25 or 32...what's the REAL "standard" point buy?

[Mercule]

I give my players an option.

Roll 4d6, drop the lowest or take 28 point buy.

In theory, that's the exact same option I use. Since 3.0 came out, I haven't had anyone pick up dice at character generation, though.

 

[Quasqueton]

The main thing to keep in mind when considering point buy numbers, is how is the rest of the world built?

In my campaigns, I give the PCs 28 points.

Normal people in my world are built on 15 points - 11, 10, 11, 10, 11 or 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.

Above average people in my world may have 20 points.

Major characters (like heroes and villains) may have 25 points.

This means that the 28-point PCs are head and shoulders above the rest of the world.

Compare 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 to 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10
or 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 to 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8
or 18, 14, 10, 10, 10, 8 etc.


I played in a campaign once that gave the PCs 40 points! I thought this was over-the-top ridiculously powerful, but then discovered in play that the rest of the world were pretty much just like us. Every orc was a barbarian with full hit points. Every goblin was a warrior/rogue with full hit points. Every hobgoblin was a leveled fighter. Every kobold was a level 3 sorcerer. (Not kidding here -- *every* humanoid we encountered had class levels and full hit points.)

What at first seemed like a lot of power for the PCs turned out to be merely equal to the challenges of the world. Our party got its butt kicked all the time in that campaign.


The standard D&D game (right out of the books) is balanced on 25-28 point buy PCs.

Quasqueton

 

[Chacal]

Some possibly interesting figures:

using 3d6: average points = 18
using 4d6 drop one: average points = 29

using 3d6 but excluding "non viable" combos: average points = 30
using 4d6 drop one but excluding "non viable" combos: average points = 34

The "non viable" definition I used here was at least 1 stat above 14 and total ability modifiers better than +3.

(averages are rounded to nearest whole number)

Interesting figures. Thanks !


Chacal

 

[RavenProject]

Strange question because by the book, the standart is 28 points. 32 is called "high-powered" and 25 is called "low-powered". That's why I assume, that the vast majority of D&D players use 28 points. And remember, the internet nerds here on this board are but a small amount of the overall D&D population.

 

[mmu1]

I always used at least 32 points, and even up to 40 in the past, but now I've pretty much settled on 36 as my point-buy of choice.

It allows for more viable multi-class characters, it makes Paladins and Monks playable, and it lets me have a lot more fun when designing encounters, because it increases the range of what I can throw at the party and expect them to live through.

25 or 28 points I can't deal with, either as a player or as a DM... And from the look of many game settings and adventures, neither can some the people who designed the system, when it comes to creating their own heroes.

I fully expect the PCs in a D&D game to be exceptional individuals, and have more inherent talent than the vast majority of NPCs they're likely to encounter.

 

[thalmin]

I've played in several games that were 28 points. I did not feel restricted, but I had to make some difficult choices. For me, that was part of the fun. I prefer to be challenged. The last game I ran I used a 30 point-buy. I could easily see a game where 40 points would not be enough, and a game where 25 would be more than enough. It all works as long as the encounters, setting, and campaign are geared for whatever you use.

 

[Korgan26]

I am actually in the middle of a 28 point buy campaign and although skeptical at first it is really quite enjoyable. no feeling of being under powered.

Z

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

25 point buy is the standard - that's why the classed creatures in the DMG and MM use it.

I use 28 point buy unless I'm testing something, then 25 point buy.

I hate rolling. I rolled a character for a recent campaign. I begged my DM to re-roll because I didn't even have a stat of 15. Or 14. Ewww... If a spellcaster doesn't have a 15 then he must rely on magic items to cast his highest level spells. Again, ew.

The next time I rolled 18 17 15 15 15 12. That was also ridiculous. That character would clearly be the most powerful character in the group. I lost that character sheet and just created a 28 point buy character for the next session, which solved two problems simultaneously, IMO.

It reminded me why I dropped 2e to play ALTERNITY - the players never knew there was a dice-rolling system in that game, and I never informed them of it.

 

[frankthedm]

I just give players 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12. to make character creation quick. { they can lower any score they want [no points get added anywhere]} If their previous character had a good death they also get to keep thier XP total. I kill pcs so often they don't have time to advance without this option.

 

[Spatula]

I use 28 myself. Although actually a 25 point character isn't really as bad as people think. In earlier editions an attribute hardly wasn't worth having unless it was 16 or more, hence old players still feel a need for high scores, where nowdays a 12 or 14 gives as much benifit as the old 16 and 17's. A character build with 32 points really screws the balance in some cases especially if they have maxed their combat abilities, an 18 can be like a 2 or 3 level advantage and make what might be a challenge for a 25 point buy group a walk in the park.

Problem is 25 point buy makes the old timers feel less than hero's, like average folks.

Yeah, I think this the main problem with acceptance of the lower point-buys as well. Many older players don't truly "get" that you don't need a 17 or 18 in your prime stat any more.

That said, 25 points does seem to result in cookie-cutter characters and unfairly penalizes certain classes (monks for example).