D&D 4E Is 22 points the best point buy for 4e?

[Ourph]

I actually have my group use the 16/14/13/12/11/10 array. It works fine, even though its technically underpowered for most builds. This is a pretty resilient area of the game.

This is the method we use too. I've found it works fine.

 

[ScottS]

From what I understand, the point buy in 3e was linked to the 4d6-drop-lowest die-rolling method (i.e. the 25-pt standard came from the fact that the elite array was actually the "average set of stats" you'd get by rolling). In 4e, there is no linkage (rolling gives you 17 pts "on average" so it's an underpowered option), and I'd argue that they probably reworked point-buy to make the reductionist "18-primary-14-secondary" build a more viable option (you could do this in 3e but at the cost of crappy Con etc.).

 

[garyh]

In Living 4th Edition here on EN World, we use 25 point buy. It's nice, because given the nature of the living community, you often find yourself changing parties and/or DM's. The slightly better stats help make up for unoptimized (as in "not planned to fit together as a party") constantly changing groups, and not knowing your DM's style when you first start with them on an adventure.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's important to note that, in 4E, higher stats have a stronger impact on the game's math than they did in prior editions, and that characters in 4E have more opportunities to raise their stats.

I'm not saying that going for higher than a 22 point buy is automatically going to break things, but you need to at least be careful, because it can.

Really? I see no gauntlets of ogre power, girdles of giant strength, or Bear's Endurance spells in 4e. And Con now has a flat +1hp/con point effect. 3e had +1hp/con/2 levels off a lower base value - a reduction in effect. And let's not get into bonus spells, experience, or better classes for high stats.

 

[Joshua Randall]

22 point buy is fine.

Although the power-gamer in me often wishes I could pull off 16/16/14/x/x/x instead of 16/16/13/x/x/x. Ah, the difference between a 13 and a 14...

 

[Mouseferatu]

Really? I see no gauntlets of ogre power, girdles of giant strength, or Bear's Endurance spells in 4e.

True. On the other hand, the characters raise their stats more often as they level, and a simple +1 bonus is more meaningful in 4E than in 3E, due to the way attack and defenses are scaled and how they advance.

I stand by my assertion.

 

[Aurumvorax]

True. On the other hand, the characters raise their stats more often as they level, and a simple +1 bonus is more meaningful in 4E than in 3E, due to the way attack and defenses are scaled and how they advance.

I stand by my assertion.

Depends. Caster DC is tied to ability score so a bonus for them is better than a fighter's bonus to strength. I'd say bonuses were more important in 3E because you had to depend on so much stuff if you weren't a caster, especially dexterity and constitution as heavy armor grows progressively terrible the higher level you get.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't know, I'm pretty sure that mathematically the benefits of a higher stat are exactly the same. You're rolling a d20 to hit in both systems. The only way I think you'd get a major difference is if you were hitting on a 2 or missing on a 19 with some of your 3e iterative attacks. I guess that was true of some characters.

High attack stats were slightly less important for certain types of casters, I suppose.

 

[Elric]

It's important to note that, in 4E, higher stats have a stronger impact on the game's math than they did in prior editions, and that characters in 4E have more opportunities to raise their stats.

I'm not saying that going for higher than a 22 point buy is automatically going to break things, but you need to at least be careful, because it can.

Many characters should simply be putting more into their primary scores in the first place, so additional points look better than they should because people are not optimizing particularly well in the first place. Eamon makes this point often; e.g., http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...-16-array-would-you-recomend.html#post5031407

We used rolled stats in all editions prior to 4e and when we made our first characters for 4e. The rolled character's CB point-buy values range from 25 to 51(!) due to the vagaries of the dice. Most of us are around the 40-45 point range due to some amazing stat rolls.

The biggest downside that I've noticed with this - aside from the dramatic difference in effectiveness between a 45 point and 25 point character - is that it puts the recommended encounter guidelines on shaky(-ier?) ground. For example, our DM threw a Level + 3 encounter for 5 players against 3 of our players last night(since 2 of us were busy and didn't get to the session until late) and the 3 of them breezed through it.

Certain classes will get more use from really high stats than others, but few characters can really take advantage of super-high stats to a great extent. A typical well-built (but see above point) character won't gain 2 levels of effectiveness even from having all stats raised to 18s (pre-racial).

I don't have a complaint with the quantity of points allowed, I have a problem with the cost of certain ability scores, in particular the steep cost for higher ability scores. It makes certain combinations of classes and races too much more powerful than every other combination. In practice, it means that 90% of Artful Dodger Rogues are Halflings, same with Dragonborn Inspiring Warlords, etc. This is particularly aggravated by the high miss rate among PCs, which makes 18+ primary stats extremely desirable.

Racial ability bonuses are one sacred cow that needs to die. Making more class/race combinations viable would be a good thing.

Easy house rule: everyone can choose to start with 20 point buy instead of 22; if so, they gain +2 to any ability score they don't have a racial bonus to. Potential problems: Dwarf fighters and the like.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure that mathematically the benefits of a higher stat are exactly the same. You're rolling a d20 to hit in both systems. The only way I think you'd get a major difference is if you were hitting on a 2 or missing on a 19 with some of your 3e iterative attacks. I guess that was true of some characters.

High attack stats were slightly less important for certain types of casters, I suppose.

3e had higher opportunity costs for prime stats since Constitution was so valuable. Also, the lower to-hit chance is initially, the more valuable +1 to hit is relative to, say, +1 to damage.

 

[Oni]

Something I've considered is divorcing combat effectiveness from stats a bit.

Give everyone a +4 to hit and damage with bumps every now and again.

Then just let stats effect defenses, riders and skills and the like. I don't know how well it would work, but the stat way that 4e dictates stat spreads to make an effective PC bothers me a bit.