Array Comparisons based on Point Buy

[Crothian]

Why do I have to suffer to get an 18 under an point array system if thats what I want for a character?

Suffer? Who's suffering here? everyone is in ther same boat working with the same numbers. People are suffering and are being punished for using lesser point buys? It just seems a little over dramatic.

 

[Technik4]

A character is more then just stats. With skills and feats and class choices and a creative background these can be done with lesser point buys. It might be a little more diufficult but it can be done.

True. The epitome or character creation would be trusting each of your players to make their own stats and to not limit them in any way. Then all possibilities are in their hands, but I imagine most people would find it more difficult to create personas without limits (or they would pose natural limits). Since it is very difficult to trust all of your players to do this, we are left with these menagerie of options. You seem to like 25-pt buy because the DMG tells us this is the 'rule'. The 'rule' is taking an 18 means a backlash of almost double the points in other attributes. I don't have a problem using RAW, however I'm trying to point out you can still achieve balance while having (relatively) high scores. Does that make sense?

Technik

 

[Crothian]

True. The epitome or character creation would be trusting each of your players to make their own stats and to not limit them in any way.

That's what I do, I never use point buy or dice. if the players want to use them they are free to come up with their own method or just pick the numbers out of thin air. Doesn't bother me any.

Then all possibilities are in their hands, but I imagine most people would find it more difficult to create personas without limits (or they would pose natural limits). Since it is very difficult to trust all of your players to do this, we are left with these menagerie of options. You seem to like 25-pt buy because the DMG tells us this is the 'rule'. The 'rule' is taking an 18 means a backlash of almost double the points in other attributes. I don't have a problem using RAW, however I'm trying to point out you can still achieve balance while having (relatively) high scores. Does that make sense?

That's funny, because I'm saying you can have balance (and fun!!) with low stats and make characters of all types with low stats. I don't perfer anything when it comes to point buy really, I just decided to take the stance of championing the low stats since in a lot of threads over the past few months people have been saying that it is impossible to play characters with low stats; especially monks and paladins. I think characters work great with all sorts of stats from low to high.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Rather than using arrays, you could stipulate conditions that promote the boosting of non-essential scores. This would have the benefit of dropping the point allocation slightly as the player is regaining control - if you so desired a more default power level.

E.g. 30pt buy with only one score with a maximum of 16 and only one score that can be entirely neglected. 'Worse case' scenario of: 16, 15, 15, 10, 10, 8.

The reason I mentioned the default power level (i.e. close to 25pt buy) is because the issue of how the DM reacts to more powerful characters will spring up; That is, does the DM modify the NPCs/world to balance with the more powerful characters or does he let them enjoy their greater relative power.
The first reaction leads to a greater workload to maintain an illusion (which may frustrate players) & the second can lead to extended periods of the characters not being adequately challenged (which may frustrate players).
For the record I believe that 25-30 pt buy characters co-exist within the same level of power, it's the point buys beyond 30 that increasingly are a tier above.

 

[Technik4]

...it's the point buys beyond 30 that increasingly are a tier above.

My question is, given the above arrays, what is the power difference? If you are of the opinion that 3 stats will drive most concepts, the difference between the 36 pt and 25 pt are 16,15,14 and 16,14,14. Or, what point buy total would you equate the 36 pt array with?

Technik

 

[broghammerj]

Suffer? Who's suffering here? everyone is in the same boat working with the same numbers. People are suffering and are being punished for using lesser point buys? It just seems a little over dramatic.

You've seemed to overly focus on my use of vocabulary. To me the point arrays make an 18 seem like an alien anomaly. It costs 60% more points for an 18 than a 16 attribute but this only translates into a modifier difference of +1. That seems like a huge cost. I agree with Technik4 statement:

The 'rule' is taking an 18 means a backlash of almost double the points in other attributes.

This doesn't seem to be necessary as an 18 isn't so game unbalancing with a mere +1 modifier in comparision to a 16. Thats why a straight allocated point buy without an array is reasonable.

