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

[Warpiglet-7]

Here is where i am with all of this: not all number combinations are equally helpful or powerful in all situations. There are few generalizations i think that are hard to deny in a standard game.

Whatever you have going, it behooves you greatly to also have a con bonus if your game features combat. An array that allows for a bonus in your main attack stat is just a reality but i would say so is some degree of hit point buffer. Even for wizards.

Right there, we can see a couple mid to high scores are going to beat one big one.

Some scores are not going to have much game impact here or there. Strength for a wizard is generally not a power issue…not super impactful. Intelligence for the average fighter is not a big deal usually (I say this as someone whose does not light to dump stats very often unless it fits…i like 10s for things I don’t care about for rp reasons usually—-usually).

But all 12s are not as good for a fighter vis a vis a 16 str, con and whatever if in heavy armor. Nor a 16 in int and 14s in dex con etc for an armorless wizard, these are merely examples by the way…

As to balance, if its point buy…everyone take the same scores or take standard array if you are worried. I am not.

The nature of the game has changed for me to an extent. I love a challenge but think 5e is more about the power fantasy and complex combats relative to 1e, which i also loved. It just is.

But actually answering the OP, no, not all arrays are the same. And i am glad we have choices to make here and in the face of combat and rp alike. What a fun game…

Now what i really want to know is what people think about minimum high scores! I have found feats can really mitigate a lot and are power bumps vis a vis one stat bump….after a certain point. I think i can run with 16s to high level…anyone else?

Yes 20 is better than 16 for effectiveness. But with bonuses which are not standardized…like weapons or items, i just don’t see razor thin margins for success nor normalcy to that high of a degree. Recently i thought about improved pact weapon via and extra invocation instead of a strength bump…different ways to skin a cat as they say.

But everyone just have fun! I am curious where you line is for a high score and fun….

 

[KYRON45]

I agree with everyone.
Have the kind of fun you like.
Me not liking your fun doesn’t invalidate it.

My fun is not seeing any value in balance.
Someone else’s fun is the quest for balance.
And someone else’s fun is discussing/arguing about it all.

Play what you like the way you like.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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'd rather there be balance and everybody/no-one be great than for there to be distinct good and bad characters instead.

 

[Maxperson]

i'd wish 5e was a game where the three pillars were equally balanced in worth, use and nuance that two characters one optimized for combat and one for social (and a third for exploration) are balanced and of asymmetrical yet equal worth to each other.

I don't think the game could do that. The importance level of any particular pillar is up to the DM. I can run a game where all three pillars are balanced, one where exploration it the most important and combat the least important, one where combat is second and social is first, or any other combination. It's all in how I set up the adventures and setting, and how I run the NPCs.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Agreed.

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.

This is how I roll as well. I make the PCs for my vision, including letting the other players know that my cleric is not going to be the party healer if I'm playing a cleric. I dislike being the party healer, but love playing thematic clerics.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Here is where i am with all of this: not all number combinations are equally helpful or powerful in all situations. There are few generalizations i think that are hard to deny in a standard game.

Whatever you have going, it behooves you greatly to also have a con bonus if your game features combat. An array that allows for a bonus in your main attack stat is just a reality but i would say so is some degree of hit point buffer. Even for wizards.

Right there, we can see a couple mid to high scores are going to beat one big one.

Some scores are not going to have much game impact here or there. Strength for a wizard is generally not a power issue…not super impactful. Intelligence for the average fighter is not a big deal usually (I say this as someone whose does not light to dump stats very often unless it fits…i like 10s for things I don’t care about for rp reasons usually—-usually).

But all 12s are not as good for a fighter vis a vis a 16 str, con and whatever if in heavy armor. Nor a 16 in int and 14s in dex con etc for an armorless wizard, these are merely examples by the way…

As to balance, if its point buy…everyone take the same scores or take standard array if you are worried. I am not.

The nature of the game has changed for me to an extent. I love a challenge but think 5e is more about the power fantasy and complex combats relative to 1e, which i also loved. It just is.

But actually answering the OP, no, not all arrays are the same. And i am glad we have choices to make here and in the face of combat and rp alike. What a fun game…

Now what i really want to know is what people think about minimum high scores! I have found feats can really mitigate a lot and are power bumps vis a vis one stat bump….after a certain point. I think i can run with 16s to high level…anyone else?

Yes 20 is better than 16 for effectiveness. But with bonuses which are not standardized…like weapons or items, i just don’t see razor thin margins for success nor normalcy to that high of a degree. Recently i thought about improved pact weapon via and extra invocation instead of a strength bump…different ways to skin a cat as they say.

But everyone just have fun! I am curious where you line is for a high score and fun…

I would say a 14 in your primary attack/spellcasting stat is probably the minimum - the number is more important for weapon users, but I suspect a fighter with 14 str to start would be fine. The main reason you rarely see that is most people put their best score in their attack/spellcasting stat, and having the high number be a 14 is rare.

