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

[Sword of Spirit]

As above, I think the bigger issue is that when we have already controlled for "at least one stat must be 14+, your sum-of-mods must be positive" and "oh damn, that array sucks even if it technically counts...ah, just reroll it."

Because 14 10 10 10 10 8 is technically a valid stat array (it has a net modifier sum of +1, and one 14), but most GMs I know would be very likely to say, "Eh....that sucks, and is a lot worse than anyone else's stats. Roll it again." Or something similar.

The moment you let squishy human preference push up the minimum floor, you open the door for rolls to significantly exceed PB. Because now it's not "one set of rolls vs PB". It's "2 or 3 or 4 or...(etc) sets of rolls, vs PB." And of course that's going to make values get bigger.

Personally, I think what this means is that stats should be determined by shuffled cards rather than rolled dice. Because the cards function as genuine randomness...that has the limits of point-buy. And you can even give extra cards of every number 1-6, that way GMs can tailor their stat generation the way they like. Want something 3d6-strict like? Use equal numbers of every card, or start from that and add in some extra 1s and 2s. Want strong stats? Favor big numbers. Etc. If you use only 18 cards, every array is guaranteed to have the same value; if you use more than 18, some "hands" might be more valuable than others, but never by more than a handful of points, enough to perhaps get an extra +1 here or there.

E.g. if the deck were 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+4+4+4+5+5+5+5+6+6+6, then you might get lucky and draw one 18...but that means your next-highest-stat can't be higher than 15, and if it is 15, your third highest stat can't be higher than 12. A much more likely occurrence would be, say, {5,1,2}{4,3,4}{6,4,5}{4,5,1}{2,4,6}{5,6,3} = {8,11,15,10,12,14}--which is more or less the standard array. And while it's possible to get a mere 4 as one of your stats, the odds against that are pretty significant, and essentially guarantee that you'll have otherwise solid stats in other places (since that makes your second-lowest-possible score only 8.)

Still random. Still has the possibility of being assigned-in-order so you end up with a character you did not choose. Doesn't have various ills that dice-rolling would have. And is, to some extent, mildly realistic; few people are absolutely horrible at everything, few people are ridiculously amazing at everything, and generally folks who have a significant deficiency in one area compensate for it by having developed themselves more in other areas (e.g. a blind person usually has better smell and hearing than a sighted person).


Yes, but folks don't see it that way. It's the exact same perception issue as the one that drives the 60%-65% hit rate thing.

A run of bad luck on your stat rolls feels bad to a much worse degree than a statistically-equivalent run of good luck feels good. A run of bad luck feels more bad than a run of good luck feels good. (An ironic counter-pattern I've seen, though, is that good luck on a single pivotal roll has more good-feel impact than bad luck would have bad-feel impact. My guess is because we correctly "feel" the probability when it's one isolated single roll.) People don't cap the upper end because that feels like taking away """earned""" success, while capping the bottom end feels like preventing unearned suffering.

That's the sort of underlying secondary reason why I don't care for rolling. Most groups take several steps which make rolling theoretically a lot better........but my luck continues to be bimodal, assiduously avoiding the center of the distribution to favor the two tails instead.

I love that card system for random but equivalent stats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, a very very poor design choice.

It really wasn't, and you haven't done a single thing to demonstrate anything of the kind.

Even point-buy tends to bell-curve the stats - the higher the stat, the more points it costs - which doesn't mesh with a linear bonus system.

Why not? Proof by assertion is not a valid argument.

If it's only the first or second step, who cares? You've lost a minute or two, tops.

Couldn't care less. It's wasted time that doesn't need to be wasted. Have a generation method that doesn't generate outright officially unplayable characters.

This is where we differ greatly.

In your preferrred edition

I'm afraid I have to stop you right there. I wasn't talking about my preferred edition. I was talking about 5e. To an extent, I was also talking about 3e, although that wasn't quite as explicit about it. 5e, in either version, makes it quite clear that a 1st level Fighter is not some run-of-the-mill nobody.

From 2014 (just one section out of three):

"TRAINED FOR DANGER
Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.
Some fighters feel drawn to use their training as adventurers. The dungeon delving, monster slaying, and other dangerous work common among adventurers is second nature for a fighter, not all that different from the life he or she left behind. There are greater risks, perhaps, but also much greater rewards--for few fighters in the city watch have the opportunity to discover a magic flame tongue sword, for example."

From 2024 (this is the entirety of the lead-in fluff text):

"FIGHTERS RULE MANY BATTLEFIELDS. Questing knights, royal champions, elite soldiers, and hardened mercenaries--as Fighters, they all share an unparalleled prowess with weapons and armor. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and defying it.
Fighters master various weapon techniques, and a well-equipped Fighter always has the right too at hand for any combat situation. Likewise, a Fighter is adept with every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each Fighter specializes in certain styles of combat. Some concentrate on Archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad ability and extensive specialization makes Fighters superior combatants."

Both of these make quite clear that the Fighter, in 5th edition, is not a clueless rube, nor a greenhorn. Fighters are trained, and at least to some minimal degree, hardened.

This is part of why I keep telling you that there need to be actual rules supporting the playstyle you want to play. Because right now? The "super popular" edition of D&D, the one that sold super well etc. etc. etc.? It explicitly excludes your favorite edition's way of doing things, at least on this issue, and I know there are others too.

Because then you actually could have the gap between a random commoner and a bare-minimum 0th-level character be...genuinely nothing at all. And it would be on you to play your way through the steps of progression until you have earned the gap between "random commoner" and "1st level character", whatever your class might be.

