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

[Sword of Spirit]

As above, I think the bigger issue is that when we have already controlled for "at least one stat must be 14+, your sum-of-mods must be positive" and "oh damn, that array sucks even if it technically counts...ah, just reroll it."

Because 14 10 10 10 10 8 is technically a valid stat array (it has a net modifier sum of +1, and one 14), but most GMs I know would be very likely to say, "Eh....that sucks, and is a lot worse than anyone else's stats. Roll it again." Or something similar.

The moment you let squishy human preference push up the minimum floor, you open the door for rolls to significantly exceed PB. Because now it's not "one set of rolls vs PB". It's "2 or 3 or 4 or...(etc) sets of rolls, vs PB." And of course that's going to make values get bigger.

Personally, I think what this means is that stats should be determined by shuffled cards rather than rolled dice. Because the cards function as genuine randomness...that has the limits of point-buy. And you can even give extra cards of every number 1-6, that way GMs can tailor their stat generation the way they like. Want something 3d6-strict like? Use equal numbers of every card, or start from that and add in some extra 1s and 2s. Want strong stats? Favor big numbers. Etc. If you use only 18 cards, every array is guaranteed to have the same value; if you use more than 18, some "hands" might be more valuable than others, but never by more than a handful of points, enough to perhaps get an extra +1 here or there.

E.g. if the deck were 1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+4+4+4+5+5+5+5+6+6+6, then you might get lucky and draw one 18...but that means your next-highest-stat can't be higher than 15, and if it is 15, your third highest stat can't be higher than 12. A much more likely occurrence would be, say, {5,1,2}{4,3,4}{6,4,5}{4,5,1}{2,4,6}{5,6,3} = {8,11,15,10,12,14}--which is more or less the standard array. And while it's possible to get a mere 4 as one of your stats, the odds against that are pretty significant, and essentially guarantee that you'll have otherwise solid stats in other places (since that makes your second-lowest-possible score only 8.)

Still random. Still has the possibility of being assigned-in-order so you end up with a character you did not choose. Doesn't have various ills that dice-rolling would have. And is, to some extent, mildly realistic; few people are absolutely horrible at everything, few people are ridiculously amazing at everything, and generally folks who have a significant deficiency in one area compensate for it by having developed themselves more in other areas (e.g. a blind person usually has better smell and hearing than a sighted person).


Yes, but folks don't see it that way. It's the exact same perception issue as the one that drives the 60%-65% hit rate thing.

A run of bad luck on your stat rolls feels bad to a much worse degree than a statistically-equivalent run of good luck feels good. A run of bad luck feels more bad than a run of good luck feels good. (An ironic counter-pattern I've seen, though, is that good luck on a single pivotal roll has more good-feel impact than bad luck would have bad-feel impact. My guess is because we correctly "feel" the probability when it's one isolated single roll.) People don't cap the upper end because that feels like taking away """earned""" success, while capping the bottom end feels like preventing unearned suffering.

That's the sort of underlying secondary reason why I don't care for rolling. Most groups take several steps which make rolling theoretically a lot better........but my luck continues to be bimodal, assiduously avoiding the center of the distribution to favor the two tails instead.

I love that card system for random but equivalent stats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, a very very poor design choice.

It really wasn't, and you haven't done a single thing to demonstrate anything of the kind.

Even point-buy tends to bell-curve the stats - the higher the stat, the more points it costs - which doesn't mesh with a linear bonus system.

Why not? Proof by assertion is not a valid argument.

If it's only the first or second step, who cares? You've lost a minute or two, tops.

Couldn't care less. It's wasted time that doesn't need to be wasted. Have a generation method that doesn't generate outright officially unplayable characters.

This is where we differ greatly.

In your preferrred edition

I'm afraid I have to stop you right there. I wasn't talking about my preferred edition. I was talking about 5e. To an extent, I was also talking about 3e, although that wasn't quite as explicit about it. 5e, in either version, makes it quite clear that a 1st level Fighter is not some run-of-the-mill nobody.

