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

[FrogReaver]

It's more balanced than rolling attributes, less than using Standard Array.

In the end, it comes down to personal preference and the kind of game you want. I've seen one game where the PCs started with all 18's, and one 19. That was some time back in 3E, BTW.

Lack of OP reading is strong with you.

 

[ECMO3]

I once was told characters need at least a 14 in constitution alone to be effective.

IMO Constitution is the most overrated ability but players tend to want it over others in general and the talking heads online with the optimizer builds always stress it. On most players I've seen other than me it is typically the 2nd highest or 3rd highest stat.

For me on point buy it is usually a 10, sometimes a 12. It is a 14 if I am playing a subclass or species that uses it.'

To answer your specific question though - no the combinations available with point buy are not all equivalent.

 

[Horwath]

Rolling stats is on average 31,3 pts.
point buy is 27pts
standard array is 27pts.
so yes, pointbuy is underpowered.

in general, I prefer increased point buy with not ASIs from race, background or feats.
or standard array that is increased, depending on power level you want to have in game.

IE:
20,20,16,14,12,12
20,18,16,14,12,10
18,16,14,12,12,10
16,14,12,12,10,8
14,14,14,12,12,12,
14,14,12,10,10,8

 

[Charlaquin]

I think others have pretty thoroughly covered that this is a really weird metric for balance, so rather than harping on that point further, I’m going to focus on the other question in the OP:

Food for thought: What high score is considered the minimum for an effective build? 16? 15? 13? I once was told characters need at least a 14 in constitution alone to be effective.

The system math is largely built around the assumption that PCs will start with a +3 (so 16 or 17) in their class’s primary ability score, and a +2 (so 14 or 15) in their class’s secondary ability score. That doesn’t mean these scores are required for an effective build, but it does mean that a character will be below the baseline expectation without them, so they may seem to under-perform slightly. It’s not a huge deal, you absolutely can play a character with a +2 in their primary or +1 in their secondary just fine. But, if possible, I think it’s ideal to try to get a +3 in your primary, +2 in your secondary, and whatever your next best score is (likely another +2 if you’re using point buy) in constitution.

I have played around with the idea of a build that goes for more evenly-distributed ability scores and takes as many features as possible that grant advantage or re-rolls. I think it would at least be fun if not necessarily the most effective. But, that’s the thing, you don’t need to be the most effective. 5e (both versions) is pretty forgiving of unoptimized characters.

 

[Horwath]

I think others have pretty thoroughly covered that this is a really weird metric for balance, so rather than harping on that point further, I’m going to focus on the other question in the OP:

The system math is largely built around the assumption that PCs will start with a +3 (so 16 or 17) in their class’s primary ability score, and a +2 (so 14 or 15) in their class’s secondary ability score. That doesn’t mean these scores are required for an effective build, but it does mean that a character will be below the baseline expectation without them, so they may seem to under-perform slightly. It’s not a huge deal, you absolutely can play a character with a +2 in their primary or +1 in their secondary just fine. But, if possible, I think it’s ideal to try to get a +3 in your primary, +2 in your secondary, and whatever your next best score is (likely another +2 if you’re using point buy) in constitution.

I have played around with the idea of a build that goes for more evenly-distributed ability scores and takes as many features as possible that grant advantage or re-rolls. I think it would at least be fun if not necessarily the most effective. But, that’s the thing, you don’t need to be the most effective. 5e (both versions) is pretty forgiving of unoptimized characters.

agree with 99% but,

re-rolls.

If I never see a reroll mechanic it will be too soon and I while I still do like advantage, it's so common now that I start to hate it also.
might be best to return to fixed +/-X modifiers, capped at 5. negative or positive.

starting to remove all re-rolls for +/- 5 to the d20 roll.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think the current point buy is balanced but i'd like to see the ranges increased a little for better customization, rolling your stats can get you anywhere from 3 to 18, i think you ought to be able to have a range of 5 to 16 for your point buy rather than 8 to 15, it lets you refund some of your attributes if you want to dump a stat for points (+4 points for a 5[-3]) and with a 16 and a +2 ASI you can get an 18 at 1st if you really want that.

