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

[Maxperson]

The 4d6dl rules are clear. You roll the dice you get what you get. I'm not saying we ever played that way but I also admit that back when we rolled for stats we had house rules to ensure everyone got something they were okay with. There's nothing wrong with house rules.

The disparity you are likely to see at the table are more than I personally care for. I'm not telling you how to play your game.

It would be rare for it to be more than I posted above. And I'm not telling you how to play yours. Only that the disparity you guys here are talking about doesn't happen all that often. 1) people are rarely forced to play horrible stats and get to re-roll, 2) rolling as badly as you posted above is itself a rarity.

 

[Maxperson]

This. This is why I say that point-buy is balanced.

There was some discussion not long ago (in this thread) about how unlikely it was to actually roll one of the 65 valid sets of point-buy stats using the 4d6 method. I threatened to do another histogram to demonstrate that it was, in fact, very likely.

There aren't any balance issues with using 4d6-drop-lowest, as-written. But when you start adding rerolls and other house-rules, the balance shifts and it gets harder to make that claim.

In prior editions, sure. In 5e the difference between 16 and 20 is minor. The difference between 16 and 18 is not really noticeable. 1 more success in 20 rolls on average, when combined with random d20 rolling, means that unless the DM calls it to your attention, you will never know if/when you got that extra success.

 

[AlViking]

It would be rare for it to be more than I posted above. And I'm not telling you how to play yours. Only that the disparity you guys here are talking about doesn't happen all that often. 1) people are rarely forced to play horrible stats and get to re-roll, 2) rolling as badly as you posted above is itself a rarity.

Well, that's where we're simply going to have to disagree. I did the rolling for groups with 5 people 10 times and got the results I got. It's similar to things I've seen in real life. If you have a house rule - whether you call it that or not - that if someone doesn't like the results they roll again but again I've been at a table where they were not allowed to do so. But if you do then it skews things.

I've seen worse disparity than my example and the DM did not allow a reroll. I don't think it's as uncommon to get the difference as you think. I don't really have anything else to add.

 

[CleverNickName]

In prior editions, sure. In 5e the difference between 16 and 20 is minor. The difference between 16 and 18 is not really noticeable. 1 more success in 20 rolls on average, when combined with random d20 rolling, means that unless the DM calls it to your attention, you will never know if/when you got that extra success.

I don't disagree with any of this. This is pretty much how I learned to stop worrying and love the d20 System.

We should still appreciate that not everyone will notice the same things, or notice them to the same degree. Something barely noticeable to me could be obvious to the person on my left, and completely invisible to the person on my right. (shrug)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In prior editions, sure. In 5e the difference between 16 and 20 is minor. The difference between 16 and 18 is not really noticeable. 1 more success in 20 rolls on average, when combined with random d20 rolling, means that unless the DM calls it to your attention, you will never know if/when you got that extra success.

By this logic, Champions are entirely built around a bonus that doesn't matter either, though. Increasing your crit range by 1 point is precisely the same amount of difference--yet we're supposed to see it as an impressive benefit for one thing and as a nothing to be overlooked in another?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't disagree with any of this. This is pretty much how I learned to stop worrying and love the d20 System.

We should still appreciate that not everyone will notice the same things, or notice them to the same degree. Something barely noticeable to me could be obvious to the person on my left, and completely invisible to the person on my right. (shrug)

I certainly agree that stats are smaller numbers than before--but that makes your sources that much more important, no?

When you can only get at most, what, a +13 on any given roll, and that only with dramatic investment, every source of bonus matters. Especially since Advantage, while good, doesn't actually expand what you can hit, it just makes you more likely to hit what you already could.

Or, if you prefer: If this is true, why do folks love to grumble about Blade Pact getting Cha to hit instead of Str/Dex? The greatest possible difference will generally be...one or two points. Especially if you're wanting decent AC as a Warlock. If an extra +1 or +2 is too small to be concerned about, why is it a problem to swap in a better stat in place of a worse one?

I see this a lot when it comes to 5e, if I'm being honest. Folks will downplay criticisms with response X, but then ignore or even agree with arguments that require the logic of response X, just in a more narrow domain, or viewed from a slightly different angle. If +1 doesn't matter, then a bunch of things 5e actually does do are actually near-meaningless and the player should be right in complaining that they get nothing while someone else actually gets something. And if +1 does matter, then a bunch of other things are much more sensitive to problems than fans want to believe. If it were a true apples-to-oranges comparison, I'd be happy to accept that mechanic A doesn't really care much about whether you get +1 or not while mechanic B does. But we're literally talking about attack rolls and whether or not you deal damage--it's the same thing either way, just depending on whether it's something special you got from your class, or something everyone gets by creating a character and levelling up.

 

[Maxperson]

By this logic, Champions are entirely built around a bonus that doesn't matter either, though. Increasing your crit range by 1 point is precisely the same amount of difference--yet we're supposed to see it as an impressive benefit for one thing and as a nothing to be overlooked in another?

It really doesn't come into play much until you are at 3 or 4 attacks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, "very likely" is not the same thing as "guaranteed." You will see swings, sometimes severe ones, and that's either a feature or a bug depending on the style of game you want to play. I think that's why the PHB includes three different methods with three different levels of variability (8008 possible combinations with 4d6, vs. 64 possible combinations with point-buy, vs. a single array), but all of them will "land" within the same ballpark.

How big is that ballpark? How much swing is "severe"? Those are questions that only you can answer...the math isn't going to help you there.

Well, to be fair, this was OD&D where the output difference with someone with a lot of 13s and 14s and someone with even a couple 16's and 18's could be--severe. On the attributes where it mattered at all (especially the physical ones) the progression was far from linear as it was in 3e and 4e.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You start getting feats at 4th and then every 4 levels. Fighters get them every 2 levels after 4.

So, just to make sure I get it, rounding up an odd attribute to an even could be occurring every 4 levels if someone wished?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would argue it doesn't make that much difference. AnyDice has previously run the numbers for 4d6k3, and has shown that the Standard Array is effectively what you get when you ask the questions, "What is the average highest stat out of six? The average second-highest stat? (Etc.)" It's not perfect, IIRC the array rounds one higher value up and one lower value down, which is arguably favorable to the player but only the tiniest bit.

The problem is I'm not just interested in the average here, but the variance. That's always where the problems with most systems with random gen land.

Completely agreed. Having one stat coincidentally lower than others does not a "dump stat" make.

It's instead when you intentionally gut one stat so that you can boost some other. E.g. if 10 were the default, and you pushed (say) Strength all the way down to 7, as is permitted in something like PF1e's PB rules, then that's definitely a "dump" stat. But if you roll and (say) your lowest stat is 12? You aren't "dumping" anything--you're just forced to choose something that gets your "worst" result.

I dunno. If you have placement choice, I'd still call assigning the low stat to the one that matters to you least fits the definition of "dump stat" I've always seen. Its not a tradeoff per se, but its still taking advantage of the lack of impact of that particular attribute on you to dispose of a low value.