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

[AlViking]

Just for fun (and realistically because I was avoiding things I should really be doing) I went back and did the same quick analysis for barbarians. Once again human. Target AC 16 for average damage. Dear old "A" sucks, "B" is far more effective in and out of combat.

Spoiler: Details at level 1, 4, 8

Level 1
A: is going to be a pretty bad barbarian, but that's what he wants to play.

• Str: 15 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Wis: 9 Int: 7 Cha: 4.
• Attack: +4, DMG: 1d12+2(avg 4), HP: 13, AC 11.
• Initiative +0, Perception +1, Stealth +2
• Should probably buy some armor, use a shield and give up on the greataxe. But we're comparing apples to apples here.

B: Not just a good barbarian but pretty good at other stuff as well

• Str: 20 Dex: 15 Con: 16 Wis: 13 Int: 13 Cha: 9.
• Attack: +7, DMG: 1d12+5(avg 6), HP: 15, AC 15.
• Initiative +2, Perception +3, Stealth +4

level 4. Note that they get primal knowledge, an extra proficiency so I took survival
A: Increases strength and dexterity to get an ever-so-slightly-better AC eventually

• Str: 16 Dex: 11 Con: 14 Wis: 10 Int: 7 Cha: 4.
• Attack: +5, DMG: 1d12+3 (avg 4), HP: 37, AC 11.
• Initiative +0, Perception +2, Stealth +2, Survival +2

B: Increases dex and wisdom by 1 so they're better at some out-of-combat skills.

• Str: 20 Dex: 16 Con: 16 Wis: 13 Int: 13 Cha: 9.
• Attack: +7, DMG: 1d12+5 (avg 6), HP: 45, AC 16.
• Initiative +3, Perception +4, Stealth +5, Survival +4

level 8.
A: Takes polearm master, increases dex. I'm assuming using the bonus action for polearm 4/5 turns.

• Str: 16 Dex: 12 Con: 14 Wis: 9 Int: 7 Cha: 4.
• Attack: +6, DMG: 1d10+3 + 1d4+3 (avg 11), HP: 69, AC 12 (15 with breastplate).
• Initiative +1, Perception +2, Stealth +4, Survival +2

B: Sticks with the greataxe and has a lot of options. For simplicity increasing Con by 2.

• Str: 20 Dex: 16 Con: 18 Wis: 14 Int: 13 Cha: 9.
• Attack: +8, DMG: 1d12+5(avg 15), HP: 93, AC 17.
• Initiative +3, Perception +4, Stealth +6, Survival +4

The conclusion is that "A" never catches up on damage no matter what they do, their AC sucks, they have far less HP. You could mitigate the AC a bit by getting breastplate (so long bare-chested warrior) but they'll always fall behind on HP, AC, long range combat, initiative, and skills as well.

Not to mention giving up on multi-classing for A.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Is there any way to arrange scores without dumping one?

If I have the following set to arrange: 18 17 16 15 14 13, then I must put the 13 somewhere - is that a dumped score?

Assigning scores leads directly to dump scores.

Now those are some pretty high scores with an overall bonus of 15 so I'll admit it makes it easier to avoid dumping scores. But, I would bet that most people, including myself, would put the 17 or 18 into one their "useful" abilities. This then leaves that score unavailable to be placed in one of our less "uselful" abilities. I would also bet that we would end up with the 13 or 14 in one of our "useless" abilities.

Don't get me wrong. It's certainly possible to place scores without thinking about the usefulness of abilities, but that's extremely hard for humans to do.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

By that definition, arranged scores always includes a dump stat (unless all of your scores are the same.)

If that’s basically always happening, how is that a problem for the game? 5e definitely works, and works well for more players than every other edition combined, so I really don’t see how it could be a significant issue with the game.

You can avoid dump scores by randomly placing them, but I'm not advocating for that. I repeat, I'm not advocating for random placement of scores.

In this thread we've been talking about dump scores as a part of the cookie cutter problem of the Point Buy method overall. Mechanically dump scores are just low scores.

So let's not overstate it. Dump scores are not an issue per se, they are a symptom.

 

[CleverNickName]

I wonder what it would be like to play a 5E D&D game where everyone starts with a 10 in every stat (plus racial bonuses), and you got an ASI at every level.

I think it would be balanced, and I think it would be a true "zero-to-hero" experience...but would it be fun?

 

[Maxperson]

I think doing double damage, one character having 1/3 less HP and so on from my examples are significant. It's even worse if those two both wanted to be barbarians, monks or any other class that relies on more than 2 stats.

Your example is effectively white room theory crafting, though. Folks just generally don't require people to play stats as bad as you posted.

Whether or not it matters to you or if you allow rerolls isn't the point. The point is that 4d6dl has inherent issues - a group of 10 tables having that extreme difference indicates it is not rare by any stretch. You can resolve those issues by allowing multiple rolls or other issues or simply using point buy. I prefer using point buy.

Point buy and arrays also have inherent issues. A lot of people dislike cookie cutter character stats. Both methods have issues, and both methods have solutions.......using the other method.

It's just a matter of preference, so I'm not trying to convince you to change or anything. I'm just pointing out that the "massive" disparity folks generally trot out as proof of how bad rolling is just doesn't come into play the vast majority of the time. It requires 1) extreme rolling, which is pretty rare, and 2) DMs who will force people to play crappy stats, which is also pretty rare.

