.

That's the key, of course. You can't entirely guarentee that the final result out of point distribution or even arrays will be balanced depending on other factors in the player's application.

But in the end, the result is at least in their hands; depending on the system they may need more or less understanding of it to get a decent result (though some systems at least try to make it so you have to work at it to produce a bad result).

But either way, you're not stuck setting the course of your character's fate by one roll of math rocks.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

So if I recall correctly, I remember an interview awhile back where one of the developers was talking about how the game is essentially designed with characters having a 14 in their primary stat, due largely because people weren't garanteed to have rolled well or have been the best optimizers (yes this does cause issues for actually optimized parties).

That said, foe our groups, we tend to use point buy with 30 points, mostly give a slight bit more oomph to the average points.

More relevant to the topic, I feel it important to point out that while rolling techically has more possibilities, many of them are either unplayable or absurdly broken and should not be considered valid options. As fun as it is to envision all 18s, I sincerely doubt any DM would allow that character to ever see play at a table, and frankly anything that doesn't have at least one 12 (arguably 14) shouldn't even be viewed as a valid option to roll.

I heavily reccomend for those seeking to roll characters at a table, rather than just 3d6 or 4d6 drop one, you just do "2d6 (or 3d6) + 6" for scores. Or if you want a game where a 6 is a valid roll, use +4 instead.

 

[Cergorach]

That's the key, of course. You can't entirely guarentee that the final result out of point distribution or even arrays will be balanced depending on other factors in the player's application.

But in the end, the result is at least in their hands; depending on the system they may need more or less understanding of it to get a decent result (though some systems at least try to make it so you have to work at it to produce a bad result).

But either way, you're not stuck setting the course of your character's fate by one roll of math rocks.

I would even go so far as to say that individually optimized characters will be a LOT less effective then a good group build. And that's not just about min-maxing, but playing characters that mesh well with each other.

OR an imbalance in the party where both started with the same resources, one went for a build optimized for roleplaying and the other optimized purely for combat. A mismatch in expectations and general incompatibility will do more damage then any imbalance in any system.

 

[Jahydin]

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, but it's balanced in that it offers equal opportunity to all players to have the same stats. In 5e where one extra bonus point is the differences of 4 levels, it's my preferred method to keep things fair.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I would even go so far as to say that individually optimized characters will be a LOT less effective then a good group build. And that's not just about min-maxing, but playing characters that mesh well with each other.

OR an imbalance in the party where both started with the same resources, one went for a build optimized for roleplaying and the other optimized purely for combat. A mismatch in expectations and general incompatibility will do more damage then any imbalance in any system.

In Pathfinder Society my first character was Throckmorton, a fighter built on a 20 Point Buy° just like everybody else. I'm not an optimizer so by 12 level he was chucking out 30-40 points of damage a round while others were doing 100+ points a round. It was embarrassing.

Pathfinder (and 3.5 D&D from which it was copied) makes it easy to fail...er, I mean, not be optimized. For instance, I choose for Throckmorton the Combat Patrol feat on top of Polearm Master. I always like choosing feats and animal companions, etc. that reflect the adventures the characters has gone through. In the end the Character is an amalgamation of it's history.

On the other hand, I find Dungeons and Dragons 5e to be very forgiving for non optimizers. It is genuinely difficult to make a Character that will embarrass one at the table.

I guess what I'm saying is that disparities in Character builds (or growths?) don't seem to be all that important when it comes to efficacy.

° Pathfinder used a different Point Buy system but I think 20 points of Pathfinder is nearly identical to 27 points of Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would even go so far as to say that individually optimized characters will be a LOT less effective then a good group build. And that's not just about min-maxing, but playing characters that mesh well with each other.

Its certainly true in some games that are actively designed for inter-player benefits. I can't speak for the current generations of D&D proper..

OR an imbalance in the party where both started with the same resources, one went for a build optimized for roleplaying and the other optimized purely for combat. A mismatch in expectations and general incompatibility will do more damage then any imbalance in any system.

Though as I said, there are games that make it hard for that sort of mismatch to be severe, to the point where the first usually has to not only aim for roleplaying, but actively shoot themselves in the foot to make it a severe problem (if your game bases most of the success of Character Type X around Attribute Y, and you deliberately set Attribute Y as low as possible, I think that goes a bit beyond just making the roleplaying-focused choice).

 

[Thomas Shey]

In Pathfinder Society my first character was Throckmorton, a fighter built on a 20 Point Buy° just like everybody else. I'm not an optimizer so by 12 level he was chucking out 30-40 points of damage a round while others were doing 100+ points a round. It was embarrassing.

Pathfinder (and 3.5 D&D from which it was copied) makes it easy to fail...er, I mean, not be optimized. For instance, I choose for Throckmorton the Combat Patrol feat on top of Polearm Master. I always like choosing feats and animal companions, etc. that reflect the adventures the characters has gone through. In the end the Character is an amalgamation of it's history.

On the other hand, I find Dungeons and Dragons 5e to be very forgiving for non optimizers. It is genuinely hard to not make a Character that will embarrass one at the table.

° Pathfinder used a different Point Buy system but I think 20 points of Pathfinder is nearly identical to 27 points of Dungeons and Dragons.

Its not a coincidence that PF2e has made it much harder to do that sort of thing to yourself, even deliberately.

 

[Lanefan]

As fun as it is to envision all 18s, I sincerely doubt any DM would allow that character to ever see play at a table,

I have a hard time believing this, provided the rolls were done honestly and witnessed.

I once watched in awe as a player of mine legitimately rolled 18-18-17-17-15-15 (in whatever order). Then it hit the field and the combat dice took over; thanks to a critical hit from a Giant that character didn't make it through three sessions, making it the poster child for "stats aren't everything".

and frankly anything that doesn't have at least one 12 (arguably 14) shouldn't even be viewed as a valid option to roll.

Most of us have some sort of cutline below which a player is free to re-roll from scratch, but it remains the player's choice whether or not to do so. I'd never make it mandatory.