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

[Thomas Shey]

that a character would be removed from the group for that long for such an experience divide to arise between the characters (and that you're tracking individual character XP totals in the first place) feels like like contrived arguments chosen specifically to attempt to poke holes IMO.

i know that some people still play that way but it feels far from the norm nowadays.

While you're correct, its less contrived than showing the particulars of how Lanefan playes and expects (in the sense of thinks it the proper way) things to be played.

 

[Lanefan]

that a character would be removed from the group for that long for such an experience divide to arise between the characters (and that you're tracking individual character XP totals in the first place) feels like like contrived arguments chosen specifically to attempt to poke holes IMO.

Both of those things are default IME.

i know that some people still play that way but it feels far from the norm nowadays.

Given the advancement speed these days, being captured at the start of an adventure and rescued at the end could mean a one or two level difference between the captive and the surviving party.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Both of those things are default IME.

Given the advancement speed these days, being captured at the start of an adventure and rescued at the end could mean a one or two level difference between the captive and the surviving party.

Not in any games I've been running or playing with, for at least 2 decades by now. Everyone gets the same XP, always. Also, if a character suffers from Nopla-Disease (No Player) and cannot participate, same XP as everyone. If your character dies, your replacement character also gets the same XP as the rest of the party, it would be really strange if we'd punish being captured stronger than losing your character.

 

[Horwath]

Both of those things are default IME.

Given the advancement speed these days, being captured at the start of an adventure and rescued at the end could mean a one or two level difference between the captive and the surviving party.

If my character is captured, I would ask DM will my character be rescued in the 1st half of the next session? If not, I'll make a new character, thank you.

 

[Lanefan]

If my character is captured, I would ask DM will my character be rescued in the 1st half of the next session? If not, I'll make a new character, thank you.

Sure, I'd make a new character as well, though I'd expect it to come in slightly behind those already present as it hasn't done as much in play. I wouldn't bother asking the DM whether my rescue is imminent or not, however, as IME the DM has no way of predicting whether a rescue will soon be mounted and-or whether it will quickly succeed. (as a player I once did just this; asked the DM whether I'd soon be found/rescued by the party, the DM said it was highly likely I would, then the party - not knowing where I was - proceeded to go everywhere in the dungeon except the right place)

If-when my original character does get rescued some time later, though, now I've got two PCs in the setting.

Not in any games I've been running or playing with, for at least 2 decades by now. Everyone gets the same XP, always. Also, if a character suffers from Nopla-Disease (No Player) and cannot participate, same XP as everyone. If your character dies, your replacement character also gets the same XP as the rest of the party, it would be really strange if we'd punish being captured stronger than losing your character.

Experience points are, as I've always seen it, given for what the character experiences and-or does in the fiction. If a character can earn xp for doing nothing, where's the incentive to do anything or take any risk?

Agreed that missing players' characters can earn xp, provided the character remains in play as normal and is contributing to the party. You don't earn xp for sitting home in the pub or standing outside and guarding the horses; and integrity-to-fiction means characters don't mysteriously vanish for a while just because their player misses a session.

I should mention, in case it's not already obvious, that I don't give a fig about keeping everyone at the same level. IME other than when they first start out all at 1st level, having everyone happen to be the same level in a party in exceedingly rare.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sure, I'd make a new character as well, though I'd expect it to come in slightly behind those already present as it hasn't done as much in play. I wouldn't bother asking the DM whether my rescue is imminent or not, however, as IME the DM has no way of predicting whether a rescue will soon be mounted and-or whether it will quickly succeed. (as a player I once did just this; asked the DM whether I'd soon be found/rescued by the party, the DM said it was highly likely I would, then the party - not knowing where I was - proceeded to go everywhere in the dungeon except the right place)

If-when my original character does get rescued some time later, though, now I've got two PCs in the setting.
Experience points are, as I've always seen it, given for what the character experiences and-or does in the fiction. If a character can earn xp for doing nothing, where's the incentive to do anything or take any risk?

Agreed that missing players' characters can earn xp, provided the character remains in play as normal and is contributing to the party. You don't earn xp for sitting home in the pub or standing outside and guarding the horses; and integrity-to-fiction means characters don't mysteriously vanish for a while just because their player misses a session.

I should mention, in case it's not already obvious, that I don't give a fig about keeping everyone at the same level. IME other than when they first start out all at 1st level, having everyone happen to be the same level in a party in exceedingly rare.

The fun is playing the game. It's not like it's a chore and I need to be bribed with XP. If I am only want to have my character sit at the bar, it's not like I need the XP for anything anyway, I don't really need a higher proficiency bonus, new spells or more hit dice.
But if you were deliberately doing that while the rest of the parties is having adventures it seems like a meta-problem, that you're not enjoying the campaign and we need to figure out something else.

We once, when we started D&D 3E, actually did the regular XP thing, and if you needed to reroll, you started at level 1. Quickly, we realized that this made you roll a new Level 1 character soon, the game isn't built for that. So we started the new guy 1 level lower than the rest of the party. Eventually, it was just the party level, because the adventures we were playing expected you to level and raised the challenge, and if you ended up behind, you'd just end with a TPK and can abandon the adventure path, especially those Paizo murder grinds. Not what we wanted to do ,we liked the story and the challenges.

There is already enough punishment in not keeping the character you wanted to play ,and losing all their connections to the plot. YOu can sure roll Bob Fighter II at low levels, but once you've been part of an ongoing campaign, Bob Fighter III will be a nobody, no shared story, no NPCs that could recognize you or you'd call on. If you want to keep that, you pay for those Raise Dead spells, which is also a mechanical punishment.

 

[ECMO3]

A game can be balanced to include die rolling. Balance in an RPG doesn't = exactly the same 100% of the time.

Ok I will bite. What does it mean mathematically in play?

I am not talking about probabilities or averages; I am talking about results. If we are talking about damage, how far off can say total damage in a session be before the game is "unbalanced"?

Is a 10% difference in play unbalanced? What about a 20% difference? or a 50% difference?

 

[ECMO3]

I'm expecting to reduce the elements that are not the result of the in-play randomizer. I don't know what you think any of us are attempting to do.

So one radomizer is ok but another one is not ok, even when that other one has a lower standard deviation and a smaller mathematical effect on success or failure?

 

[ECMO3]

I think at this point I agree with a number of others that your personal definition of balance is both idiosyncratic and, honestly, pretty useless.

What is useless is expecting identical ability scores to cause balance in play.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Ok I will bite. What does it mean mathematically in play?

I am not talking about probabilities or averages; I am talking about results. If we are talking about damage, how far off can say total damage in a session be before the game is "unbalanced"?

Is a 10% difference in play unbalanced? What about a 20% difference? or a 50% difference?

It’s subjective; if a player tells you a game is unbalanced they’re saying it feels unfair.

Just s guess but I’d suspect you’d get experienced players complaining at somewhere around 25% difference in overall output. (Assuming it wasn’t just a case of the d20’s being crazy) Probably more if the outputs aren’t directly comparable.