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

[AlViking]

For grins let's look at the same thing for barbarian at 8th level. I played with the numbers and the best way for A to increase damage is polearm master and a Halberd, assuming they'd get to use bonus action attack 4/5 of the time.

Average damage per turn for B is 83% higher per turn.

But wait - there's more!
A: HP: 69, AC 12 (15 with breastplate), Initiative +1, Perception +2, Stealth +4, Survival +2
B: HP: 93, AC 17 (no armor), Initiative +3, Perception +4, Stealth +6, Survival +4

PC A isn't even in the ballpark and will never catch up to B.

In any case if I have an error in my damage per turn estimate let me know. But we aren't talking the different between a +3 and a +4. But even that is around a 14-16% difference if using the same weapons. It's not just a difference in chance to hit we have to take into consideration average damage from the weapon plus strength modifier times the %chance to hit.

 

[TwoSix]

Could you generate a graph for 15d2-12. Maybe a graph for 16d2k15-12, 17d2k15-12, and 18d2k15-12?

Just go to anydice.com, and put this in:

output 15d2-12
output [highest 15 of 16d2]-12
output [highest 15 of 17d2]-12
output [highest 15 of 18d2]-12

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

While combat is a significant part of the game, it's the part that typically has the least direct impact on the world at large. Combat will win you some fights, get you some treasure, and some XP, but social/informational skills can put kings on thrones, take kings off of thrones, shift armies and sink fleets.

That wasn't my point, though. My point was that if the DM doesn't share the DC, unless two players coincidentally among those 4 rolls 1) hit rolls within 1 of each other(15 and 16 for example), 2) the DC was 16, and 3) the guy with the +1 more on his roll was the one who got the 16, the group isn't going to know that this was the 1 in 20 times that the +1 actually made a difference.

You're rarely going to see the difference outside of combat, and while you will see it more often IN combat, it's still only going to make a difference in 1 out of 20 attacks on average.

People are better off taking a feat that actually does something a lot more often and is visible, than choosing +2 ASI to get that +1 more.

Sure. You dump social/informational stats and pump up combat. You'll do minimally better than I do with your +1 or +2 more than me. Meanwhile I'll be doing minimally better than you in the areas that have the most impact. Knowledge and information.

But isn't that inconsistent? On one hand, an extra +1 or +2 in battle - where you make a lot of attacks - doesn't matter, but an extra
+1 or +2 on checks you make very rarely matters a lot?

And it even only applies if you're the one called on to make these checks. The Rogue is still going to be the premier for choice for scouting, not the Fighter with the slightly better Wisdom than the Barbarian, because the Rogue also has the Stealth proficiency and Dex to back it up.

 

[AlViking]

But isn't that inconsistent? On one hand, an extra +1 or +2 in battle - where you make a lot of attacks - doesn't matter, but an extra
+1 or +2 on checks you make very rarely matters a lot?

And it even only applies if you're the one called on to make these checks. The Rogue is still going to be the premier for choice for scouting, not the Fighter with the slightly better Wisdom than the Barbarian, because the Rogue also has the Stealth proficiency and Dex to back it up.

Checks outside of combat are still important but there it really is +/-5% per point of difference. It's a bigger difference for attacks because not only do you have to adjust for chance to hit, the damage per hit is also modified.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, this is correct. Just about any method that offers choice will lead to dumping scores.° The Standard method leads to dump scores as well, I've said this several times in this thread. But, this thread is a place where the Point Buy method stands alone to defend itself without resorting to comparisons with the Standard method. The first 20 or 30 pages we were doing that, but now we're just back to Flight Club again.

° However, there are methods that offer choice but don't lead to dump scores.

Well, at some point you have to define, as noted, "what is balanced?" I mean, to some degree contrasting it with other options is inevitably going to be part of that, and I'm not sure anything anything in the OP suggests that was illegitimate. Its obviously not useful to just bash other methods, but I don't think "Probably as balanced as you can get while having any variance and choice at all" is off the table as a discussion position.

