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

[Maxperson]

The idea of balance is inconsistent with rolling dice and the rules and method of play for D&D and I said so when I first started talking about it on this thread some 10 or so pages back.

A game can be balanced to include die rolling. Balance in an RPG doesn't = exactly the same 100% of the time.

 

[Retros_x]

The method is balanced, because every player can choose the same point spread if they want to. The results between player might be not balanced, but on the other hand players with classes that need to be decent in a lot of stats and players who can dump a lot can do that and don't have to take the fixed array. In that sense its even more balanced than a fixed array.

But overall it doesnt matter really, there is no perfect method of stat distribution, just take one that feels good. For me personally a fixed array is boring and bland, I prefer rolling or at least point buy.

 

[AlViking]

I won't go as far as the latter sentence, but I agree with the first and second.

Individual rolls don't matter when it comes to balance. If individual rolls are all we consider then ability scores don't matter. Someone with a 3 is balanced with someone with a 20 because the former could roll a 20 and the latter could roll a 1. The difference and imbalance only becomes obvious after a number of rolls, the bigger the imbalance the fewer the rolls required.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Individual rolls don't matter when it comes to balance. If individual rolls are all we consider then ability scores don't matter. Someone with a 3 is balanced with someone with a 20 because the former could roll a 20 and the latter could roll a 1. The difference and imbalance only becomes obvious after a number of rolls, the bigger the imbalance the fewer the rolls required.

I'm just note that especially with games that have a limited lifespan, a balanced character generation method can still end up feeling imbalanced because of aberrations in die rolls. This is a particularly visible problem you can hit with big linear die rolls like D20's and D100. That doesn't mean the balance doesn't matter, it just means that short term variance can drown any perceptable balance, at least when you don't play long enough to watch it wash out.

 

[AlViking]

I'm just note that especially with games that have a limited lifespan, a balanced character generation method can still end up feeling imbalanced because of aberrations in die rolls. This is a particularly visible problem you can hit with big linear die rolls like D20's and D100. That doesn't mean the balance doesn't matter, it just means that short term variance can drown any perceptable balance, at least when you don't play long enough to watch it wash out.

It depends on the difference. Are we talking a +2 vs a +3 or a +2 to a +5? Especially when it's more than 1 or even worse for those secondary abilities? I've seen that and it doesn't take long for it to become apparent.

 

[CleverNickName]

Here's why I don't think ability scores matter as much as people seem to think.

Say that you're playing the role of a 4th level fighter, with an 18 in Strength. When you swing your longsword, your attack bonus is +6---you'll roll a d20, add it to that +6 , and hope it hits the target AC that the DM has set. Pretty standard stuff.

That means on any given throw of the dice, your 18 in Strength is going to feel like a number between 8 or a 27, or it's going to arbitrarily hit on a roll of 20, or arbitrarily miss on a roll of 1. And get this: all of these results have the same odds. Your chance of rolling a 2 or a 13 or a 6 or a 20 or a 11 are all the same. Sure, over the span of dozens of rolls, your average attack roll will be 16.5...but you don't get to roll dozens of times and take the average. In that moment, on your turn in the initiative order, you get to roll only once, and the odds will always be the same.

Advantage/Disadvantage, the Lucky feat, Inspiration, Halfling Luck, etc., can give you a little more control over this, maybe a free "Mulligan" or a +1d6 or something, but probably not every round of every combat scene unless your DM is very generous.

Speaking of the DM: how high is "enough" anyway? The target AC is set by the DM, and varies by opponent (and opponent equipment, and sometimes other factors). Sometimes your opponent is an AC 8 zombie, other times an AC 13 skeleton, and other times an AC 18 skeleton in scale armor with a shield--often in the same adventure (or combat scene). That's a swing of up to 10 points--more than enough to swamp any advantage you might get from Advantage, heh--and you have no control over it.

Ultimately, the DM and the RNG have more do do with how effective your character is in the moment than your ability bonus does. When you roll that d20, all of that talk about the Law of Averages and probability curves goes out the window. You will always be relying on a single random number to hit a single moving target, and the +3 difference between a 15 Strength and an 18 Strength isn't going to matter most of the time (if it ever does).

My two coppers, anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It depends on the difference. Are we talking a +2 vs a +3 or a +2 to a +5? Especially when it's more than 1 or even worse for those secondary abilities? I've seen that and it doesn't take long for it to become apparent.

I think I may not have expressed myself well.

All I was noting was that if you have a run of bad die luck the otherwise most balanced attribute set in the world won't feel that way, and that's more likely to leave an impression of a campaign doesn't go on long enough for the true probabilities to show themselves better.

 

[AlViking]

Here's why I don't think ability scores matter as much as people seem to think.

