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

[CreamCloud0]

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.

Maybe if it had more uses against foes like if 5e had enemy morale or something like previous editions it wouldn’t be such a trap option but alas, it is as you say.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There can be big, strong people who can't sell(charisma failure) the intimidation via strength. They are obviously not mean and are bluffing. Others can sell(charisma success) the intimidation via strength. On the other hand, strength in itself can be somewhat intimidating, so I play it by ear in my game and see what it described to me for the intimidation. Then I ask for strength or charisma.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So can every stat. A 20 strength CAN help you hit more, or you could just roll low and miss every attack. You CAN do more damage with that strength, or you can roll low and do less damage than the guy using the same weapon with no strength bonus.

What charisma CAN do is 10000000000% more effective when it works than the other stats, and is just as likely to work as the other stats. It's capability blows the other stats out of the water unless the DM just doesn't understand what charisma is, but that's not the fault of the stat.

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.

You can in fact intimidate Illithids. They aren't stupid. And sure, if the DM intentionally designs a game where charisma never comes into play, charisma won't be as good. I've been playing since 1983 and it's far more likely to go the other direction and be a social/political/mystery game than one where you do nothing but encounter things that have no minds and never talk to you.

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.

Yay! You can do a lot more in the 1% of what matters to the world than I can. In the mean time I will be doing more of what matters in the other 99%.

Combat, for all that it happens in D&D, is almost always completely irrelevant to the setting. It might have local impact. Sometimes. Usually not even that much, though.

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.

No stat has consistency. You can get hit for super high damage, negating that con bonus. You can miss a lot. You can fail checks.
Unless the DM is going out of his way to screw over charisma or just plain doesn't understand it, though, it will be about as consistent as any other stat, only with FAR greater effect.

 

[Maxperson]

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!

With the former the reasons for why their old choice of harmful/bad is because threats of violence. Intimidate isn't just another persuasion skill that pushes instead of pulls. With persuasion you use reason and emotion to convince. With intimidation you use threats, fear or overwhelming awe to convince. You can convince someone to agree to do what you want with intimidation, but they will almost never be happy about it.

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.

Because that's what intimidation is. It's not a differently happy persuasion skill. If you use fear to intimidate them, they are afraid of you and what you are doing. Fear doesn't make people happy with you. If you use threats to make them do it, they may or may not fear you, but they bend to the threats. Threats do not make people happy with you. Overwhelming awe is only rarely within the PCs control, and even then to get someone to do something they otherwise would not do via awe, it's using the awe so that they are afraid to cross such awe inspiring individuals.

There's a reason why synonyms of intimidating include frighten, menace, terrify, scare, alarm and terrorize.

In short, don't use intimidation on people you want to like you. Use it monsters, enemies, people you don't care about and will probably never see again, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe if it had more uses against foes like if 5e had enemy morale or something like previous editions it wouldn’t be such a trap option but alas, it is as you say.

I have yet to meet a DM who didn't treat it like some sort of morale check against enemies. I've intimidated many groups to stand down instead of fighting us, and had players in my game do the same.

 

[CleverNickName]

More comparisons of the three methods (Standard Array, Point-Buy, and 4d6.)

Let's talk about ability score modifiers.

With the Standard Array, you have the following stats: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. The modifiers for these stats are +2, +2, +1, +1, +0, and -1, respectively. And if we add up those modifiers, we have a total of +5.

With the Point Buy method, there are only 65 valid sets of numbers to pick from. I used Excel to calculate and sum all of the ability score modifiers for each. And if we add up those modifiers and average them, we get +5.12. That's pretty close to the Standard Array, but remember that probability is meaningless with the Point Buy--you get to pick the result you want to use.

Out of the 65 possible results, two are +3, twelve are +4, thirty are +5, twenty are +6, and one is +7....in other words, all but 14 are going to be equal to or greater than the Standard Array in this respect. (And in case you were wondering which set gives you a +7, it is 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12. Anyway.)

For the 4d6 Method, we head off into the realm of probability and statistics. I again used Excel to generate a set of stats, then had it calculate the ability score modifiers for each, and then add them together. And then do it 163,800 times, and then average the result. The average was +5.89.