 

[CleverNickName]

I was assuming feats were off the table, since @CleverNickName said ASIs.

But yes, feats being available every level would definitely impact the calculus.

Yep, feats. I should have clarified that feats would be allowed. (I sometimes forget that feats were still an optional rule in 5E 2014.)

 

[TwoSix]

Yep, feats. I should have clarified that feats would be allowed. (I sometimes forget that feats were still an optional rule in 5E 2014.)

In the context of feats being available, I like the idea a lot more.

You just recontextualize 10s as being the broad spectrum of normal humanity, and use proficiencies, backgrounds, and skills to provide the character descriptors people usually derive from stats.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Well, at some point you have to define, as noted, "what is balanced?" I mean, to some degree contrasting it with other options is inevitably going to be part of that, and I'm not sure anything anything in the OP suggests that was illegitimate. Its obviously not useful to just bash other methods, but I don't think "Probably as balanced as you can get while having any variance and choice at all" is off the table as a discussion position.

I'm not sure what balance is. Earlier we pointed out that the Standard Array is the most balanced. It is also the most constrained. We also pointed out that out of a possible 54,264 sets of scores their are only 65 that equal 27 points. Furthermore, after applying Optimization guidelines to those 65 arrays we ended up with 20 sets of scores.

Now, some people build with more points like 32 or 36, maybe 40. Or even less points -- 15 points would be equivalent to the Classic (3d6) method. So, we pointed out that the full range of scores that can be evaluated for the Point Buy method, from (8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8) for 0 points to (15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15) for 54 points. It's interesting that 27 points is smack dab in the middle of that range.

There have been other discussions about the impact of scores on various parts of game play, as well as Dump scores and the Cookie-Cutter issue.

It's been a pretty good thread and I think it still has some legs. I'm still learning things. Like, have you head about AnyDice.com?

 

[AlViking]

I'm not sure what balance is. Earlier we pointed out that the Standard Array is the most balanced. It is also the most constrained. We also pointed out that out of a possible 54,264 sets of scores their are only 65 that equal 27 points. Furthermore, after applying Optimization guidelines to those 65 arrays we ended up with 20 sets of scores.

Now, some people build with more points like 32 or 36, maybe 40. Or even less points -- 15 points would be equivalent to the Classic (3d6) method. So, we pointed out that the full range of scores that can be evaluated for the Point Buy method, from (8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8) for 0 points to (15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15) for 54 points. It's interesting that 27 points is smack dab in the middle of that range.

There have been other discussions about the impact of scores on various parts of game play, as well as Dump scores and the Cookie-Cutter issue.

It's been a pretty good thread and I think it still has some legs. I'm still learning things. Like, have you head about AnyDice.com?

You consider 65 options constrained? Even 20 is a significant number. If you don't like 5e's version, there's always 3e's which let's you go to 18.

As far as the goal of point buy, it does more-or-less mimic a constrained 4d6dl except of course that as has been discussed most people don't really use it. On the other hand, the reason to use point buy is not to have all options available it's to have a constrained enough list of options that most choices are reasonable and reasonably well balanced. If you up the number of points available you're just forcing the DM to throw more difficult challenges at you and in my experience the characters area a bit OP.

 

[Lanefan]

I wonder what it would be like to play a 5E D&D game where everyone starts with a 10 in every stat (plus racial bonuses), and you got an ASI at every level.

I think it would be balanced, and I think it would be a true "zero-to-hero" experience...but would it be fun?

Worthwhile idea for any edition, not just 5e. I'd start 'em at 11 rather than 10, though.

The first few levels would be a slow-motion DCC funnel for sure, again in all editions; the players would get lots of practice at making new characters.

Well-rounded party composition would become essential, as would going to a larger party (2 characters per player to start?).

I think the lack of variability would become an issue if this was the default every time, but doing it once might be an interesting change of pace.