Point Buy vs. Die Rolling Ability Scores

[Crothian]

Point buy gives players a lot more control over what exactly they want.

It's hard to make a good paladin or monk with it, but that's my only beef with the system.

Mine beef is it's boring. You tend to see the same scores from the same people. There's not that excitment of rolling dice where the players actually thing they can do something to have the dice roll well for them. Personally, I don't need all the players stats to be equal. And my players don't need or want that either. It's fun when the Wizard of the party has better stats in almost everything then the Ranger, I was that Ranger. I had a great time pooking fun at the wizard because stats aren't everything and I was able to over come a low Str and low Con.

 

[Quasqueton]

The idea that some classes need more points for point buy is wrong. For instance:

Monk - 28 pts.
Str: 10
Dex: 16
Con: 12
Int: 10
Wis: 16
Cha: 8

Monk - 28 pts.
Str: 12
Dex: 16
Con: 10
Int: 10
Wis: 16
Cha: 8

Monk - 28 pts.
Str: 12
Dex: 16
Con: 12
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Cha: 8

Paladin - 28 pts.
Str: 14
Dex: 8
Con: 12
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 16

Paladin - 28 pts.
Str: 12
Dex: 10
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 16

Paladin - 28 pts.
Str: 14
Dex: 8
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 12
Cha: 16

What's wrong with the above stats?

"some dislike the sameness that results [from point buy]."

It's only the same if the player actually buys the same stats and places them in the same ability, then plays the characte the same.

Quasqueton

 

[Conaill]

Hmm. It occurs to me that since the point buy ends in a perfectly min-maxed character, I should be more tolerant on the upside of good 4d6 luck or give the 4d6 rollers some additional benefit...

Gee, or maybe you could try a 25 point-buy instead!

Yes, this discussion comes up about every other month, bith here and over on the Wizards' site. My standard reply to the 4d6 vs 25 point buy comparison is that point buy characters allows players to pick all even scores, which tends to make for a more powerful character than a rolled character with the same point value. Combine that with the additional customization point buy provides, and I would argue that 4d6 is about equivalent to 25 point buy, not 28 or even 32.

If you want to combine some of the randomness and resistance to min/maxing of rolled stats with the fairness of point buy, there are several hubrid methods people have suggested. Here's a couple:

- roll 4d6, then adjust up or down to a desired point value (caveat: if you need to adjust up, you can only increase stats, if you need to adjust down, you can only lower stats)

- get a deck of cards and throw out anything except for 1-6. Deal 6 stacks of 4 cards, drop the lowest card in each stack

- roll 3 stats using 4d6; the remaining three are equal to 25 minus the first three (max 18)

 

[Epametheus]

Mine beef is it's boring. You tend to see the same scores from the same people. There's not that excitment of rolling dice where the players actually thing they can do something to have the dice roll well for them. Personally, I don't need all the players stats to be equal. And my players don't need or want that either. It's fun when the Wizard of the party has better stats in almost everything then the Ranger, I was that Ranger. I had a great time pooking fun at the wizard because stats aren't everything and I was able to over come a low Str and low Con.

I myself actually prefer everyone to be on a level playing field. Well, that and I prefer to leave as little to Lady Luck as possible.

The only score I've ever seen consistently show up under point-buy is a 14 Constitution. In our first 3E campaign our group pretty much concluded that Con was the most important stat in the game, and we haven't seen much that debunks that.

 

[bret]

I like point buy because it is more fair in that the power of the character isn't determined by one set of dice rolls. I also get really tired of rolling still-born characters.

I'm unlucky with dice. I've rolled characters with 5d6, throw lowest 2 and had 5 attributes with nothing above a 15. I've repeatedly had the campaign record for most still-born characters when a GM instituted rules for minimum attributes. I've caused GMs that never had such rules to institute them.

After decades of gaming, I'm tired of it. It isn't about min/maxing (although I am capable of that), it is about fairness.

