Point-buy or rolling? Your preference and why?

[MarauderX]

The next campaign I start will be with a point buy. That way all the players (whether I know them personally or not) will be starting on an even playing field, and any feelings about having a handicapped PC should be quelled.

I used to play the original D&D with only 3d6 rolling (I was a hard-core DM), and PCs died all of the time unless they worked together as a team. I didn't penalize them much when they died, but some players would start groaning and complaining when their new PC didn't have one score over 14. I didn't like hearing it, and now with AD&D power creep, no one would ever settle for playing an 'under powered' PC like that. Just look at the WotC boards and you will realize that most of the players there have never had a PC with any abilities lower than 9, and if they do, it is usually a 'joke' or considered the weakling of the group.

 

[KDLadage]

the problem with usingthe word "average" in refernce to dice, is that you very rarely get "average" results. sure, if you take ALL the character's you've ever rolled, and run the average of all the numbers then sure, you'll likely find the correct averages. but when you're rolling a six-sider, there are equal odds that any one side will come up. so averages are really irrelavant. the only thing that counts is what you get this time!

~NegZ

Yes... and no.

The flat probability of a single even with a single die makes average a relatively useless concept -- for that single roll. However...

When you are rolling 3d6 or any other combination of dice, the concept of average makes a lot of sense. For example:

Suppose we were to flip a coin. We have two possible outcomes: H or T. Let us set the value of H to 1, and T to 2. Each are equally likely events, and so indicating an average flip is meaningless. Sure, over time, the roll will average to 1.5 . . . but a given event has no "average."

However, suppose we we flip two coins and add the results together. Our possible values are:

1 + 1 = 2
1 + 2 = 3
2 + 1 = 3
2 + 2 = 4

Here we can see that the concept of average is very relavant. The average roll (mean, median and mode) is 3, and it will happen 50% of the time. The same is true with dice -- and this happens as soon as you add the pips on more than 1 die together.

3d6 -- average 10.5 (10 or 11 have equal odds of occuring; hense the fact that 10 and 11 are both +0 in the d20 system).

2d4 -- average of 5.

2d6 -- average of 7. This would be the very basis of the game CRAPS.

 

[Negative Zero]

that's all well and good. but my point is that, probablility is just that; probablility. it doesn't dictate anything. at the time you roll your dice, whatever average you've determined there to be is irrelevant. the dice, on that roll aren't conforming to any average. they're gonna come up with a specific number. and that number may be the average, or it may not be. to the dice, there's no difference.

it's the Han Solo syndrome: "never tell me the odds!" why? because they're irrelevant. the only thing that matters is what happens now. not what may happen over time.

~NegZ

 

[ichabod]

BOTH

For the next campaign I run, I will be doing both. Really either. After we decide what power level we want to play, I will give them two options: roll the dice, or take a point buy that is slightly lower than the average roll of those dice. That way, if they want safety, they can get it at a slight cost. Likewise, for hit points, they can either roll the die, or take 1/2 a point less than the average roll of that die.

Although I must say I like KD's card method, and I have one player who would love it (thinks he has horrible luck with dice but great luck with cards).

 

[tleilaxu]

rolling. gives more variety. there is no reason that all characters should have equal stats.

in my game the party fighter has S 16 D 16 C 16 I 14 W 12 Ch ?

and my cleric has S 14 D 14 C 14 I 12 W 16 Ch 12

even though i have lower stats i'm still more effective.

i like the variety it provides. plus, its tradition!

(we do 4d6 drop lowest 7 times drop lowest)

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Roll!

4d6 and drop lowest. No need to beat the dead horse as to why I hate point-buy, just know that I do.

 

[KDLadage]

rolling. gives more variety. there is no reason that all characters should have equal stats.

Agreed. However...

in my game the party fighter has S 16 D 16 C 16 I 14 W 12 Ch ?and my cleric has S 14 D 14 C 14 I 12 W 16 Ch 12

You did not get any variety... what you got were a bunch of uniform stats... a fighter with 16 in all three physical stats? A cleric with 14 in all physical stats? Lowest stat showing is a 12?

even though i have lower stats i'm still more effective.

When a character that has the lowest stat as a 12 is considered as having "lower stats" (and yes, I am aware that you mean in comparison to the Fighter), then we are not dealing with tradition. In my opinion.

i like the variety it provides. plus, its tradition!

(we do 4d6 drop lowest 7 times drop lowest)

Tradition would dictate 3d6 rolled 7 times with the lowest stat dropped, or 4d6-L six times... 4d6-L 7 times drop the lowest roll is a bit excessive... in my opinion.

 

[bret]

Point buy, using weighted system.

I like the weighted system because if someone has a high attribute (over 14), it will be much rarer. It also causes the racial modifiers to come into play a lot more. You aren't going to find that many elves with a Con of 14, but a lot will have Dex of 12-16.

I like point buy because I consider it much more fair. It allows a character to choose their attributes while giving a guideline of what are acceptable ranges.

I hate rolling characters. After a couple of decades of rolling poorly, I'm tired of always playing second fiddle to others in the group. There always seems to be someone in a group that just gets lucky, and that character is then able to dominate play.

I dislike straight weighting because it makes the high attributes too common and the racial attribute adjustments almost irrelevant.

 

[Henry]

I do have one question: Why do proponents of point-buy use the exact point buy that is given in the core rules? Has it been mathematically proven that it is a good solid system, or does everyone take WotC's word for it?

What makes it inherently better than, say 14-15 = 3 points, and 16 or higher = 5 points? Or 2 point cost to every score above 13?

The main reason I like point buy is that it doesn't require DM's to actually be present at the rolling, as most DM's feel they must be for dice rolls; all it takes is counting up to verify.

But is the point buy in the DMG the best way to go?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Two reasons:

- Mathematically, it's the same as 4d6 drop lowest (equal in expectation if you accept that point buy gives you an advantage in that you can select even scores and not waste points on "odd" scores -- if you don't accept that argument then 4d6 drop lowest works out closer to 28 point buy. See the thread on this from a month or so back).

- This is where the game is designed to operate. Look at what WOTC R&D uses to playtest the system, and all new components: the Iconics, who happen to be characters designed with the default array, which is a 25-point system. D&D is flexible enough that it works well at a very wide range of power levels -- I just happen to think it operates cleanest, with the least power inflation or unbalanced mechanics, if you operate it at its design point. The variance in the game increases the further you get from the design point: 25-point mechanics.

You could probably come up with a different scale that accomplishes the same operating point -- all you'd be doing is altering the frequency of high scores in the game. If you change the scale, then change the number of points allocated, you may arrive right back at the same point anyway -- which isn't worth the effort.