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

[Maxperson]

This is not true.

You have to make a bunch of assumptions to actually calculate this and those assumptions will heavily drive this metric.

This seems odd to me. Upthread a bit you were arguing that the guy with the 14 strength could outperform the guy with the 20 strength. You are arguing pretty hard with @AlViking that it's not going to be noticeable, but when I argued with you that a +1 difference wouldn't be noticeable, you argued hard with me that it WOULD be noticeable and you would notice it.

Which is it?

 

[ECMO3]

You are arguing pretty hard with @AlViking that it's not going to be noticeable, but when I argued with you that a +1 difference wouldn't be noticeable, you argued hard with me that it WOULD be noticeable and you would notice it.

One of them is about balance. The effect on balance will not be noticeable. The discussion with you on an earlier thread was not centered on balance, it was centered on capability or effectiveness.

Characters notice the ability scores they have on their sheet and if they are privy to the scores of others they will notice the difference in them too. Those scores will affect the outcome in play. Game balance however is driven much more heavily by other factors, both qualitative and quantitative. If we eliminate qualitative factors, we are left with the dice, which have a much larger effect than the ability scores in the vast majority of cases.

So it is a matter of who you are comparing to. If I am comparing my PC with a 14 strength vs what my PC would have done with a 20 strength - the difference in scores has a large effect because there is no difference in the random variables involved (I roll what I roll), nor for that matter qualitative differences since the character and choices are exactly the same. The only difference is in the abilities. This is why I have said ability scores matter over and over again on this thread.

If I am looking to foster an environment where characters have similar results at the table that difference in ability will have a much smaller, usually negligible, effect on the outcome.

 

[ECMO3]

You don't figure out an average in one session, or even 5 sessions. You look at the average over the entire campaign, which for some tables is 1 to 20 with regard to level.

I think more "campaigns" are less than 5 sessions than more than 5 sessions, I have played a lot of 1-20 campaigns though and those are all more than 5.

You are correct in terms of numbers driving toward the mean overall, but what are we trying to achieve?

If we accept that balance is important and players are not going to be happy underperforming (something I have never seen personally); if we accept this premise about the importance of balance; is it ok for a player to be unhappy in one session as long as they do better and "make it up" in another session and make a different player feel unhappy in that session?

I don't find this particularly logical and it would seem to mean "good balance" is having players unhappy in every session as long as which player is unhappy changes from session to session and the unhappiness is evenly distributed over the course of the campaign.

 

[ECMO3]

LOL. The chance to hit and the damage done on a hit being affected by the ability score is "not true". When you can just ignore simple math I'm done. Have a good one.

There was no math in what I replied to there.

I am not the one ignoring simple math re: "doing almost double damage every single round"

Yeah the math shows that is nowhere near true! You seem to have completely ignored "chance to hit" when you made that statement.

 

[Maxperson]

I think more "campaigns" are less than 5 sessions than more than 5 sessions, I have played a lot of 1-20 campaigns though and those are all more than 5.

You are correct in terms of numbers driving toward the mean overall, but what are we trying to achieve?

If we accept that balance is important and players are not going to be happy underperforming (something I have never seen personally); if we accept this premise about the importance of balance; is it ok for a player to be unhappy in one session as long as they do better and "make it up" in another session and make a different player feel unhappy in that session?

I don't find this particularly logical and it would seem to mean "good balance" is having players unhappy in every session as long as which player is unhappy changes from session to session and the unhappiness is evenly distributed over the course of the campaign.

5 sessions is more of a single adventure or maybe two, but it's not a campaign. Campaigns last significantly longer than that.

Random chance means that sometimes you won't do as well as you do at other times. This is true for everyone if that makes you(general you) unhappy, perhaps don't play games. Doing better at times, and worse at other times is part of gaming, whether video, board, card, or RPG.

Balance in an RPG is over the long term, not a session or even five. If you're going to play a one shot or mini, you might need to rethink how you create characters or run the game if variables wreck things for you.

 

[Maxperson]

Characters notice the ability scores they have on their sheet and if they are privy to the scores of others they will notice the difference in them too. Those scores will affect the outcome in play. Game balance however is driven much more heavily by other factors, both qualitative and quantitative. If we eliminate qualitative factors, we are left with the dice, which have a much larger effect than the ability scores in the vast majority of cases.