Say that you're playing the role of a 4th level fighter, with an 18 in Strength. When you swing your longsword, your attack bonus is +6---you'll roll a d20, add it to that +6 , and hope it hits the target AC that the DM has set. Pretty standard stuff.

That means on any given throw of the dice, your 18 in Strength is going to feel like a number between 8 or a 27, or it's going to arbitrarily hit on a roll of 20, or arbitrarily miss on a roll of 1. And get this: all of these results have the same odds. Your chance of rolling a 2 or a 13 or a 6 or a 20 or a 11 are all the same. Sure, over the span of dozens of rolls, your average attack roll will be 16.5...but you don't get to roll dozens of times and take the average. In that moment, on your turn in the initiative order, you get to roll only once, and the odds will always be the same.

Advantage/Disadvantage, the Lucky feat, Inspiration, Halfling Luck, etc., can give you a little more control over this, maybe a free "Mulligan" or a +1d6 or something, but probably not every round of every combat scene unless your DM is very generous.

Speaking of the DM: how high is "enough" anyway? The target AC is set by the DM, and varies by opponent (and opponent equipment, and sometimes other factors). Sometimes your opponent is an AC 8 zombie, other times an AC 13 skeleton, and other times an AC 18 skeleton in scale armor with a shield--often in the same adventure (or combat scene). That's a swing of up to 10 points--more than enough to swamp any advantage you might get from Advantage, heh--and you have no control over it.

Ultimately, the DM and the RNG have more do do with how effective your character is in the moment than your ability bonus does. When you roll that d20, all of that talk about the Law of Averages and probability curves goes out the window. You will always be relying on a single random number to hit a single moving target, and the +3 difference between a 15 Strength and an 18 Strength isn't going to matter most of the time (if it ever does).

My two coppers, anyway.

But all those extra bonuses should be applied evenly and, when it comes to the opportunity to take feats especially, that's not always the case. I know I keep harping on this but it's not the difference between a +3 and a +4, that's a reasonable gap and especially if point buy is used a trade-off that makes sense. But I've seen what a difference between a +2 and +5 it's not just the chance to hit it's the chance to hit combined with damage dealt.

While the example PCs I generated may seem extreme, I have seen it happen and as I pointed out there a night and day difference in the capabilities of the characters because of it that can never be overcome.

 

[TwoSix]

Here's why I don't think ability scores matter as much as people seem to think.

Say that you're playing the role of a 4th level fighter, with an 18 in Strength. When you swing your longsword, your attack bonus is +6---you'll roll a d20, add it to that +6 , and hope it hits the target AC that the DM has set. Pretty standard stuff.

That means on any given throw of the dice, your 18 in Strength is going to feel like a number between 8 or a 27, or it's going to arbitrarily hit on a roll of 20, or arbitrarily miss on a roll of 1. And get this: all of these results have the same odds. Your chance of rolling a 2 or a 13 or a 6 or a 20 or a 11 are all the same. Sure, over the span of dozens of rolls, your average attack roll will be 16.5...but you don't get to roll dozens of times and take the average. In that moment, on your turn in the initiative order, you get to roll only once, and the odds will always be the same.

Advantage/Disadvantage, the Lucky feat, Inspiration, Halfling Luck, etc., can give you a little more control over this, maybe a free "Mulligan" or a +1d6 or something, but probably not every round of every combat scene unless your DM is very generous.

Speaking of the DM: how high is "enough" anyway? The target AC is set by the DM, and varies by opponent (and opponent equipment, and sometimes other factors). Sometimes your opponent is an AC 8 zombie, other times an AC 13 skeleton, and other times an AC 18 skeleton in scale armor with a shield--often in the same adventure (or combat scene). That's a swing of up to 10 points--more than enough to swamp any advantage you might get from Advantage, heh--and you have no control over it.

Ultimately, the DM and the RNG have more do do with how effective your character is in the moment than your ability bonus does. When you roll that d20, all of that talk about the Law of Averages and probability curves goes out the window. You will always be relying on a single random number to hit a single moving target, and the +3 difference between a 15 Strength and an 18 Strength isn't going to matter most of the time (if it ever does).

My two coppers, anyway.

This seems to boil down to the "My odds are 50-50, either I make it or I don't" meme.

 

[CleverNickName]

But all those extra bonuses should be applied evenly

You lost me here. Which extra bonuses are you talking about?

it's not just the chance to hit it's the chance to hit combined with damage dealt.

I used an attack roll as an example but I could have just as easily used Athletics checks or Strength saves. It's going to be the same number, adjusted by as much as +/- 20 points completely at random, then compared to a moving target set by the DM.

This seems to boil down to the "My odds are 50-50, either I make it or I don't" meme.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'll summarize:

Do ability scores matter? I think they do.
Do they matter as much as some folks say they do? I don't think so.