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

[Maxperson]

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.

What you rolled isn't relevant. DMs don't force players to have a horrible time playing horrible stats, so those numbers just plain don't matter. The difference will typically at worst be the difference between the standard array +/- a few points and maaaaaybe that high roll you had.

It's just not going to be a lot of difference in actual game play, and outside of your white room stat generation.

 

[AlViking]

What you rolled isn't relevant. DMs don't force players to have a horrible time playing horrible stats, so those numbers just plain don't matter. The difference will typically at worst be the difference between the standard array +/- a few points and maaaaaybe that high roll you had.

It's just not going to be a lot of difference in actual game play, and outside of your white room stat generation.

I'm discussing point buy versus the rolling option in the PHB. The PHB doesn't have a minimum values it just states "Random Generation. Roll four d6s and record the total of the highest three dice. Do this five more times, so you have six numbers."

You may not force a player to play the character with low numbers, the rules don't mention it. I've also been in games where one person rolled incredibly high, another rolled incredibly low. The DM literally laughed when the person rolling low asked to roll again or use point buy. Maybe most DMs don't actually use the rules as written when rolling for stats I'm talking about the rules from the book.

As a sanity check, I went to Random.org and generated a list of enough numbers from 1-6 for 9 tables to roll 4d6 6 times. I then sorted the results in groups of 4, got rid of the lowest number in each set of 4 and came up with ability scores. Thank goodness for macros and excel. Probably didn't need to bother generating as many numbers as I did because the very first group was

1) 11, 17, 5, 18, 12, 10
2) 12, 12, 10, 8, 17, 12
3) 10, 12, 10, 5, 15, 14
4) 8, 6, 12, 12, 13, 9
5) 16, 12, 13, 14, 10, 11
6) 15, 12, 14, 13, 9, 14

Depending on preferences, more than one of these characters are fine. But #4 with 8, 6, 12, 12, 13, 9? They're way behind the curve when one of the other players could start with a 20 as their primary stat and an 18 as their secondary or start with an 18 and nothing below a 10.

This wasn't out of a thousand groups, this was literally the first group in the list. It's not the difference of the primary stat being +/- 1, it's significantly lower numbers and #4 will be noticeably less effective from a numbers perspective as the rest of the group. Some people may want that, I don't.

Ah well, I really need to stop procrastinating and I need to get some honey-dos done.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm discussing point buy versus the rolling option in the PHB. The PHB doesn't have a minimum values it just states "Random Generation. Roll four d6s and record the total of the highest three dice. Do this five more times, so you have six numbers."

You may not force a player to play the character with low numbers, the rules don't mention it. I've also been in games where one person rolled incredibly high, another rolled incredibly low. The DM literally laughed when the person rolling low asked to roll again or use point buy. Maybe most DMs don't actually use the rules as written when rolling for stats I'm talking about the rules from the book.

As a sanity check, I went to Random.org and generated a list of enough numbers from 1-6 for 9 tables to roll 4d6 6 times. I then sorted the results in groups of 4, got rid of the lowest number in each set of 4 and came up with ability scores. Thank goodness for macros and excel. Probably didn't need to bother generating as many numbers as I did because the very first group was

1) 11, 17, 5, 18, 12, 10
2) 12, 12, 10, 8, 17, 12
3) 10, 12, 10, 5, 15, 14
4) 8, 6, 12, 12, 13, 9
5) 16, 12, 13, 14, 10, 11
6) 15, 12, 14, 13, 9, 14

Depending on preferences, more than one of these characters are fine. But #4 with 8, 6, 12, 12, 13, 9? They're way behind the curve when one of the other players could start with a 20 as their primary stat and an 18 as their secondary or start with an 18 and nothing below a 10.

This wasn't out of a thousand groups, this was literally the first group in the list. It's not the difference of the primary stat being +/- 1, it's significantly lower numbers and #4 will be noticeably less effective from a numbers perspective as the rest of the group. Some people may want that, I don't.

Ah well, I really need to stop procrastinating and I need to get some honey-dos done.

Discussing the "rules" is fine, but it doesn't mean much when almost no one follows the rule. That's the issue with the adventuring day. The rule is 6-8 encounters per adventuring day, but almost no one does that, so they had to change it(not that it really changed) for 5.5e.

Stat generation is the exact same. Almost no one will make someone play #4 there. I believe you encountered a douchey DM who made that one guy play low stats and laughed about it. There are rare jerk DMs out there. The rest of us would just let the guy re-roll.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This assumes the two (or more) disparate characters are going to last the entire campaign, which for various reasons is a faulty assumption even in 5e.

 

[Lanefan]

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 by "prior editions" you mean 3e and 4e, sure.

Only extreme or near-extreme stats mattered in 1e-2e for bonus/penalty purposes; 7-14 was the mushy +0 middle where most stats happily resided.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Peter fails my cutline on both counts - nothing over 13 AND average under 10.0 - so he'd be allowed to reroll if so desired.

Change Peter's 4 to a 14, however; and as he then (barely) passes both cutlines he'd have to keep it.

 

[Lanefan]

As a sanity check, I went to Random.org and generated a list of enough numbers from 1-6 for 9 tables to roll 4d6 6 times. I then sorted the results in groups of 4, got rid of the lowest number in each set of 4 and came up with ability scores. Thank goodness for macros and excel. Probably didn't need to bother generating as many numbers as I did because the very first group was

1) 11, 17, 5, 18, 12, 10
2) 12, 12, 10, 8, 17, 12
3) 10, 12, 10, 5, 15, 14
4) 8, 6, 12, 12, 13, 9
5) 16, 12, 13, 14, 10, 11
6) 15, 12, 14, 13, 9, 14

Depending on preferences, more than one of these characters are fine. But #4 with 8, 6, 12, 12, 13, 9? They're way behind the curve when one of the other players could start with a 20 as their primary stat and an 18 as their secondary or start with an 18 and nothing below a 10.

In my game #4 would get to reroll because no stat is over 13.

The other five of those are each quite playable, though #3 could prove challenging.

 

[AlViking]

Discussing the "rules" is fine, but it doesn't mean much when almost no one follows the rule. That's the issue with the adventuring day. The rule is 6-8 encounters per adventuring day, but almost no one does that, so they had to change it(not that it really changed) for 5.5e.

Stat generation is the exact same. Almost no one will make someone play #4 there. I believe you encountered a douchey DM who made that one guy play low stats and laughed about it. There are rare jerk DMs out there. The rest of us would just let the guy re-roll.

I just don't see the point of rolling if you don't really want random results anyway but that's just me.

Meanwhile this thread is a discussion of balance. If you have a house rule that you use to ensure balance that's fine. But it is a house rule not an official one and has little to do with whether or not point buy is balanced.

 

[Maxperson]

This assumes the two (or more) disparate characters are going to last the entire campaign, which for various reasons is a faulty assumption even in 5e.

No it doesn't. The game is designed with the assumption that a character will go from 1 to 20. Will any specific character? Who knows, but that doesn't affect the mathematical average is.

 

[Maxperson]

If by "prior editions" you mean 3e and 4e, sure.

Only extreme or near-extreme stats mattered in 1e-2e for bonus/penalty purposes; 7-14 was the mushy +0 middle where most stats happily resided.

When I say stats mattered, it's with bonuses and penalties in mind. In 1e and 2e if you had bonuses, you were a lot better off than if you didn't. You got an XP bonus, and the other bonuses really helped out. If you had a penalty, you really felt it.