Point Buy Recommendations

[Shard O'Glase]

How much better is a 14 Str than an 18?

If you are using a two handed weapon, it is an extra 3 points of damage.

How much better is a 14 Dex than an 18 Dex?

If you are looking at skills, it is an extra two levels. It would take two levels to make up the difference in attribute bonuses.


As for legitimate reasons for use of point buy, how about some measure of fairness? If you randomly roll characters, there is a good chance that some characters will be much more powerful than others. At least with point buy, they started out with the same resources to allocate.

And how much better is a 14 than a 10, 2 levels. How much more damage does a 2 handed sword wielder do with a 14 than with a 10, hmm 3 points. Wow those numbers are idenitcal to yours. So why should one set of them cost proportionally more?

 

[Dimwhit]

My Rogue in one of our campaigns was rolled up using the original Character Generator that was included in the Player's handbook. Right out of the gate (it was within the first couple rolls) I rolled 72 points! He has amazing stats. By far the best I have ever played. He's 12th level now and far from overpowered. He's good, but certainly not the best in the party, despite having higher stats.

I don't think high stats are overpowered. Especially in games with a lot of roleplaying, where stats take a backseat. I've never started a character on the point-buy system, and I never really wanted to. Let the dice roll as they may. If someone rolls exceptionally high, it's not the end of the world, and he's not going to throw things out of balance. Unless the DM let's it.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Allow me to say it first. Utter nonsense.

You're missing several things in this analysis. First and most importantly, stats make more difference the higher they get. Take a human fighter with a greatsword for instance. He could have 14 strength without penalties under a weighted system or 16 strength under normal point buy for the cost of an 18 strength under unweighted point buy. Now consider a normal situation: he's facing off against a typical first level foe: an orc in scale mail and a greataxe. The fighter is at +4, +5, or +6 to hit depending upon strength (we're assuming he's got weapon focus). The 14 strength fighter hits 55% of the time. The 16 strength fighter hits 60% of the time, and the 18 strength fighter hits 65% of the time. That may not seem like much but the 10% difference in the 18 and the 14 str fighters' chance to hit is analogous to a 20% miss chance from Blur or Obscuriing Mist.

Now, looking at damage: the 14 strength fighter does a minimum of 5 points of damage. The 16 strength fighter does a minimum of 6 points of damage, and the 18 strength fighter does a minimum of 8 points of damage. If the 14 strength fighter hits the orc, he's only staggered and he can still make an attack. Not so for the 16 strength fighter. With the 18 strength fighter, you can give the orc a barbarian level and max hit points (doubling his CR) and he'll still drop him in a single blow even if he only does average damage. Consequently, the 18 strength fighter is much more likely to single hit kill foes than the weaker fighters and is consequently more likely to survive longer. And because both his attack rating and damage go up with his strength, his average damage per round increases exponentially rather than arithmetically with strength increases.

And all stats are not equal for all classes. A fighter can get by perfectly well with just strength and con. A fighter with an 18 strength, an 18 con, 12 dex, 9 int, 10 wis, and 8 cha. (possible under an unweighted 25 point buy) is simply put a far better fighter than a fighter with 15 strength, 14 con, 13 dex, 12 wis, 10 int, and 10 cha. Similarly, a wizard with an 18 int, 18 con and 13 dex, 10 wis and 8 str, and cha will be a far better wizard than one with the iconic spread. The wizard will know more spells, have DCs 2 points higher (which is like giving the spell focus feat for every school for free), and will have bonus 4th level spells at level 7 and a bonus 5th level spell at level 9 and a bonus 6th level spell at level 12 (unlike the iconic wizard) because of high int.

Not to mention that this wizard will have more than twice as many hit points. And his only disadvantage? He can't carry much without a Heward's Handy Haversack and his melee capability is utterly pathetic (as if that weren't true of all wizards).



There's nothing artificial about it. Specialized characters are just plain more effective in D&D than generalists are. (Bards and Rangers are good generalists and look at how many people complain about how underpowered they are). Just try playing a fighter with a 14 strength next to a fighter with an 18 strength and tell me it doesn't make a difference. The high strength fighter feels like he's doing twice as much damage with every swing. . . .

.

