D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Arial Black]

But, at that point, aren't we back to "I die roll so I can play more powerful characters"? I mean, your concept here is strong, intelligent, perceptive, agile AND tough. The only thing he isn't is charismatic (and he might very well be if you rolled well enough).

I'm not really interested in playing or playing with Mary Sue characters that are good at everything.

There are many, many concepts that are not Mary-Sue but still don't add up to exactly 27 points.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Before you mention 'hung up on the numbers', remember that you say that while being hung up on 27 points!

You and Oofta seem desperate to paint eachother as 'hung up on the numbers,' when, clearly, neither of you are putting forth such positions for yourselves.

27 is a number, sure, but it's just what one point buy system happens to use. D&D's used 25 and even 32 at other points, IIRC. The point is not the number, but that giving everyone the chance to design from the same number of points is less likely to be too imbalanced (...the stats can still be imbalanced, though...).

My entire debate with you is centered around a claim which is demonstrably not true: the claim that 'point-buy lets players play the concept they want and rolling doesn't'.

Point-buy very clearly /does/ let players play the concept they want, assuming said concept comes to them prior to chargen, that is. They may have to "compromise" it slightly so that /everyone/ at the table gets to do so.

Conversely, random generation is ideal when you don't have an idea in mind. You roll stats and see what they inspire. You may not even avail yourself of re-arranging them (if that's even an option), because the combination you roll inspires something cool. But, if you come to it with a concept already in mind, and the de-facto 'array' you roll for yourself doesn't fit it, or, if you're using the purity of roll-in-order the stats you get may just be entirely wrong for the concept.

It's not that you /can't/ build-to-concept with random generation, it's just that it might fail catastrophically, at which point, coming up with a different concept inspired by the results generated, and building to /that/ concept, may be the better way to go.

The 'freely choose your stats to match you concept' method that I favour has its own weaknesses, including its unsuitability for use in tournaments or organised play, and the ability to be easily abused if the players have wildly divergent ideas about appropriate power levels.

In essence, it can't be used to 'play exactly what you want,' because what another player wants may completely undermine it. Point-buy, OTOH, allows you /all/ to play what you want.
Y'know, unless you get 'hung up on the numbers.'

So 'point-buy lets people play the concept they want', does it?

Yes, it does. That's a strength of any build system. It lets /everyone at the table/ play the character they want, not just the one that gets luck on some dice rolls, or the one that aggressively writes down the highest numbers in the game of cosmic-one-up-manship of an undiscipline freeform chargen.

It lets you play the character you want if you want the strong-but-dumb barbarian, but does not let you play the equally strong but smart barbarian!

Actually, it does. He may have some other lower stats, though.

In life, you can get to be stronger by lifting weights, exercise, that kind if thing. In point-buy, you get stronger by banging your head against a brick wall until you lower your intelligence!

Look around you. In real life, people are not made equal.

D&D isn't real life, it's a game. That line of argument is a profound category error. Don't bother going there again.

I grant that 'balance' has its place, and how valuable balance is depends on the game. But in terms of realising concepts we want to play, the smart, charismatic 'noble savage' that's just as strong, tough and agile as any barbarian (like Tarzan) are perfectly valid concepts, and point-buy will not model that.

A 'paragon' sort of character is a reasonable concepts for some genres, sure. D&D clearly doesn't model anything of the sort, however, or it wouldn't have classes, nor, for that matter, be played in a group, it'd be one Paragon-hero-player and one DM. (Either that or it would extend point-build beyond just stats, like Hero did. In Hero, you could play a paragon with all-human-maximum stats across the board, it cost, IIRC, 165 points, and characters ran 200+ points, so you weren't a whole lot else, but you could do it.)

It just means that the claim of 'point-buy lets you play the concept you want' is untrue.

Say you decide you want to play your paragon who is just as strong as the strongest brute, but also brilliant &c. You sit down, roll him up using 1e DMG method III and get a bunch of 15s, 16s, & 17s, and, joy, a 17 (+1 hit & damage!) is in STR. Then someone else sits down, same method and happens to roll an 18/00 strength (+3 hit/+6 damage). Your concept is as dead in the water, as it would be if you were doing point-buy in a WotC ed and had had to settle for a 13 STR (+1) to his 16(+3).
Nor does write-down-whatever work for you. You sit down, create your paragon, aggressively with a slate of 18s. You're not alone, oh, and someone else wrote down a 24 STR.

In order to deny the legitimate advantage of build systems - they let you build-to-concept the character you want to play - you have set a standard for 'play the character you want' that no chargen method can meet.
That's a meaningless standard.

 

[Oofta]

If the method does not cater for concepts that don't add up to exactly 27 points, and there are players that have such concepts, then point-buy does not let those players play the concepts they want.

Before you mention 'hung up on the numbers', remember that you say that while being hung up on 27 points!