 

[AlViking]

Your example is effectively white room theory crafting, though. Folks just generally don't require people to play stats as bad as you posted.

But it is using the rules as written.

Point buy and arrays also have inherent issues. A lot of people dislike cookie cutter character stats. Both methods have issues, and both methods have solutions.......using the other method.

It's just a matter of preference, so I'm not trying to convince you to change or anything. I'm just pointing out that the "massive" disparity folks generally trot out as proof of how bad rolling is just doesn't come into play the vast majority of the time. It requires 1) extreme rolling, which is pretty rare, and 2) DMs who will force people to play crappy stats, which is also pretty rare.

I just find point buy more balanced because balance only matters relative to other characters at the table. @CleverNickName's idea of everybody starting out as a commoner with 10 in everything is balanced because all the characters have the same starting point. Put that commoner stat PC up against another character in the same group that uses a generous point buy or rolling option and there will be an imbalance.

I was just trying to stay on topic for once and discuss balance. Probably a lost cause.

 

[Maxperson]

Just for fun (and realistically because I was avoiding things I should really be doing) I went back and did the same quick analysis for barbarians. Once again human. Target AC 16 for average damage. Dear old "A" sucks, "B" is far more effective in and out of combat.

That's your fatal flaw. Monsters don't all have an AC of 16, which is why these sorts of simulations fail.

The AC is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a 16 is +1 more likely to hit across ALL armor classes than a 14 is. That's one extra hit every 20 attacks on average, which isn't really going to be relevant in the overwhelming majority of instances, because encounters are generally multiple big bags of hit points.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, at least beyond the old "roll in order and keep" method. What normally happened there is you picked class based on what you rolled. Of course in those days usually stats had limited impact in many cases, too.

When I say not noticeable unless the DM tell them, it's literally not noticeable unless the DM tells them. If the players don't know the DC numbers, they can't know when in the many, many rolls they hit that one single number out of 20 where the +1 actually makes a difference.

It's only when the DM says the DC is 17(or whatever) that they can tell if the +1 made the difference or not. And even then it won't make the difference except for rarely.

My personal experience tells me different. It takes surprisingly little attacks to figure out a monster's likely AC, one guy misses, the next has just 3 more and its a hit. The DM doesn't need to reveal DCs or ACs for that to become obvious.

Pathfinder 2E is always about that little +1 that turned your attack into a hit (or crit). It works the same there, even though the game gives plenty of bonuses to all your rolls, with the ability modifier being rather small compared to to the rest.

It absolutely does matter, every little +1 counts, even in D&D 5. And don't make the mistake of thinking "but it's just 5 % difference on a d20 roll!". If you need a 10 to hit, but got a +1 bonus from somewhere, your hit rate might raise from 50 to 55 %, a 5 % absolute difference, but relatively, you hit 10 % more often. (This goes higher if the die you need to roll is less, and lower if the die you need to roll is more. For attacks, you often need less than a 10).
And the difference in modifiers in 4d6 ranges from -4 to +4, in point buy from -1 to +2.

I mean, I am not going to argue how you feel about it, but I can tell you, my feeling a +1 or +2 difference at the game table will matter, especially on stuff everyone in the party will roll often - which is attacks. For skill checks, often the GM won't require or allow the players to have multiple characters do roll on the same skill, so the second and third-best values won't come up anywhere as often.

 

[Maxperson]

But it is using the rules as written.

Okay. Ask us how many of us used the 1e initiative, grappling, weapon vs. armor tables, etc. rules as written back during 1e?

If the majority of tables aren't using the rule as written, what is written really doesn't matter. That's the huge problem with encounters in 5e. The rules as written are based around the adventuring day, but very few tables use the rules as written, so we have a lot of issues around those rules.

Rolling is the same way. If the majority of tables aren't using the rule in a way that causes problems, coming here and arguing that the rule is bad because it causes problems is going to fall on deaf ears. It's simply not causing problems for most of us.

You're better off arguing that the rolling rule include minimums of some sort to match how most tables use that method.

I just find point buy more balanced because balance only matters relative to other characters at the table. @CleverNickName's idea of everybody starting out as a commoner with 10 in everything is balanced because all the characters have the same starting point. Put that commoner stat PC up against another character in the same group that uses a generous point buy or rolling option and there will be an imbalance.

That argument is never going to find purchase with me, because I understand how little bonuses matter in 5e. The relative difference isn't going to be noticeable in most cases.

I was just trying to stay on topic for once and discuss balance. Probably a lost cause.

Probably a difficult as walking over a chasm on a rope. See what I did there? I expressed hard it was while still using balance!!

 

[jmartkdr2]

You can avoid dump scores by randomly placing them, but I'm not advocating for that. I repeat, I'm not advocating for random placement of scores.

In this thread we've been talking about dump scores as a part of the cookie cutter problem of the Point Buy method overall. Mechanically dump scores are just low scores.

So let's not overstate it. Dump scores are not an issue per se, they are a symptom.

So here’s my counterpoint:

You are going to have a low score with dang near any method of generating scores that offers choice. So it’s not really accurate to say it’s an issue with Point Buy. You have the same issue with Standard Array, Roll-and-Arrange, and any variation on those except “all if your scores are N.”

It’s an issue of scores not all having the same value as each other (fir every class) - and I think the cure is worse than the disease here. Making it so that a high-intelligence low-strength barbarian is just as powerful as a high-strength low-intelligence barbarian is much more likely to wreck the class’s identity than create significantly more variety in how people play barbarians.