From 2014 (just one section out of three):

"TRAINED FOR DANGER
Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.
Some fighters feel drawn to use their training as adventurers. The dungeon delving, monster slaying, and other dangerous work common among adventurers is second nature for a fighter, not all that different from the life he or she left behind. There are greater risks, perhaps, but also much greater rewards--for few fighters in the city watch have the opportunity to discover a magic flame tongue sword, for example."

From 2024 (this is the entirety of the lead-in fluff text):

"FIGHTERS RULE MANY BATTLEFIELDS. Questing knights, royal champions, elite soldiers, and hardened mercenaries--as Fighters, they all share an unparalleled prowess with weapons and armor. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and defying it.
Fighters master various weapon techniques, and a well-equipped Fighter always has the right too at hand for any combat situation. Likewise, a Fighter is adept with every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each Fighter specializes in certain styles of combat. Some concentrate on Archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad ability and extensive specialization makes Fighters superior combatants."

Both of these make quite clear that the Fighter, in 5th edition, is not a clueless rube, nor a greenhorn. Fighters are trained, and at least to some minimal degree, hardened.

This is part of why I keep telling you that there need to be actual rules supporting the playstyle you want to play. Because right now? The "super popular" edition of D&D, the one that sold super well etc. etc. etc.? It explicitly excludes your favorite edition's way of doing things, at least on this issue, and I know there are others too.

Because then you actually could have the gap between a random commoner and a bare-minimum 0th-level character be...genuinely nothing at all. And it would be on you to play your way through the steps of progression until you have earned the gap between "random commoner" and "1st level character", whatever your class might be.

Agreed. Someone with Str 7 ain't cut out for strength-based challenges, but probably is suitable for other types of challenges.

Okay. I don't really understand the value of methods that are prone to generating such numbers on the regular, then. If Strength-based challenges are meant to be so important that they get coded into some of the most fundamental rules of the game--like Strength saving throws or Athletics checks--then generation systems which create characters genuinely incapable with such challenges sounds like actively bad design. Like this isn't "not every character is perfect at everything, that's what makes teamwork important", this is "why the f#$% are you adventuring when you literally don't have the ability to do several of the basic things adventurers are supposed to do?!"

In a linear bonus system, yes. But in a bell-curve bonus system where -1 starts at 7 and +1 starts at 14 you don't see nearly as many +/-2s and 3s.

You also don't actually have variability!

Because when all six values between 8 and 13 are identical....and those comprise a clear majority of stats rolled in your preferred style. That is, with 3d6 strict, over 57% of stats are between 8 and 13. Which means that, per the mechanics you just described, all of that rolling achieves bupkis most of the time, because on average, half of characters won't even be distinguishable!

What you roll is what you are. Says nothing about what you could potentially become (that's what level-based ASIs are there for).

But what you roll does not have to be only that. It could be how you grew into whatever you currently are--and then those other stat points represent where you go from there.

No person is an island. No life is devoid of context, prior growth, relevant backstory.

Again, though, this comes back to the idea that a 1st-level character is already a veteran of some adventuring or similar activity, a default which I disagree with.

Then you need a system that actually supports doing that. Because 5e doesn't--and if "it's popular so what it's doing works!!" is an argument against why my preferences should be implemented into it, then it is just as much an argument against why yours should be too. If it is not the latter, then it is also not the former, and now you have to actually justify why your preferences would be the better choice than mine--with more than just an appeal to tradition, or an appeal to convenience for Lanefan.

IME not many tables or groups took this approach, though a few have and to (usually) good results.

I wasn't alive yet at the time, so I literally cannot know other than what others report.

In 5e, taking Perception away from Wisdom and giving it entirely to Intelligence might sort those two stats out right there.