I only keep mentioning it because your idea of a character concept seems to involve exact numbers. To me, characters aren't numbers. The numbers express the general attributes and abilities of a character. There is no difference between a 13 and a 14 from a character description standpoint, although there is obviously a numerical impact on game mechanics.

My entire debate with you is centered around a claim which is demonstrably not true I disagree with: the claim that 'point-buy lets players play the concept they want and rolling doesn't'.

I keep having to fix that for you.

You decide that a character concept is that the character must have a 14 strength, and then argue that since I can't always get a 14 strength that it's a "fact". It's not. My character concept is that my character is stronger than average.

Anyone posting anything as 'fact' on these forums is doing so knowing that others will point out factual inaccuracies. That's what I've been doing in regards to that false claim. I've never said that you are wrong to prefer point-buy, or wrong to mention the virtues of that method; just wrong about that particular claim.

No, you've been claiming that your definition of character vision is the only way to envision characters. If I said "I determine attributes of my character by deciding what the ability score numbers should be and use point buy to get those numbers" then you may have a point. I don't say that, so what you are saying is not "fact".

If you can't grasp the difference we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Arial Black]

I only keep mentioning it because your idea of a character concept seems to involve exact numbers. To me, characters aren't numbers. The numbers express the general attributes and abilities of a character. There is no difference between a 13 and a 14 from a character description standpoint, although there is obviously a numerical impact on game mechanics.

But there is a difference between 'above average' 11 and 'strongest man in the village' 18. They are different concepts AND they require different numbers to model them.

I keep having to fix that for you change what you wrote to something you didn't mean and argue against that.

Easy, but of no value.

You decide that a character concept is that the character must have a 14 strength, and then argue that since I can't always get a 14 strength that it's a "fact". It's not. My character concept is that my character is stronger than average.

My concept is 'the strongest man in the village'. The village's population is around....let's see...two hundred-and-sixteen. What number models that?

No, you've been claiming that your definition of character vision is the only way to envision characters. If I said "I determine attributes of my character by deciding what the ability score numbers should be and use point buy to get those numbers" then you may have a point. I don't say that, so what you are saying is not "fact".

If you can't grasp the difference we have nothing to discuss.

Your claim is that point-buy allows players to play the concept they want, and rolling doesn't, and this is why you prefer point-buy.

You can prefer point-buy if you want, you can point out its actual advantages all you want, and I wouldn't have anything to object to. What I object to is that false claim.

As to 'definition of character vision', the point is that neither you nor I can claim ownership of that. The point is that each player has his own, and for your claim to be true then the point-buy method must be able to allow all players to make the concept they want. That is a demonstrably false claim, and trivial to demonstrate at that, since to disprove it I only need a single player who is unable to realise their concept in 27 points.

 

[Oofta]

You can prefer point-buy if you want, you can point out its actual advantages all you want, and I wouldn't have anything to object to. What I object to is that false claim.

Much like I accept that my character can't be Superman because of game limitations, I also accept that I can't have a character concept of "Strongest man to ever walk the planet". It's not how the game works. I shouldn't have to write "you can build the character you want within limits of the game rules" because that should just be a given.

So what I object to is that you keep defining what I mean by character concept for me. By my definition of character concept I can always and have always been able to build the characters that I want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The numbers express the general attributes and abilities of a character. There is no difference between a 13 and a 14 from a character description standpoint, although there is obviously a numerical impact on game mechanics.

Which does affect how it models a concept. If you want a 'strong' character, 13 might let you lift a bit more than 12, but the +1 bonus is probably more significant.

But, it's also all relative. You are a 'strong character' if you have a 14, and the rest of the party has 8,10,13, and 16. And the guy with the 16 is clearly also a strong character, and can feel safe in his concept of 'big dumb guy.' OTOH, it's harder to paint yourself as a 'strong character' with your 14, when the next-lowest STR in the party is a 16, and everyone else is 18+. You're prettymuch the weak guy, at that point.

Of course, it also gets into the world, if you're constantly meeting 18 STR blacksmiths and 24 STR town guards, it's different than if the strongest NPC you ever meet has a 14.

But there is a difference between 'above average' 11 and 'strongest man in the village' 18.

In a village implied by ordinary people statted with the ol' 3-18 bell curve, the strongest man probably doesn't have an 18, unless it's rather large for a medieval village. Maybe a village of 500 or so, including women and children.

My concept is 'the strongest man in the village'. The village's population is around....let's see...two hundred-and-sixteen. What number models that?

Since you specified /man/ and villages tend to have women & children, too, maybe a 16 or 17. If everyone's rolling 3d6.
OTOH, if almost everyone else in the village is a straight-10 commoner NPC, with a few using the 13-STR 'guard' stats, and the local blacksmith has a 14 (because someone up thread went there, I think), 15 should do it.

Like I told Oofta, it's relative.

