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

[ECMO3]

That thus depends fully on the DM/group style if that works or not, and imho that's not balanced! In the social setting the the combat person is useless, and in the combat the social person is useless. You're essentially playing different games, with different people, and the rest of the people wait for you to finish the others game before you continue their game. This tends to be not fun for all involved. And the more sub games you have the longer the wait becomes. This is the same issue as splitting the party with a single DM, running different games while others wait around.

There should be player/character involvement in all aspects of the game, everyone should be able to participate in combat, in social, and exploration. And this is what I mean with building characters as a group, not to have an expert in each field, but to make sure there are no extremes and no 'holes' in both the group AND the characters. It's also to get everyone in the same mindset for the adventure/campaign.

I don't really agree with this, mostly because people are not useless typically. While one character might be better at combat and another better at a social encounter, both can usually contribute in either.

When it comes to designing characters as a group, that works sometimes and does not work others and is largely player and group dependent. I will say that personally as a player, my character is usually built for me, not for the party. If others want to build to make sure there are no holes in the party, that is fine but it is on them and their character to do that because I am going to play what I want to play and I usually have that figured out before session 0.

 

[KYRON45]

I missed this post on first reading, so I'd like to ask a question. How do you define "balance"? You've said it's a myth, but what is that myth?

I have written out a long spiel...but I think it best to just say, I gave my definition for "balance" above, if you can pry it out of the logorrheic sludge I am wont to produce. TL;DR: If you can calculate a clearly superior path, it's not balanced. If calculation leaves you unable to pick a clearly superior path--if you have to actually make a value-judgment, not a calculation--then, at least in that respect, the game is balanced.

How does this compare to the myth you see?

I don't define balance at all.
If you can define it one way, and i can define it another way, and Harry over there can also define it their way...does it really mean anything at all?

Its nuanced and as such it doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means.
Just one mans view.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't define balance at all.
If you can define it one way, and i can define it another way, and Harry over there can also define it their way...does it really mean anything at all?

No. Two different people can both use a word in different senses without it being a useless word. Otherwise, "love" would not be a useful word.

Its nuanced and as such it doesn't mean what everyone thinks it means.
Just one mans view.

Okay. I guess I was hoping that a discussion could follow from that, with an eye toward pointing out places we might be talking past each other.

 

[KYRON45]

No. Two different people can both use a word in different senses without it being a useless word. Otherwise, "love" would not be a useful word.


Okay. I guess I was hoping that a discussion could follow from that, with an eye toward pointing out places we might be talking past each other.

Sorry friend. I roll a PC and I make the most of it.

I just don't see the value in "balanced".
If every PC is GREAT then none of them are.
I believe the kids call this diversity.

I'm all for the optimizers optimizing. I'm all for the mathletes mathelizing. I'm sure in the long run all of that helps game developers develop the games we play.
My joy comes from building a narrative based on the materials that come in the box.

My way isn't better than the other way; it's just how i enjoy this whole thing.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Sorry friend. I roll a PC and I make the most of it.

I just don't see the value in "balanced".
If every PC is GREAT then none of them are.
I believe the kids call this diversity.

I'm all for the optimizers optimizing. I'm all for the mathletes mathelizing. I'm sure in the long run all of that helps game developers develop the games we play.
My joy comes from building a narrative based on the materials that come in the box.

My way isn't better than the other way; it's just how i enjoy this whole thing.

Nothing wrong with being happy with ignoring balance! You are falling a bit foul of what I said earlier in this thread though.

 

[KYRON45]

Nothing wrong with being happy with ignoring balance! You are falling a bit foul of what I said earlier in this thread though.

The only thing any of us have to ask is….are we having fun? Anything else is just people debating which version of fun is the right version.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The only thing any of us have to ask is….are we having fun? Anything else is just people debating which version of fun is the right version.

That's true, but you're missing the point. The post I linked to pretty much breaks down, although it's essentially correct, the problem with your statement.

To be more clear: for a large section of the player population, having a ruleset where balance is ignored, makes the game unfun. It might not for you (or maybe you haven't had the misfortune of playing in a ruleset where balance wasn't considered), but the discussion is about what's true in general, not what's true for specific individuals.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The only thing any of us have to ask is….are we having fun? Anything else is just people debating which version of fun is the right version.

If we are not having fun, the question of”why aren’t we having fun?” becomes relevant, does it not?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

If we are not having fun, the question of”why aren’t we having fun?” becomes relevant, does it not?

@KYRON45 This is a more succinct version of what I posted upthread. This is the part of the discussion that you're glossing over.

 

[AlViking]

The only thing any of us have to ask is….are we having fun? Anything else is just people debating which version of fun is the right version.

As others have stated, what make the game fun for you may not be fun for the majority. In addition this is one of those areas I've seen the DM make a decision without input and a lot of people won't speak up or if they do they're ignored. I've been in a game where one of the players asked to do point buy, rolled poorly, asked to do point buy again or reroll and the DM literally laughed and ignored them.

It always feels like rolling has more to do with tradition with a lot of people than anything else. For example people don't want "cookie cutter PCs". Yet if they want to play a wizard in most cases they'll put the highest number in intelligence so how is it really any different? It's just a matter of scale and effectiveness of the chosen class at that point. If you want to be surprised by the actual numbers that's easy to do as well. If you really want random, why not start from the other direction and randomize species, background and class?

When I DM I try to take into account preferences, even unspoken ones.