For your 2 18s part I might point you to my 1st post where I wrote, "The problem is theoretically you could have a character with 2 18s and a 13 and 3 8s. And if you have players who would tend to min/max this much it aint a great plan, unless you are good at focussing in on players weak spots."

Gee ya think a system that allows you more freedom in character creation can be abused by power gamers.(nothing wrong with it too if that's what you like)

As for your how much more brillantly a fighter will do with a 18 str stuff, sure a fighter in mellee combat will be better in mellee combat if he is stronger and all else is equal.(but still a 18 str fighter is no better in melee than a 14 str fighter in mellee than that 14 is better than a 10) But I don't know lets say a fighter who has both a decent dex and a decent str and con, might be able to do both ranged combat and melee combat effectively, as opposed to just being some one dimensional easily taken advantage of mellee monkey.

And besides D&D is only a game for specialists if your dungeon crawling with cliched encounters. You throw some variety at your players and the over specialized melee goon will wish he'd spent his points more wisely.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The difference is that, as attack bonusses and armor classes get higher, the same stat increase becomes proportionally more significant.

Let's look at an example. Against an attacker with a +0 attack bonus, an armor class ten character will be hit 55% of the time. If you give him a large shield, his armor class goes up to 12 and now he only gets hit 40% of the time. Overall, that results in about a 17% reduction in the amount of damage the character takes.

Now, let's see what happens when a character wearing full-plate gets the same two points of armor class. His armor class goes up to 20 which results in a 67% reduction in the amount of damage taken from the same foe.

The same two points of armor class are dramatically more effective for the second character than for the first.

Applying the example to melee characters, let's take our three fighters: Str 10, str 14, and str 18. All are 1st level fighters with weapon focus: greataxe attacking an orc (AC 14 in scale mail). According to http://www.public.asu.edu/~tarchon/munchkin.html
the average damage/round work out as follows:
Str 10: 3.2
Str 14: 5.7
Str 18: 8.9
In this example, the difference between the str 10 and the str 14 fighter is an average of 2.5 points of damage. The difference between the str 14 and the str 18 fighter is an average of 3.2 points of damage. Clearly in this case, going from str 14 to str 18 makes more of a difference than going from str 10 to str 14.

More important, however, is the qualitative difference. The strength 18 character will drop max hit point 1st level fighters (or average hit point second level fighters) with a single average damage blow. The strength 14 character will need 2 rounds to do this. The str 10 character will also drop such foes on average in two hits (6.5+6.5=13). Consequently, the str 18 character (assuming he has cleave) will often drop three or four foes in two rounds. The strength 14 character will usually only drop one in two rounds (because after cleaving into the second on round 2, he'll often need a second attack in order to finish him).

At higher levels, this qualitative distinction remains. At 4th level, a bull's strengthed 18 str fighter will dish out 15.9 points of damage/round against AC 18. The 14 strength character dishes out 11.1 The 18 strength fighter is much more likely to cleave through his opposition quickly than the 14 strength--even with bull's strength. (And here, it's worth pointing out that the 14 str fighter has no chance of cleaving through opposition without bull's strength but the 18 str fighter does.

And how much better is a 14 than a 10, 2 levels. How much more damage does a 2 handed sword wielder do with a 14 than with a 10, hmm 3 points. Wow those numbers are idenitcal to yours. So why should one set of them cost proportionally more?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

For your 2 18s part I might point you to my 1st post where I wrote, "The problem is theoretically you could have a character with 2 18s and a 13 and 3 8s. And if you have players who would tend to min/max this much it aint a great plan, unless you are good at focussing in on players weak spots."

Gee ya think a system that allows you more freedom in character creation can be abused by power gamers.(nothing wrong with it too if that's what you like)

So you admit that 2 18s and a 13 and 3 8s would be a more "min-maxed" or "power-gamed" character. If that's the case, why do you insist on maintaining that a pair of 18s are no more advantageous than four 13s (or 2 14s and 2 12s)? The weighted point buy system in the DMG recognizes that this is the case and charges more for the 18s than for the other stats. The system you are so strenuously advocating pretends that there is no difference between bumping a 17 to an 18 and bumping a 10 to an 11.

As for your how much more brillantly a fighter will do with a 18 str stuff, sure a fighter in mellee combat will be better in mellee combat if he is stronger and all else is equal.(but still a 18 str fighter is no better in melee than a 14 str fighter in mellee than that 14 is better than a 10) But I don't know lets say a fighter who has both a decent dex and a decent str and con, might be able to do both ranged combat and melee combat effectively, as opposed to just being some one dimensional easily taken advantage of mellee monkey.