I don't think being intelligent should make you more perceptive though. That's kind of the problem. I have known intelligent people--I have been an intelligent person--who frequently failed to notice things right in front of their faces. The Absent-Minded Professor is an archetype for a reason.

Maybe taking any and all melee to-hit and damage bonuses away from Dex and giving them all to Strength might be a start (yes, this very intentionally means no more 'weapon finesse', ever). Then, as you say, divorce initiative from Dex and make it an unmodified roll.

I mean, you could do that if you wanted. I don't think it would be an improvement overall. Folks like the game supporting both "I'm a fast stabby boi but not a tough stabby boi" and "I'm a tough stabby boi but not a fast stabby boi" concepts, and those are grounded in realism, since those genuinely are highly distinct fighting styles. Swinging a huge hulking sword and slicing and dicing with daggers are really quite different things. Same with archery or thrown weapons.

No idea what to do with Charisma, though, as 5e doesn't lean into henches and hirelings etc.

I mean I think it's actually fine the way it is. The skills themselves need a rework--the "good socialization"/"extremely bad socialization"/"lies" trifecta is really really flawed--but Charisma itself doesn't actually seem particularly OP. Yes, it's pretty much vital for one major area of the game, but it is not so overwhelmingly important the way "have more Do Not Die Points" and "be fast enough to prevent losing Do Not Die Points" are.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm sure this wouldn't be a realistic route for most games or groups, but. To be honest, I at least like the idea of players discussing their character/concept with their DM, and then just. Mutually deciding on and setting the appropriate ability scores outright. Not bothering with rolls or point buy.

If the thing you already know you want to do would be best served by a particular spread, and you and your DM share that kind of trust, why not? (I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why not, but. In an ideal scenario anyway.)
Not sure I've ever heard of anyone else doing it that way, but I'm sure it must exist.

Oh, it's definitely been discussed around here. I can't remember when it last came up--which means it must be several years ago now--but I know for a fact there are users on this forum who ascribe to a "I let my players pick whatever stats they think are reasonable" process.

And I agree that it would not work as a system-wide default. It might work as a GM-opt-in variant in the DMG (or a follow-up to it, e.g. have a "Master's Course on Dungeons" or the like, and that MCD could have various less-broadly-applicable alternative options.)

 

[Rocker26a]

It might work as a GM-opt-in variant in the DMG (or a follow-up to it, e.g. have a "Master's Course on Dungeons" or the like, and that MCD could have various less-broadly-applicable alternative options.)

I think that'd be a decent way round it, yeah. It might be helpful in the sense of, offering a loose structure with which to have such a discussion or similar. Present some example cases maybe, stuff like that. Might act as a thin end of the wedge, sell the idea as a palatable alternative for more tables.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I vastly prefer point-buy, though I think it can feel quite boring, because there aren't that many selections that make solid characters.
I wish there was a randomization method that guaranteed that whatever my character is supposed to be good at, he's good at, and he is also good at something I didn't expect (and maybe bad at something I didn't expect, too). Point Buy forces me to do this deliberately, and I know it will cost me.
I'd like to play something like a Fighter with the 'mandatory' Strength or Dexterity of 15 but an unexpected Charisma of or Intelligence of 18 (or 16, we don't need to be greedy), and an unexpected 7 in Wisdom (or even Con? maybe that's too negative for the primary role of the character). Or how about a Strength 16 Wizard?
Something that allows you to play your character a bit non-standard, not just have Bob Fighter XIV and Mialee Wizard VIII.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, a very very poor design choice.

Even point-buy tends to bell-curve the stats - the higher the stat, the more points it costs - which doesn't mesh with a linear bonus system.

If it's only the first or second step, who cares? You've lost a minute or two, tops.

Now if it was the 30th step of 35 that determines whether the character will be playable, that's a problem; because it probably took half an hour or more to get to that point.

This is where we differ greatly.