Yes. You brought up this Strawman last time, too. My argument was never about scores written down on sheets.

So it is a matter of who you are comparing to. If I am comparing my PC with a 14 strength vs what my PC would have done with a 20 strength - the difference in scores has a large effect because there is no difference in the random variables involved (I roll what I roll), nor for that matter qualitative differences since the character and choices are exactly the same. The only difference is in the abilities. This is why I have said ability scores matter over and over again on this thread.

If I am looking to foster an environment where characters have similar results at the table that difference in ability will have a much smaller, usually negligible, effect on the outcome.

A difference of 14 and 16, or even 14 and 18, though, won't often be noticed, even if you do roll what you roll. The difference between a 14 and 16 is one more success every 20 rolls on average. Except the variability you mention means that unless the DM is telling you the DCs, or you can figure out the AC in combat, you won't ever know when that extra success happened. It might happen in the first 20 rolls, or it might take 47 rolls to get that extra success, and then one more 3 rolls later.

An extra success every 20 rolls on average doesn't mean much in the scheme of the game and will very, very, VERY rarely make a significant difference. When you are at 14 and 18, that drops to 1 in 10 rolls, which is still hard to see if you aren't given the numbers.

 

[AlViking]

There was no math in what I replied to there.

I am not the one ignoring simple math re: "doing almost double damage every single round"

Yeah the math shows that is nowhere near true! You seem to have compl,etely ignored "chance to hit" when you made that statement.

You're still moving the goalpost to mean ability scores are meaningless. Except when they aren't of course.

 

[AlViking]

They matter once you get to +3 or +4 difference between the two characters. +1 is virtually unnoticeable and +2 will not be noticed often.

Stats matter, but far less than in prior editions.

If the only difference between two characters is a 1 point difference in their primary ability score it likely won't be that noticeable. But with rolling you can get (and I did this with 10 groups of 5 each) Peter Rolled Poorly with 9, 7, 11, 4, 13, 10 and Randy Rolled High 9, 13, 13, 15, 15, 18.

If they both want to run something like a barbarian, poor old Petey will never catch up to Randy. If Pete really wants that 20 strength he could get it at 12th level but Randy by that point has likely raised their dex and con to at least 16 with the option of 3 more feats.

If you wouldn't make Pete play the character the rolled up, that's fine but then we're no longer comparing 4d6dl to point buy.

 

[Maxperson]

If the only difference between two characters is a 1 point difference in their primary ability score it likely won't be that noticeable. But with rolling you can get (and I did this with 10 groups of 5 each) Peter Rolled Poorly with 9, 7, 11, 4, 13, 10 and Randy Rolled High 9, 13, 13, 15, 15, 18.

If they both want to run something like a barbarian, poor old Petey will never catch up to Randy. If Pete really wants that 20 strength he could get it at 12th level but Randy by that point has likely raised their dex and con to at least 16 with the option of 3 more feats.

If you wouldn't make Pete play the character the rolled up, that's fine but then we're no longer comparing 4d6dl to point buy.

Sure, but typically there will little difference in the primary attack stat, which is where most of the difference that would matter happens. The rest are in secondaries, which are of little import since folks pick skills where they have bonuses, so the ones where they have penalties aren't going to matter to them anyway. Further, they will be up in some areas over the other guy and the other guy will be up in some areas over them. And even further, almost no DM will have a player play that first set anyway, so it's moot that you give numbers that low.

 

[AlViking]

Sure, but typically there will little difference in the primary attack stat, which is where most of the difference that would matter happens. The rest are in secondaries, which are of little import since folks pick skills where they have bonuses, so the ones where they have penalties aren't going to matter to them anyway. Further, they will be up in some areas over the other guy and the other guy will be up in some areas over them. And even further, almost no DM will have a player play that first set anyway, so it's moot that you give numbers that low.

I rolled 10 groups and grabbed this particular example after glancing through them. So this kind of difference will happen on a fairly regular basis. As far as the DM making them play the character, I've seen it happen and it also means you're no longer comparing 4d6dl to point buy.