You're really stretching to make this point. A 10 str is really untennable for a melee fighter. A 14 str is acceptable. An 18 is excellent. If this is the case, the "one dimensional melee monkey" is with his two 18s and a 13 is nearly as capable in ranged combat as your well balanced fighter with his decent str, dex, and con. In fact, after first level, the "melee monkey" should be able to afford a mighty bow and at that point, with his 13 dex and 18 str, he'll be a superior ranged combatant to the balanced 14 str, 14 dex character. (Who wouldn't trade +1 to hit for +2 to damage in most cases).

And, his weaknesses are probably not any easier to take advantage of. Remember, he's in a party. If ranged combat isn't the party's forte, they'll usually have a way to avoid it (obscuring mist, etc).

And besides D&D is only a game for specialists if your dungeon crawling with cliched encounters. You throw some variety at your players and the over specialized melee goon will wish he'd spent his points more wisely.

Somehow I doubt this. D&D is still a game for specialists even if it's not in a cliche'ed dungeon crawl. Since all of the characters we're talking about are fighters, will the "generalist" fighter really be significantly better than the "melee goon" outside of combat? If it comes to social interaction, he's got the same pathetic skill list. +1 diplomacy (from charisma) won't put the "generalist" on a par with a rogue, bard, cleric, or paladin with maxed out diplomacy. If the character really wants to be a generalist, he'll need to multiclass. And, in that case, he'll probably find some other way to spend his stats. If he's a fighter/rogue, 13 str, 18 dex, 14 con, 10 int, 10 wis, 8 cha (using weapon finesse to hit and power attack/sneak attack for damage) may be a dramatically better build than 14 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 12 int, 10 wis, 9 cha.

 

[rangerjohn]

My problem with point buy especially 28 pt and lower, is that it assumes the majority of adventurers are sub-par in some area.

Mostly cha which is sense of self, so most adventurers who are putting themselves in danger almost everyday of their life, think joe farmer is better then they are?!

 

[bret]

My problem with point buy especially 28 pt and lower, is that it assumes the majority of adventurers are sub-par in some area.

Mostly cha which is sense of self, so most adventurers who are putting themselves in danger almost everyday of their life, think joe farmer is better then they are?!

There is no need for someone to be sub-par at 28 pts. It only costs 10 pts. to bring every attribute up to normal, the other 18 points could be used to bring the average attribute up to 13.

At 28 pts, it is strictly a players choice to make some attributes sub-par. You could easily go 3 12s and 3 14s instead.

 

[CRGreathouse]

My problem with point buy especially 28 pt and lower, is that it assumes the majority of adventurers are sub-par in some area.

Mostly cha which is sense of self, so most adventurers who are putting themselves in danger almost everyday of their life, think joe farmer is better then they are?!

Joe farmer has 15 points, though; I think adventurers have more than enough to meet or exceed him in all ways.

 

[maddman75]

I personally use my own point buy method. It does not stagger the cost of abilities. Going from 10 to 12 costs the same as going from 16 to 18.

I do acknowledge that this makes top scores a bit cheaper. It also effectively eliminates racial modifiers, as you can juggle them around to keep your points straight if you desire.

This method is simply that the characters pick their scores as they like. The modifiers have to add up to a certain amount - generally +8, though we've done +6 for a grittier campaign. Also three must be even and three odd.

It works well, and makes generating scores very quick and easy. I think this overcomes the (in my view) relatively minor boon it gives to high stat characters.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I personally use my own point buy method. It does not stagger the cost of abilities. Going from 10 to 12 costs the same as going from 16 to 18.

I do acknowledge that this makes top scores a bit cheaper. It also effectively eliminates racial modifiers, as you can juggle them around to keep your points straight if you desire.

This method is simply that the characters pick their scores as they like. The modifiers have to add up to a certain amount - generally +8, though we've done +6 for a grittier campaign. Also three must be even and three odd.

It works well, and makes generating scores very quick and easy. I think this overcomes the (in my view) relatively minor boon it gives to high stat characters.

I like this idea and have every time I've seen its mentioned. i think I'll give it a try next time character generation comes up.