 

[Dash Dannigan]

I prefer random generation of ability scores as a player and DM. I enjoy the challenges that can be brought about for my character and the challenges brought about for the other players as well in the formation of a party of adventurers. (a mage and a thief who are both strong and capable may have to work differently with a deadly but weak fighter, or a devout but horrendously ugly cleric).

A character with high scores is essentially your atypical hero-type (I consider all characters heroes more-or-less but these particular characters can't really hide who they are, they are just that good) and others in the game-world should see them as thus. This if rp'd well should present it's own problems in-game. (hero-worship, others coming to them with their problems constantly, if the Char fails the others they then begin to loathe and despise him, etc.)

A character with low scores has their own set of problems, being more frail, incapable, or have a disability that makes their life a bit more difficult than your average joe. (on the upswing they may be underestimated or ignored as relative non-threats as compared to the obvious hero-types, i.e. threatening hero-types get targeted first).

I enjoy the rp challenege I am confronted with each time I create a new character that emerges from the chaotic mists of random generation, not knowing what sort of character I end up with and will have to roleplay. Who would've thought I'd end up with a genius half-orc barbarian that repeatedly astounds listeners with his dramatic prose, or a clumsy wizard that is only moderately intelligent but on the whole quite capable in other things comparitive to other wizards.

Understandably this wreaks havoc with folk who have a specific archetype or concept they wish to play in particular. I for one enjoy putting a char together and only when finished do I know what I have in store for rp. Perhaps this is unusual (and I am a bit of a rp vet). Does anyone else feel this way at all?

 

[MarauderX]

I consider myself rather unlucky with dice (lost my last PC due to two 1's in a row) but I still like the randomness of the PC stats from rolling dice. I look at it as 'you wanted to be an acrobat-monk, but you weren't born that way' kind of explanation. I like the players to choose which rolls go where so that no one becomes disgruntled about the very wise thief with only a 13 Dex. You gotta save those combos for NPCs.

 

[MarauderX]

I consider myself rather unlucky with dice (lost my last PC due to two 1's in a row) but I still like the randomness of the PC stats from rolling dice. I look at it as 'you wanted to be an acrobat-monk, but you weren't born that way' kind of explanation. I like the players to choose which rolls go where so that no one becomes disgruntled about the very wise thief with only a 13 Dex. You gotta save those combos for NPCs.

 

[dcollins]

I prefer rolling dice because I think it's more fun to "discover" a character, rather than having a personality tailored for particular gaming goals. As an old-time gamer, I find it gets my creative juices flowing more to roll the abilities and then consider "what is this guy's personality like?" -- I come up with characters I never would have if I'd just sat down with a blank sheet of paper.

It also makes character generation quicker, and allows for character-development in-game and not fully formed in advance by essay-writing. And that means it's less of a blow to lose the PC to in-game death, which makes the game more adventurous and generally free-wheeling.

Furthermore, I actively dislike how point-buy "irons out" all characters to the same power level -- most interesting fantasy stories don't portray that, and some of my most interesting past D&D campaigns were interesting precisely because they had one character with monstrous abilities, and other PCs who had to take that into account.

Finally, keep in mind that ability rolling is also more inviting to new players, because then they don't have to engage in an ability-score analysis prior to playing. They can roll their scores and then learn what they mean through play. It's another example of how advancing ever-more-detailed character-creation options are envied by hard-core players (such as visit ENWorld), but seem to present a barrier to new players entering the game.

As usual, I'm fully aware that most modern hard-core players don't see things the same way.

---------
An analysis of probabilities behind 4d6-drop-one rolls: www.superdan.net/dndmisc/4d6curve.html

Gaiden's varying-number-of-dice technique looks a lot like an offshoot from the AD&D 1st Ed. Ability Generation Method V from Unearthed Arcana (p. 74).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There was a recent poll on this forum about this topic...
Point buy won, it had a 78% approval rating.