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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

You'll occasionally see this sort of thing done in superhero games, but as you say I'm not sure its a practical choice for most groups, and that may be even more true in fantasy games.

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.

Almost statistically certain, I'd think. I'd expect its more likely out of the D&D sphere though (and not common even outside of it).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I love that card system for random but equivalent stats.

Cards are possibly an underutilized randomizer in games. I kind of understand why (depending on things like play space layout they can be clumsy to work with, and there are issues where depending on the implementation player number impacts it) but there's something to be said for a randomizer with memory.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

There are ways you can set up things to do that, but they're inevitably going to make character generation more complicated than a simple point-buy, array or random generation method. Possibly much more complicated.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've been thinking about this.

Stats don't change that much, with strength and constitution being the ones you can affect the most through training and healthy eating. Even then, though, what your are born with limits you. Someone small and thin will never be able to train to be as strong as someone tall who has a broad build. A wide receiver won't ever be able to be as strong as a lineman, while a lineman won't ever be as agile as a wide receiver.

The mental stats are even more limited as far as potential growth goes. If you have a 100 IQ, you won't even be as smart as someone with a 140, even if you go to school and learn a great deal. You might be more knowledgeable, but you won't be smarter. Wisdom is similar. There's only so much knowing what the right thing to do is that will help your wisdom. Otherwise we wouldn't have nearly as many smokers, alcoholics and drug users as this world has.

And I would definitely disagree with that. It's highly debatable that IQ tests test more than your ability to score on IQ tests, but you can definitely train for them and be better at them - either that means you can improve your Intelligence, or you can't make any conclusions from IQ Tests. (or both).

And "Wisdom" and drug or alcohol abuse - I think in the real world, we have pretty good ideas also has a significant physiological component to what the substances does to your body, so that it's not as simple as wisdom being a safeguard from it. D&D even likes to associate Wisdom with Heal, and you will find a lot of doctors that also smoke (and some that abuse other drugs), so Wisdom doesn't seem to do much here.

And even if a person with a naturally lithe build cannot compete in the heavy lifting competititon, if he regularly trains and excercises he's likely going to reliable beat the average officer worker that doesn't do that, far more reliably than the 4-6 points you might get from ability increases would grant you (and that would still neccessitate you to become something like a 16th+ level character, which he likely won't be.)
Ability scores should realistically be far more dynamic during a character's career than they are.

 

[ECMO3]

Don't you think a system which can produce outrightly unplayable characters has a clear hole that should be fixed? That sounds like a pretty serious flaw.

While it is theoretically possible to produce a character that could be considered unplayable, it is highly unlikely using most of the official methods for rolling stats.

Further when looking at theoretical but statisically extremely improbable cases, the same is true for the game in general.

I could theoretically roll a player with six 3s, I could also roll a player with 6 18s. But what if the chatacter I rolled 3s on gets a high roll on every d20 test and the "god character" rolls a 1 on every d20 test made with that character?

If unlikely extreme examples are considered a hole, then that is an argument against using randomness (i.e. dice) in any part of the game. In this respect the "unplayable character" requires no more "fixing" than the character who misses on every attack roll they attempt.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One method I’ve heard of for this is tiered rolling:

Put your ability scores into three tiers: A (important for the concept) B (shouldn’t be dump stats) and C (whatever).

For A tier roll 5d6 drop two (or 2d4 + 10 or something equally generous). You’re druid will probably be wise and tough.

For B tier roll 4d6 drop one (etc). Probably good but not great. Your druid will likely be somewhat agile, or at least not clumsy.

For C tier roll 3d6 - could be anything! Maybe you’re a buff muscle druid, maybe you’re leading the Circle of the Wet Noodle. Just roll with it!

I have an idea for that for my 4E inspired Arcane Evolved homebrew:
You choose a primary and a secondary stat and the rest uses the regular column.
I currently even include a full random character generation that selects classes and class specilization, species and what you pick for primary and secondary depending on your class and species.

3d6	Primary	Secondary	Regular
3	3 (13)​	2 (10)​	0 (6)​
4-6	4 (14)​	2 (11)​	1 (8)​
7-8	4 (14)​	3 (12)​	2 (10)​
9-10	4 (15)​	3 (13)​	2 (11)​
11-12	5 (16)​	4 (14)​	3 (12)​
13-14	5 (16)​	4 (15)​	3 (13)​
15-16	5 (17)​	5 (16)​	4 (14)​
17	6 (18)​	5 (17)​	5 (16)​
18	6 (18)​	6 (18)​	6 (18)​

I put the traditional D&D scores I would roughly associate the values with in brackets, I don't use them for the system, since only modifiers are relevant for the game I decided to ditch the 3-18 scores, and I also offset all values that there are no negative values.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

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.

Friend, you want the Dice Point method. Try it!

