Point Buy vs. Die Rolling Ability Scores

[Crothian]

Anyway, player characters *are* created equal, overall. (That is, with the exceptions that can be brought about by the dice roll method.) Sure, some characters are better in combat than others, and some are better using non-combat skills than others; some are better in dungeons; others are better in wilderness; others still, in cities. But overall, D&D characters are pretty equal. They're designed to be that way.

So, for the past 2 years all the talk of the cleric being powerful, and the Ranger being weak, the halfling being better then the half orc and half elf; that's all wrong? So, high level Wizards are equal to high level Bards in ability? And design choices like feats and skills are always going to be equal as well?

There are a lot of varibles in the game in choices, I'm not talking about dice at all. And the more sourcebooks that are used the more varied these choices can be. Embrace the differences in characters, learn that playing a weaker character can be fun. Of course if you take the attitude that the character sucks because the stats are lower, then you're just not going to have fun.

 

[Azlan]

So, for the past 2 years all the talk of the cleric being powerful, and the Ranger being weak, the halfling being better then the half orc and half elf; that's all wrong?

Oh, I'm sure those classes could be tweaked a little more to make them more equal than they already are. And I'm sure there are lots of people whose idea of a ranger (or whatever their particular "misrepresnted" or "mistreated" class might be) is not the same as the one(s) presented by 3E D&D. But I stand by my original statement: Overall, the classes are equal.

So, high level Wizards are equal to high level Bards in ability?

Equal in what? Spell-casting ability? Well, of course not. But a bard is much more than just a spell caster.

And design choices like feats and skills are always going to be equal as well?

I'll admit, the feats and skills presented in the 3E D&D PH are not all equal in overall value. (For example, Toughness gives you an edge at 1st level, and maybe even a little at 2nd level, but after that, it's pretty lame. And, as most people here seem to agree, Skill Focus should give you +3, not +3.) But at least players are able to *choose* which feats and skills they take -- it is not determined for them by random dice rolls.

 

[Crothian]

Oh, I'm sure those classes could be tweaked a little more to make them more equal than they already are. And I'm sure there are lots of people whose idea of a ranger (or whatever their particular "misrepresnted" or "mistreated" class might be) is not the same as the one(s) presented by 3E D&D. But I stand by my original statement: Overall, the classes are equal.

Well, there are many people who disagree. You should go through and look at at some of the threads we've had.

I'll admit, the feats and skills presented in the 3E D&D PH are not all equal in overall value. (For example, Toughness gives you an edge at 1st level, and maybe even a little at 2nd level, but after that, it's pretty lame. And, as most people here seem to agree, Skill Focus should give you +3, not +3.) But at least players are able to *choose* which feats and skills they take -- it is not determined for them by random dice rolls.

Of course it's a choice, that's sort of why I made about no dice at all in this area. But playters don't always make the best descisoins to keep power equal. Sometime they choose things for role playing reasons so that 9th level Barbarian takes toughness because he feels it fits the character.

So, what about rolling for HP? That also creates a huge disarray in power levels. You get Fighters with a few more HP s then the bard or rogue, or the Wizard who has 12 HP at 5th level and the Barbarian is close to 60.

 

[Azlan]

So, what about rolling for HP? That also creates a huge disarray in power levels. You get Fighters with a few more HP s then the bard or rogue, or the Wizard who has 12 HP at 5th level and the Barbarian is close to 60.

Yep. That's pretty much my summation of it, too. That's why I make my players use the "Fixed Hit Points" method (as given in the DM's Guide). I am consistent in that everything among players and their characters be fair and square.

 

[Crothian]

Yep. That's pretty much my summation of it, too. That's why I make my players use the "Fixed Hit Points" method (as given in the DM's Guide). I am consistent in that everything among players and their characters be fair and square.

So, you really like the fixed rates of as much as possible. Out of curiosity why D&D then? Obviously it works for you as you can use the variants for what you like, but there just seem to be other systems more aimed at that playing style. For instance the point based games that have some sort of wound system like Storyteller and Shadowrun.

Also, would you quite a game that did use die rolls for attributes and HP? For me I perfer the die rolls but I have no problem with the other way as well. I can have fun with both. I do know people who cannot and have seen people quite over it.

 

[Azlan]

So, you really like the fixed rates of as much as possible. Out of curiosity why D&D then?

As far as character creation goes, there are only two rules variants I'm using, and both are "official", since they're given in the DM's Guide. So, in this regard, why not D&D?

Also, would you quit a game that did use die rolls for attributes and HP? For me I perfer the die rolls but I have no problem with the other way as well. I can have fun with both. I do know people who cannot and have seen people quite over it.