In your preferrred edition, there's a vast game-mechanical gap between a town guard or peasant and a 1st-level Fighter. In my preferred version that gap is much smaller, to the point of being mechanically about the same as the gap between 1st level and 2nd level as a Fighter.

Agreed. Someone with Str 7 ain't cut out for strength-based challenges, but probably is suitable for other types of challenges.

In a linear bonus system, yes. But in a bell-curve bonus system where -1 starts at 7 and +1 starts at 14 you don't see nearly as many +/-2s and 3s.

What you roll is what you are. Says nothing about what you could potentially become (that's what level-based ASIs are there for).

Again, though, this comes back to the idea that a 1st-level character is already a veteran of some adventuring or similar activity, a default which I disagree with.

IME not many tables or groups took this approach, though a few have and to (usually) good results.

In 5e, taking Perception away from Wisdom and giving it entirely to Intelligence might sort those two stats out right there.

Maybe taking any and all melee to-hit and damage bonuses away from Dex and giving them all to Strength might be a start (yes, this very intentionally means no more 'weapon finesse', ever). Then, as you say, divorce initiative from Dex and make it an unmodified roll.

No idea what to do with Charisma, though, as 5e doesn't lean into henches and hirelings etc.

5e leans into persuasion, intimidation and deception for charisma. With those skills you can end encounters, get kings to move armies, and more. Charisma is far stronger than stats like strength, dex and con which only help you a bit when fighting this orc over here or that giant over there.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean I think it's actually fine the way it is. The skills themselves need a rework--the "good socialization"/"extremely bad socialization"/"lies" trifecta is really really flawed--but Charisma itself doesn't actually seem particularly OP. Yes, it's pretty much vital for one major area of the game, but it is not so overwhelmingly important the way "have more Do Not Die Points" and "be fast enough to prevent losing Do Not Die Points" are.

Charisma can keep an ancient dragon from eating a 3rd level party. That's a lot more "do not die points" than an 18 con is going to give a 3rd level PC, or an 18 strength will give a 3rd level fighter, or...

Charisma can persuade a lord to send his knights to clear out a goblin warren your 1st level party discovered and was run out of.

Charisma can persuade an NPC to loan you an item that will make your quest much easier to accomplish.

Charisma is the god stat in that it is the only stat that can consistently accomplish things that affect more than just your immediate surroundings in this fight over here or that one over there. Strength, dex and con aren't going to, outside of very rare corner cases, affect nations, continents or even entire worlds. Intelligence and wisdom have somewhat more potential for that, but still far, FAR less than charisma.

 

[Maxperson]

I vastly prefer point-buy, though I think it can feel quite boring, because there aren't that many selections that make solid characters.
I wish there was a randomization method that guaranteed that whatever my character is supposed to be good at, he's good at, and he is also good at something I didn't expect (and maybe bad at something I didn't expect, too). Point Buy forces me to do this deliberately, and I know it will cost me.
I'd like to play something like a Fighter with the 'mandatory' Strength or Dexterity of 15 but an unexpected Charisma of or Intelligence of 18 (or 16, we don't need to be greedy), and an unexpected 7 in Wisdom (or even Con? maybe that's too negative for the primary role of the character). Or how about a Strength 16 Wizard?
Something that allows you to play your character a bit non-standard, not just have Bob Fighter XIV and Mialee Wizard VIII.

My method of rolling stats will pretty much guarantee you can play what you like. You get to roll 5d6-2L for two stats, 4d6-L for two stats, and 3d6 for two stats. You assign those rolls to specific stats before you roll. Say you want to play a strong fighter who will take a leadership roll. You'd probably assign one 5d6-2L to strength and the other to constitution. Leaders are wise and charismatic, so the 4d6-2L rolls would probably be assigned to wisdom and charisma. Dex and int would get the 3d6 rolls.

After you roll, you can swap any two of those stats, so if you rolled a 17 wisdom on the 4d6-L, but a 13 strength on the 5d6-2L, you could swap those rolls. You'd have the above average wisdom you wanted, while still being very personally strong.