You like spending points, it's got that; you like randomization, it's got that too! The Dice Point method has got you covered.

You roll 1d4+1d6+1d8 for each ability score, in order! But before you do that, you get 5 points to spend on your ability scores. Spending 1 point allows you control over the toss of one die (most likely you will make the 1d8 an 8). Spending 2 points allows control over two dice (most likely the d6 and the d8). Spending 3 points allows complete control, and you can have an 18 in that score if you wish.

I find 3 total points fits my style, but you sound like a 5 pointer to me. Five Dice Points can guarantee you two scores above 14 and one score that is at least not below average and most likely above average. The rest of your scores get to run free and wild. Maybe one will be a 16 base.

There are plenty of complex systems out there, and Point Buy is one of them. I mean, anytime you have to consult a chart means it's a complex method.

 

[CreamCloud0]

5e leans into persuasion, intimidation and deception for charisma. With those skills you can end encounters, get kings to move armies, and more. Charisma is far stronger than stats like strength, dex and con which only help you a bit when fighting this orc over here or that giant over there.

i know you can already use variable stat skills but i really do think intimidation ought to be a STR default skill, one, because it's pretty redundant and typically the inferior CHA skill choice next to persuasion and two, it gives STR primaries more leverage into the social pillar.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Charisma can keep an ancient dragon from eating a 3rd level party. That's a lot more "do not die points" than an 18 con is going to give a 3rd level PC, or an 18 strength will give a 3rd level fighter, or...

But there are two absolutely critical parts there, one you mentioned and one you didn't.

Can. It can do that. Or it can do absolutely nothing...or even make the situation actively worse! That's the first impediment.

The second: You are going to make attack rolls. You are going to make perception checks. You are going to make initiative rolls. That's literally never not going to happen if you play D&D for more than a couple sessions. But you may or may not ever get the chance to make Diplo/Intimidate/Decep checks. If you fight zombies, you don't have anything to negotiate with. If you fight, say, illithids? They aren't going to negotiate with food any more than you would. You can genuinely have entire campaigns where it just coincidentally never comes up.

Hit points always come up. Initiative and AC always come up. Perception always comes up. Charisma skills, while extremely useful when they come up (except Intimidate, because far too many GMs make it suck), may or may not come up. Such is true of several other skills, notably knowledge skills and things like Animal Handling where they're very specific in application. I'd actually say Stealth is another "it WILL come up eventually", but it's got a longer time horizon--so for sufficiently short games, it might not come up, but anything that gets past, say, ten sessions? You're gonna roll Stealth at some point. You genuinely may not ever roll History or Animal Handling--or Deception. To deceive, you have to have someone that can understand you that is worth deceiving. That's not a guaranteed condition. Rolling initiative and losing some of your hit points is a guaranteed condition, at least in a D&D game.

Charisma is the god stat in that it is the only stat that can consistently accomplish things that affect more than just your immediate surroundings in this fight over here or that one over there. Strength, dex and con aren't going to, outside of very rare corner cases, affect nations, continents or even entire worlds. Intelligence and wisdom have somewhat more potential for that, but still far, FAR less than charisma.

You attribute to it consistency it does not have. You then talk about its potential, not its actuality--as though that were the same as the consistency. It is not. Yes, I completely agree that Cha skills potentially can do absolutely enormous, world-shattering things sometimes, with luck, and GM buy-in, and a good reason, and, and, and.

Con has the objectively universal applicability of giving you more Do Not Die Points. It 100% guaranteed always does that, in every edition, no matter what. It gives different amounts, to be sure, but it gives them all the same. And since, as stated, you are always eventually going to make Perception checks and Initiative rolls, you are going to use those things. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. That cannot be said of Cha. Some games it can be. Plenty of others, it can't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

i know you can already use variable stat skills but i really do think intimidation ought to be a STR default skill, one, because it's pretty redundant and typically the inferior CHA skill choice next to persuasion and two, it gives STR primaries more leverage into the social pillar.

The bigger problem is that GMs run Intimidate so horrifically, it's never worth picking up in the first place. It is literally the "make things objectively worse solely to get a short-term boost right this instant" skill. I wish it weren't. I would love to live in a world where GMs saw Intimidate as the skill for pushing people to agree with you, whereas Diplomacy (Persuasion, whatever) is the skill for pulling them toward your views--either way, they end up agreeing with you, but the former is because they have been given reasons to see why their old choice was harmful/bad, while the latter is because they've been given reasons to think your choice is beneficial/good. And Diplomacy can still make someone dislike you, while Intimidate can make someone like you more in some circumstances!

But no. The way so damn many GMs run it, it's the Nice Guy Skill That Makes People Love You, and the Evil Guy Skill That Makes Everyone Hate You But Too Afraid To Fight Back Until You're Out Of View.