So if you use the 4d6 method, nine times out of ten your ability score modifiers will add up to a number between +5 and +7, just like the Point Buy method.

Of course this all goes out the window when you start adding house-rules. But that brings up an interesting point: what would a fair and balanced house-rule for the 4d6 method look like, to keep it close (power-wise) to the Point Buy method?

I propose this one:

1. Roll your stats using the 4d6 method.
2. Add up your ability modifiers.

- If the result is +2 or less, reroll.​

- If the result is +8 or more, reroll.​

3. Otherwise, keep what you rolled.

This would keep the ability score modifiers within the same range as the Point Buy, but not necessarily the stats themselves.

Anyway. To bring this back to the topic of the thread: I still think that Point Buy is balanced with the other methods, and the math supports that conclusion. Also, math is fun.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can convince someone to agree to do what you want with intimidation, but they will almost never be happy about it.

This precise attitude is what ensures Intimidate will always suck.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I think comparing a single roll in resolution and a roll that you'll carry for the whole game comes across as disingenuous. I'm going to give the credit of just assuming its not thought through.

 

[Maxperson]

This precise attitude is what ensures Intimidate will always suck.

Yeah. We don't alter it into a wildly different thing for the sake of convenience. What you want isn't intimidate. You want persuasion 2.0. Intimidate does in fact have good uses. I've seen it, and I've done it. It's just not as useful generally as persuasion, because it's a DIFFERENT skill with a DIFFERENT purpose.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

More comparisons of the three methods (Standard Array, Point-Buy, and 4d6.)

Let's talk about ability score modifiers.

With the Standard Array, you have the following stats: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. The modifiers for these stats are +2, +2, +1, +1, +0, and -1, respectively. And if we add up those modifiers, we have a total of +5.

With the Point Buy method, there are only 65 valid sets of numbers to pick from. I used Excel to calculate and sum all of the ability score modifiers for each. And if we add up those modifiers and average them, we get +5.12. That's pretty close to the Standard Array, but remember that probability is meaningless with the Point Buy--you get to pick the result you want to use.

Out of the 65 possible results, two are +3, twelve are +4, thirty are +5, twenty are +6, and one is +7....in other words, all but 14 are going to be equal to or greater than the Standard Array in this respect. (And in case you were wondering which set gives you a +7, it is 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12. Anyway.)

For the 4d6 Method, we head off into the realm of probability and statistics. I again used Excel to generate a set of stats, then had it calculate the ability score modifiers for each, and then add them together. And then do it 163,800 times, and then average the result. The average was +5.89.

So if you use the 4d6 method, nine times out of ten your ability score modifiers will add up to a number between +5 and +7, just like the Point Buy method.

View attachment 425950

Of course this all goes out the window when you start adding house-rules. But that brings up an interesting point: what would a fair and balanced house-rule for the 4d6 method look like, to keep it close (power-wise) to the Point Buy method?

I propose this one:

1. Roll your stats using the 4d6 method.
2. Add up your ability modifiers.

- If the result is +2 or less, reroll.​

- If the result is +8 or more, reroll.​

3. Otherwise, keep what you rolled.

This would keep the ability score modifiers within the same range as the Point Buy, but not necessarily the stats themselves.

Anyway. To bring this back to the topic of the thread: I still think that Point Buy is balanced with the other methods, and the math supports that conclusion. Also, math is fun.

I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. This reduces the landscape of possible score arrays from 54,264 to 12,232. A reduction in diversity of 42,032 but I can live with 12,000 arrays.

I rolled up the base scores for three Monks:

Monk A, equivalent to 25 points (Str 10, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 8)

Monk B, points are unevaluatable* (Str 11, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 13, Cha 13)

Monk C, points are unevaluatable** (Str 13, Dex 17, Con 13, Int 9, Wis 15, Cha 11)

* Unevaluatable because of the 7, but everything else adds up to 27 points.
** Unevaluatable because of the 17, but everything else adds up to 23 points.