I have played characters who didn’t bother maxing out their ‘primates stat’ even with the chance: a paladin with 16 strength and a Sun Blade who decided more charisma was more useful than more str, and a druid whose best ability score was constitution (19 to start) rather than wisdom (17 to start) in a rolled scores game. But neither put a low number into their main ability.

 

[Cergorach]

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.

Look, it's like a ball sport where everyone is very competent and one isn't. While that might be fun for a while, eventually the strong players will get annoyed by the weak player, and the weak player gets annoyed because they don't really contribute like the rest does (and don't get the ball). The reverse where the weak player tries to make everything into an extended role-playing scene outside of combat is going to annoy the folks that don't mind the occasional RPing encounter, but are starting to get annoyed by that one player that thinks when they buy a a couple dozen arrows in town, it should be a two hour RP encounter...

And that's two sides, when there's even more sides, it gets annoying very fast!

We also made characters for ourselves when we played as teenagers and in our early twenties, we had oodles of time (and we had many personality conflicts as a result)! These days our time is precious, for those that play characters, and for those that make adventures/campaigns even more so. I'm at the point in life where you either conform to the group, or you get out! I have enough drama in my life, I don't want more of that in my RPing group. I'm also spending significant time on prepping/building as a DM, and while I'm building something I like, I also think that the party might like and I adjust to that as well as a DM. Things like XP pacing, Level pacing, combat speed, variety, exploration, options, RP options (up to the party on whether they use those or not).

I'm of the consideration that people playing a cooperative game => pnp RPG, shouldn't be making egotistical choices and that's what I hear when people say "...my character is usually built for me, not for the party.". And I see that as a problem, from experience.

Don't get me wrong, it's not about bending over backwards for everyone, it's about give and take. Something that's often lacking when players just show up at the game with a character they build by themselves.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Some would call that spotlight sharing: everyone gets their moments.

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.

Meh, if the players want to split the party I'm fine with that as it means they're willing to do some waiting; and if the party gets split by a game effect then so be it*. I take it as an accepted fact of life that I-as-player am not going to be involved in everything, and there'll be times when either my character is inactive (be it by my own choice or not) and-or others are the ones most suitable to do whatever it is we're doing at the time.

If I'm playing a heavy-metal Fighter in 70 pounds of clanky armour I'm not going to be doing any stealth work, for example; so when the stealthy scouts go on ahead to check things over that's their moment. Meanwhile I sit back and wait.

* - says he, who once had a ten-character party get split into ten one-character parties by a wild magic effect teleporting them all over a very big dungeon complex - talk about herding cats! Fun to do once, though.

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 disagree that everyone should be equally useful all the time, as what that leads to is a bunch of jack-of-all-trades characters who can each do a bit of everything and so why do they need to keep the rest of the party around?

Each character having its own clear strengths and clear weaknesses somewhat forces at least some party interdependence.

 

[KYRON45]

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

I'm not glossing over anything.
Once i realize that I'm not having fun i make adjustments to have fun.

I wouldn't know what an unbalanced/balanced character (or group of stats) looks like because to me playing the stats you roll IS the game. I'm ok with a a low ability score the same way that I'm ok with a high ability score. That's just literally what I've been dealt.

To me balance is not important.
If it is to you then go forth and balance to your hearts content.

 

[Lanefan]

Look, it's like a ball sport where everyone is very competent and one isn't.

Except that in most cases we're not talking about that scenario. Instead we're talking about scenarios where there's a wide range of competencies and abilities that may or may not be in different aspects of the game.

So you might have the football player who is really good at getting in the way of things but useless at much else; i.e. a natural goalkeeper. Put him at forward and he's hopeless, but that doesn't make him less useful to the team.

We also made characters for ourselves when we played as teenagers and in our early twenties, we had oodles of time (and we had many personality conflicts as a result)! These days our time is precious, for those that play characters, and for those that make adventures/campaigns even more so. I'm at the point in life where you either conform to the group, or you get out! I have enough drama in my life, I don't want more of that in my RPing group. I'm also spending significant time on prepping/building as a DM, and while I'm building something I like, I also think that the party might like and I adjust to that as well as a DM. Things like XP pacing, Level pacing, combat speed, variety, exploration, options, RP options (up to the party on whether they use those or not).

And now the real issue rears its head: time and pacing. For me, I've alwas held that these considerations are often overblown. Even if you can only get together for a few hours a few times a month, so what? Barring something tragic, or extreme old age, most people have a whole lot of months left; meaning there will always be more sessions, meaning that whatever you've prepped that doesn't get done tonight can wait till next week-month-year if they ever get to it at all.

I'm of the consideration that people playing a cooperative game => pnp RPG, shouldn't be making egotistical choices and that's what I hear when people say "...my character is usually built for me, not for the party.". And I see that as a problem, from experience.

Where for me I see it as a group of individual players who co-operate in the real world to the point where they all show up on time each week, share snacks and beer and laughs, etc., but who in the fiction aren't bound or forced to co-operate and who when making choices for their characters should be first thinking "Is this a character I want to play?" at roll-up and then "Is this what the character would do?" thereafter.