I also have a 78 point minimum, which averages to 13 in each stat, so if you rolled a 17, 12, 14, 9, 12, 12 which adds up to 76, you'd be 2 point short. So you'd roll 1d6 twice with strength being 1, dex being 2, con being 3, etc. and add +1 to whichever stat you rolled. It maxes at 18 since this is before racial bonuses(or whatever bonuses depending on edition and optional rules), so if you rolled two 1s you'd have to re-roll one of them since the 17 strength could only gain a single +1 before it reaches 18.

Using that method, it's pretty hard not to get a playable PC that meets your vision, while still being randomly rolled.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, that is one of my "peeves" with D&D - stats barely change.
'Realistically', you might start with about average stats everywhere (whatever is average in your environment, the average might be lower if you live in a time and place where people are often malnourished versus someone having access to decent meals versus someone having access to lots of food full of sugar and fat.), and then your stats grow by what you're doing. Maybe you are a bit quicker learning than others, maybe you build out muscles faster than average, maybe your coordination is a bit better than average, but you need regular exercise and training to reach decent attribute values.

And I could very easily see that this results to something far closer to a point-bought array than some odd combinations like Strength 15 and Constitution 7 for a Fighter. Quite likely, the Fighter would train Strength, Dexterity and Constitutions to some level, and reach an above average Strength, Dexterity and Constitution, simply because that the attributes they're training all day.
But if the Fighter decides to spend most of his time reading books on magic, their muscles will atrophy, their stamina will sink, but their Intelligence might improve.

I've been thinking about this.

Stats don't change that much, with strength and constitution being the ones you can affect the most through training and healthy eating. Even then, though, what your are born with limits you. Someone small and thin will never be able to train to be as strong as someone tall who has a broad build. A wide receiver won't ever be able to be as strong as a lineman, while a lineman won't ever be as agile as a wide receiver.

The mental stats are even more limited as far as potential growth goes. If you have a 100 IQ, you won't even be as smart as someone with a 140, even if you go to school and learn a great deal. You might be more knowledgeable, but you won't be smarter. Wisdom is similar. There's only so much knowing what the right thing to do is that will help your wisdom. Otherwise we wouldn't have nearly as many smokers, alcoholics and drug users as this world has.

That said, I have shared that pet peeve of yours. I think that stats should change more often in D&D, if only because it's just plain more fun to see stats grow. As a DM I tend to be a bit freer with stat increases via magic, encounters with beings and situations, etc. than most DMs that I've played with over the decades.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I vastly prefer point-buy, though I think it can feel quite boring, because there aren't that many selections that make solid characters.
I wish there was a randomization method that guaranteed that whatever my character is supposed to be good at, he's good at, and he is also good at something I didn't expect (and maybe bad at something I didn't expect, too). Point Buy forces me to do this deliberately, and I know it will cost me.
I'd like to play something like a Fighter with the 'mandatory' Strength or Dexterity of 15 but an unexpected Charisma of or Intelligence of 18 (or 16, we don't need to be greedy), and an unexpected 7 in Wisdom (or even Con? maybe that's too negative for the primary role of the character). Or how about a Strength 16 Wizard?
Something that allows you to play your character a bit non-standard, not just have Bob Fighter XIV and Mialee Wizard VIII.

One method I’ve heard of for this is tiered rolling:

Put your ability scores into three tiers: A (important for the concept) B (shouldn’t be dump stats) and C (whatever).

For A tier roll 5d6 drop two (or 2d4 + 10 or something equally generous). You’re druid will probably be wise and tough.

For B tier roll 4d6 drop one (etc). Probably good but not great. Your druid will likely be somewhat agile, or at least not clumsy.

For C tier roll 3d6 - could be anything! Maybe you’re a buff muscle druid, maybe you’re leading the Circle of the Wet Noodle. Just roll with it!