Your claim is that point-buy allows players to play the concept they want, and rolling doesn't

And it's true, if you take into account all the players at the table, all the time. Sure, rolling will let you play exactly the character you want, some of the time - when you happen to roll just the right stats - but it will fail you the rest of the time. Point buy will let everyone play the character they want, which may mean some of them have to curb their expectations as to what exact numbers may be involved in modeling what they want, relative to what everyone else wants.

As to 'definition of character vision', the point is that neither you nor I can claim ownership of that. The point is that each player has his own, and for your claim to be true then the point-buy method must be able to allow all players to make the concept they want.

Exactly, and that's why the strength you do grudgingly acknowledge - balance - is key. We don't all have the same vision of character concepts, the game gives us stats with which to start reconciling those visions. By putting limits and giving context to those stats, point-buy lets everyone play the character they want - as long as they don't get hung up on numbers or on concepts outside the scope of the game.
(And, it's worth noting that random generation also gives a context, the 3d6 bell-curve, and limits, or, rather, bounds, it just doesn't necessarily generate the character you wanted, even in that context, and with everyone necessarily being within those bounds.)

to disprove it I only need a single player who is unable to realise their concept in 27 points.

Again, you've resorted to a litmus test that nothing can pass. To disprove a claim about a system, you need only find one player who isn't satisfied with it? That's easy, this board is choked with dissatisfaction! Finding the player who wants to play Hercules instead of Little John in a Robin-Hood game is not hard. Jerks are plentiful.

If, OTOH, we stick to players who are going to be reasonable, yeah, everyone at the table can realize their concept - to the standards of the game and in the context of the party & the corresponding setting.

Yes, some concepts are simply out of bounds, inappropriate to the campaign in some way. If the DM wants a higher-power campaign, he'll use more than 27 points.

Much like I accept that my character can't be Superman because of game limitations, I also accept that I can't have a character concept of "Strongest man to ever walk the planet". It's not how the game works.

5e has a cap on STR, so it works fine, you're tied for 'strongest' with everyone else who has ever had a 20. It'll take you some ASIs, but you'll get there.

In 1e, you'd've needed an 18/00 you'd only have to roll up 21,600 characters (3d6, in order) to be reasonably certain of getting one. And, you'd still be tied with a lot of other humans assuming a largish population...

 

[Oofta]

Which does affect how it models a concept. If you want a 'strong' character, 13 might let you lift a bit more than 12, but the +1 bonus is probably more significant.

But, it's also all relative. You are a 'strong character' if you have a 14, and the rest of the party has 8,10,13, and 16. And the guy with the 16 is clearly also a strong character, and can feel safe in his concept of 'big dumb guy.' OTOH, it's harder to paint yourself as a 'strong character' with your 14, when the next-lowest STR in the party is a 16, and everyone else is 18+. You're prettymuch the weak guy, at that point.

I may quibble with the concept that 3d6 is a good representation of society's ability distribution at large, but for the most part I agree. I may consider myself fairly strong, but I can't hold a candle to Tom Magee in the dead lift who picked up 1,180 pounds. Then again I've never met Tom and only know he exists because of wikipedia. I've always assumed that most blacksmiths would be around 14ish strength. There are always exceptions of course.

In pre-modern societies, most people only ever met people within a 20-40 mile radius of where they were born.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I may quibble with the concept that 3d6 is a good representation of society's ability distribution at large, but for the most part I agree.

It's what D&D originally used, and it's probably not terrible. The no-bonus 10 & 11 is still right dead on the 3d6 average.

By giving 'commoners' straight 10s, 5e does kinda imply that vast swaths of the population have a much tighter distribution, though.

In pre-modern societies, most people only ever met people within a 20-40 mile radius of where they were born.

That's why news & stories from that wandering Bard were so highly valued.

 

[Lanefan]

Which edition are you referring to?

That's not 2nd edition.

No, and isn't supposed to be. Both the conversation and the examples were referring to 1e and its Unearthed Arcana (1985), and comparing a bland boring no-spec. no-bonus 1e Fighter to a tricked-out max-rolled specialized version.

And, just to put that in perspective, remember these are editions where the monsters didn't have a lot of HP. 5/HD on average, with no Con bonuses. A troll averages 33 hp. Mr. Specialized 2e fighter with two weapons and an 18 percentile strength deals up to 45 points of damage in a single round to a large creature at 1st level. Even without percentile strength, he's still dealing up to 36 (longsword and shortsword). Fighters were combat GODS in 2ed.

And in 1e, yet people still complain about wizards ruling the roost.

Lan-"charter member of the Fighters' union since 1984"-efan

 

[Oofta]

It's what D&D originally used, and it's probably not terrible. The no-bonus 10 & 11 is still right dead on the 3d6 average.

By giving 'commoners' straight 10s, 5e does kinda imply that vast swaths of the population have a much tighter distribution, though.

That's why news & stories from that wandering Bard were so highly valued.

Maybe I'm just biased. I grew up in a small town (population 450) and I doubt there were 2 people in the county, much less the town with genius level IQs. I mean, there was one, but I don't live there any more.