Agreed. Someone with Str 7 ain't cut out for strength-based challenges, but probably is suitable for other types of challenges.

Okay. I don't really understand the value of methods that are prone to generating such numbers on the regular, then. If Strength-based challenges are meant to be so important that they get coded into some of the most fundamental rules of the game--like Strength saving throws or Athletics checks--then generation systems which create characters genuinely incapable with such challenges sounds like actively bad design. Like this isn't "not every character is perfect at everything, that's what makes teamwork important", this is "why the f#$% are you adventuring when you literally don't have the ability to do several of the basic things adventurers are supposed to do?!"

In a linear bonus system, yes. But in a bell-curve bonus system where -1 starts at 7 and +1 starts at 14 you don't see nearly as many +/-2s and 3s.

You also don't actually have variability!

Because when all six values between 8 and 13 are identical....and those comprise a clear majority of stats rolled in your preferred style. That is, with 3d6 strict, over 57% of stats are between 8 and 13. Which means that, per the mechanics you just described, all of that rolling achieves bupkis most of the time, because on average, half of characters won't even be distinguishable!

What you roll is what you are. Says nothing about what you could potentially become (that's what level-based ASIs are there for).

But what you roll does not have to be only that. It could be how you grew into whatever you currently are--and then those other stat points represent where you go from there.

No person is an island. No life is devoid of context, prior growth, relevant backstory.

Again, though, this comes back to the idea that a 1st-level character is already a veteran of some adventuring or similar activity, a default which I disagree with.

Then you need a system that actually supports doing that. Because 5e doesn't--and if "it's popular so what it's doing works!!" is an argument against why my preferences should be implemented into it, then it is just as much an argument against why yours should be too. If it is not the latter, then it is also not the former, and now you have to actually justify why your preferences would be the better choice than mine--with more than just an appeal to tradition, or an appeal to convenience for Lanefan.

IME not many tables or groups took this approach, though a few have and to (usually) good results.

I wasn't alive yet at the time, so I literally cannot know other than what others report.

In 5e, taking Perception away from Wisdom and giving it entirely to Intelligence might sort those two stats out right there.

I don't think being intelligent should make you more perceptive though. That's kind of the problem. I have known intelligent people--I have been an intelligent person--who frequently failed to notice things right in front of their faces. The Absent-Minded Professor is an archetype for a reason.

Maybe taking any and all melee to-hit and damage bonuses away from Dex and giving them all to Strength might be a start (yes, this very intentionally means no more 'weapon finesse', ever). Then, as you say, divorce initiative from Dex and make it an unmodified roll.

I mean, you could do that if you wanted. I don't think it would be an improvement overall. Folks like the game supporting both "I'm a fast stabby boi but not a tough stabby boi" and "I'm a tough stabby boi but not a fast stabby boi" concepts, and those are grounded in realism, since those genuinely are highly distinct fighting styles. Swinging a huge hulking sword and slicing and dicing with daggers are really quite different things. Same with archery or thrown weapons.

No idea what to do with Charisma, though, as 5e doesn't lean into henches and hirelings etc.

I mean I think it's actually fine the way it is. The skills themselves need a rework--the "good socialization"/"extremely bad socialization"/"lies" trifecta is really really flawed--but Charisma itself doesn't actually seem particularly OP. Yes, it's pretty much vital for one major area of the game, but it is not so overwhelmingly important the way "have more Do Not Die Points" and "be fast enough to prevent losing Do Not Die Points" are.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm sure this wouldn't be a realistic route for most games or groups, but. To be honest, I at least like the idea of players discussing their character/concept with their DM, and then just. Mutually deciding on and setting the appropriate ability scores outright. Not bothering with rolls or point buy.

If the thing you already know you want to do would be best served by a particular spread, and you and your DM share that kind of trust, why not? (I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why not, but. In an ideal scenario anyway.)
Not sure I've ever heard of anyone else doing it that way, but I'm sure it must exist.

Oh, it's definitely been discussed around here. I can't remember when it last came up--which means it must be several years ago now--but I know for a fact there are users on this forum who ascribe to a "I let my players pick whatever stats they think are reasonable" process.

And I agree that it would not work as a system-wide default. It might work as a GM-opt-in variant in the DMG (or a follow-up to it, e.g. have a "Master's Course on Dungeons" or the like, and that MCD could have various less-broadly-applicable alternative options.)

 

[Rocker26a]

It might work as a GM-opt-in variant in the DMG (or a follow-up to it, e.g. have a "Master's Course on Dungeons" or the like, and that MCD could have various less-broadly-applicable alternative options.)

I think that'd be a decent way round it, yeah. It might be helpful in the sense of, offering a loose structure with which to have such a discussion or similar. Present some example cases maybe, stuff like that. Might act as a thin end of the wedge, sell the idea as a palatable alternative for more tables.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I vastly prefer point-buy, though I think it can feel quite boring, because there aren't that many selections that make solid characters.
I wish there was a randomization method that guaranteed that whatever my character is supposed to be good at, he's good at, and he is also good at something I didn't expect (and maybe bad at something I didn't expect, too). Point Buy forces me to do this deliberately, and I know it will cost me.
I'd like to play something like a Fighter with the 'mandatory' Strength or Dexterity of 15 but an unexpected Charisma of or Intelligence of 18 (or 16, we don't need to be greedy), and an unexpected 7 in Wisdom (or even Con? maybe that's too negative for the primary role of the character). Or how about a Strength 16 Wizard?
Something that allows you to play your character a bit non-standard, not just have Bob Fighter XIV and Mialee Wizard VIII.