 

[delericho]

The point buy options aren't all balanced, and indeed intentionally so. However, the optimum assignment is not entirely obvious - it will generally depend on the character's class(es) and other factors.

Point buy is better than the standard array - because most characters have a strong dependency on two of three stats, you're probably better off reducing the other 3-4 to boost the key ones. (Ideally, the standard array should be very slightly more generous than it actually is, but with the caveat that it has to be used exactly as stated. But that's probably a bit more complex than the designers wanted.)

In theory, random rolls will give better stats even than point buy (on average - there's always the risk of getting some truly rotten stats). The trade off is control - with point buy you get to assign the points exactly where you want, while with random rolls you don't.

As for the relative value of the various stats... as noted, each class will depend strongly on a small number of them. Beyond that, Constitution is probably the best of the 'other' stats because of its effect on hit points and the disproportionate number of Con saves in the game. Strength and Intelligence are probably now the worst, with the absolute rating depending on your DM's stance on encumbrance.

 

[Horwath]

i think the current point buy is balanced but i'd like to see the ranges increased a little for better customization, rolling your stats can get you anywhere from 3 to 18, i think you ought to be able to have a range of 5 to 16 for your point buy rather than 8 to 15, it lets you refund some of your attributes if you want to dump a stat for points (+4 points for a 5[-3]) and with a 16 and a +2 ASI you can get an 18 at 1st if you really want that.

While I am for bigger point buy pool and option to buy 18, but then without speciec/background bonuses, I am really opposed to dumping stats for min maxing.
I even try to avoid "8" in pointbuy for all characters, ok maybe 8 charisma for druids/barbarians.
8 in any other score will "thematically" get you killed sooner rather than later.
for regular person an 8 might be normal or a slight inconvenience here and there, in adventurer life, a 10 might be a liability.

we always played 5E with bonus 1st level feat, best character I made was half elf barbarian with Skill expert bonus 1st level feat with abilities:
STR 16, dex 14, con 14, int 12, wis 12, cha 12. Point buy 27. Expertise in Perception from feat at 1st level.
with Tasha's options and later 6th level Tiger aspect, that was 10 skill proficiency, with a barbarian.

 

[AlViking]

I don't know how anyone can answer that question because it's too nebulous. What ability score is optimal is dependent on personal preference, type of campaign and expectations.

For example if I'm playing a fighter I might want a 17 after background adjustments so at 4th level I can take dual wielder which adds +1 to strength or dex. Then at level 6 I can have a 20. But maybe I'd rather have a more balanced character so I start with a 14 strength but can put more points elsewhere depending on what I think is going to be useful. Perhaps I want to be a charismatic fighter but don't want to play a bard, so charisma is as high or higher as my combat stat.

As long as I'm okay with the results it's balanced. Personally I usually start with a 16 in my primary stat after adjustments, but I've also had as low as 14 because I wanted multiple ability scores a bit above average. Every once in a while I'll start with a 17 because it's that barbarian who shouldn't be particularly smart of charismatic. So I prefer point buy over the array because for me it's more balanced by giving me more options on what will work for the character I envision.

 

[aco175]

i think the current point buy is balanced but i'd like to see the ranges increased a little for better customization, rolling your stats can get you anywhere from 3 to 18, i think you ought to be able to have a range of 5 to 16 for your point buy rather than 8 to 15, it lets you refund some of your attributes if you want to dump a stat for points (+4 points for a 5[-3]) and with a 16 and a +2 ASI you can get an 18 at 1st if you really want that.

Was it Basic or 1e that allowed you to drop 2 points from certain abilities to add 1 to others? This was when you rolled down the line and then figured out what class you wanted though so it might not be workable with a point buy.

I could see some wanting to drop the standard array 8 to 6 in order to add 1 to their primary and get to 18 if you have racial +2 in there. Some might take the 10 and now have two 8s in order to boost something.