I would probably quit playing if one of the following happened....

1.) Another player in the group had gotten lucky with the dice and rolled up a super character, and that character frequently overshadowed the other player characters, hogging up much of the limelight.

2.) I was the one who got lucky with the dice and rolled up a super character; in which case, I would feel uncomfortable because I had an unfair advantage -- due only to sheer luck, and nothing I warranted or earned -- over my fellow players. I'd be even more compelled to quit if I sensed resentment coming from my fellow players over my super character, as I have seen not-so-lucky players sometimes do.

I would definitely quit if the player from situation #1 bullied the other players with his super character, threatening to engage in combat with their characters if they disagreed with him. ("I'm just roleplaying my character," he says. Yeah, right.) And believe me, I've seen this sort of thing happen more than once, in different campaigns.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

I'm surprised that this thread has gone on so long after everyone stated their preference one way or the other. But Point Buy vs. Die Rolling apparently is a matter of religious conviction around here. A lot of folks seem determined to try to convert the heathens who believe in the other method to the one truth faith.

I will join the chorus of those who have found that the die rolling method can lead to inequities that can strain a campaign. While I am a notoriously unlucky die roller in combat, I have always been exceeding lucky at die rolling in character generation & in hit points. Thus the characters I have played in D&D campaigns that used die rolling for stat generation - which was all of them in the early years of the game - tended to be more powerful than the others in the group. When the crybabies in the game whined about it, I shrugged & pointed out that all my characters had been rolled legitimately in front of the DM & that they should just learn to enjoy roleplaying a weaker character. Strangely enough they didn't much like that advice. Instead they usually convinced the DM to allow ever more arcane die rolling methods to give them a chance to play an uber-character too. Some DMs also tried to rebalance this imbalance by giving the weaker characters more powerful magical items. In any event, the DMs that knuckled under to this pressure usually ended up losing control of their campaigns as the challenge of dealing with a party of super-characters became too great for them.

After being exposed to other systems that did have point buy character generation, I began using it in the campaigns I DMed. Other than a few munchkin players, I had no problems with it. My players were thrilled to be able to design more-or-less exactly the kind of character that they actually wanted to roleplay, instead of trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. There were a few players who were daunted by point buy, afraid that they would design a sub-optimal character, but as DM I was usually able to give them the advice they needed to build an effective version of their desire.

I liked point buy as a player too. I recall a 2E campaign in which a friend & I were invited to play after all of the campaign's fighters had quit or died. The party wanted both of us to play fighter-types to restore party balance. The other player & I decided to play a paladin & a ranger. Working together, we were able to design characters under the point buy system that, while completely different, were almost exactly equal in overall combat ability. Neither of us felt overshadowed in combat. (The 2 characters' roleplaying interaction was hysterical too, but that is besides the point...)

I felt the bitter side of die rolling in a different 2E campaign a few years back. The DM invited me to play, then designed all of the characters for the campaign. I was a little disappointed that I didn't get to build the character myself, but I looked forward to the challenge of roleplaying whatever I got. The DM made it clear that all character stats were to be secret. This didn't bother me at all - they were metagame information after all, & since the DM had gone to the trouble of designing them, I assumed that they would be balanced. I was handed one of the 2 fighter-types - another ranger. I had been hoping for a spellcaster, but went to work designing a ranger quite different than any I had played before. And I had a lot of fun with the concept, until in every combat I was completely being outfought by the party paladin. I couldn't understand it - tactically I was doing the right things, but even discounting the luck factor, the other character was way more effective. Eventually my metagame knowledge began to explain why - the paladin was built on a lot more points than my character was. I sucked it up & played on, but I began to understand what it was like for all of those players years before forced to play alongside my uber-characters. But then that is karma - what goes around, comes around.

Anyway, the paladin player eventually dropped out of the campaign for personal reasons. The monsters had a field day beating the heck out of my character as he was forced to try to fill the vacuum left by the absence of the uber-character. The party soon realized that it needed to recruit a real melee fighter to join the group or else combat was going to be a bloody uncomfortable mess for all concerned. A new player was recruited, & the DM allowed him to roll up his character. The player had hot dice that day & a true melee combat monster was born. The player designed a munchkin dual wielding weapon-specialized whirling dervish of death. Privately I pointed out to the DM that such a character would make combats hard to balance, but the DM dismissed my concerns & was vaguely insulted at the suggestion. After a month of the uber-character obliterating everything in his path, the DM quit the campaign out of frustration.

So my experiences with die rolling character generation systems have been spectacularly bad, but YMMV.