This just seems to follow under a trend to make DND "more balanced" because people say "DND's broken". I would prefer my characters to be average with a few really good attributes. Using 75 points achieves a character below:

18 +4
16 +3
11 +0
10 +0
10 +0
10 +0

Total +7

To me that wouldn't throw the game out of wack and would seem to represent a good "hero", but that's just my opinion.

 

[Crothian]

You've seemed to overly focus on my use of vocabulary. To me the point arrays make an 18 seem like an alien anomaly. It costs 60% more points for an 18 than a 16 attribute but this only translates into a modifier difference of +1. That seems like a huge cost.

THat's becasue I found the vocabulary to be silly and extreme. And the word punish has been thrown around quite a bit so I choose to now make a comment since we had two words that were over the top being used.

This doesn't seem to be necessary as an 18 isn't so game unbalancing with a mere +1 modifier in comparision to a 16. Thats why a straight allocated point buy without an array is reasonable.

Different dissicusion. THis is about a certain different arrays of numbers using the ewxisting point buys. If you want to through out the point buy system, that's great. But this is about the current point buy system and making effective characters with it

This just seems to follow under a trend to make DND "more balanced" because people say "DND's broken". I would prefer my characters to be average with a few really good attributes.

First I heard anyone bring up "broken" in this thread. It is not about blanace and broken. All the characters using the same system to make charactes is going to be fine.

To me that wouldn't throw the game out of wack and would seem to represent a good "hero", but that's just my opinion.

A hero does not have X number of stats or anything about him. A Hero can be of 6 point buy or 60, or first level or 20th. The stats you had can be made into a hero, or a coward, or a farmer, or really anything a player wants.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

My question is, given the above arrays, what is the power difference? If you are of the opinion that 3 stats will drive most concepts, the difference between the 36 pt and 25 pt are 16,15,14 and 16,14,14. Or, what point buy total would you equate the 36 pt array with?

Technik

My opinion begins with the 3 highest stats & the lowest allocated stat will drive most concepts, placing the lowest stat is almost as important as placing the highest. I say this from the pov that whenever I build (a significant npc/) PC the placement of the 8 is the source of greatest thought.

But to your question:

The 36pt array is only worse than 36pt buy in that it forces the allocation of points to any given score. I would not draw a comparison with the default array and 25pt buy because imo, default array is almost always the best use of 25pt buy. You would need to look at the actual 36pt array (your's presented, 16,15,14,13,12,11) and look at the 'dead' points, i.e. the 15,13,11 which results in 4 'dead' points.
Now we need to careful with using the 'dead' point term because although there is a tendancy to boost the highest stat every 4 levels there is also a desire for immediate gratification competing with this. Another point is that 13 scores can be considered well spent if the otherwise non-essential bonus opens up feat chains.
I come from the pov that every 'bonus' lost by the player from a 25 point baseline is worth .5 point per ability attribute, i.e. 4d6dl loses minimum security and so is worth the average of 28pts. I also believe that there should be a diminished return as every incremental loss of control by the player should receive less compensation, otherwise the linear boosts will drown the 25pt buy in sheer numerical superiority.
So if I reverse engineer your 36pt array along these principles I would consider it equal to 32pts; -3 for loss of customization, -2 for 'dead' points (halving the actual loss because the 15 & 13 open feat chains/immediate gratification), +1 for diminished returns.

However we can all respect the fact that nothing like actual playtesting will confirm or deny my theory.

 

[Technik4]

32 Point Buy (Not necessarily an array)
18,14,14,10,10,8

Superior to my array for Wizards and other classes depending on 1 main stat (you can explain that all the stats matter depending on the campaign, but generally I think its agreed that having higher DCs, more bonus spells, more skill points, etc outweights a possible +1 Charisma difference).

I'd say due to the arrangement, the 36 pt array is equal to a 30 point buy, and further that it could be played side-by-side a 25 point buy character without anyone feeling signficantly over/undershadowed. [/bold claim]

Technik

 

[Mark]

Overall, what do you think of my assessment?

Cookies are a sometimes food. - Cookie Monster (Sesame Street)