D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

My issue here, really, is a balance thing. It's similar to how balance was achieved in earlier editions. The idea of balance over time. My problem though is that's not balance. It's simply multiple points of imbalance, which is not balance, IMO.

The old balance-of-imbalances schemes, of which random generation was only a small part, were mostly fair enough, but, even theoretically, only balanced over long periods of play, many characters, all played from 1st through high level, etc...

... and they could be thrown off in practice, without some fairly strong continuity. For instance, back in the day we didn't always play campaigns, sometimes we'd just play something at a given level range. I'd notice that if I offered to run something relatively low level, players would pull out a lot of multi-class non-/demi-human characters, typically with fighter one of the classes. If I offered to run higher level, I'd see a lot more single-class human characters, particularly magic-users.
When did anyone ever play those humans to get up to those levels, anyway?

 

[Lanefan]

My issue here, really, is a balance thing. It's similar to how balance was achieved in earlier editions. The idea of balance over time. My problem though is that's not balance.

Which is probably where you and I differ on a basic level: to me, balance over time is just fine; and can counterveil some day-to-day imbalances.

Sure, if we take a hundred rolls, the bell curve is going to smooth out and fair enough. Large enough sample size and all that. But, a group is never that large. The sample size in any given group is only about 4-6, maybe 10 at the most.

The campaign's lethality quotient will have something to say here. If it's a no- or low-death campaign then yes, you're running on a small sample size. A high-lethality campaign, however, will lead to a bigger sample size...and also tell us, after some analysis, whether starting stats make much of a difference.

To me, this does not add anything to the table. All it means is that Bob is now a super star because he is just that much better at pretty much everything while Dave is relagated to the side because he just can't really contribute most of the time. Particularly in a fairly well balanced campaign across all three pillars. Bob can fight, explore and talk with the best of them. Better than the best of them in some cases but rarely much worse. While Dave, with his 72 point character maybe contributes well in one pillar and then goes and plays Xbox for the other 2/3rds of the session.

Or sticks his character-imperfect nose in it anyway and does what he can, whether successful or not. (never mind that Dave rolled awesome on h.p. while Bob's a glass cannon...)

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

The old balance-of-imbalances schemes, of which random generation was only a small part, were mostly fair enough, but, even theoretically, only balanced over long periods of play, many characters, all played from 1st through high level, etc...

... and they could be thrown off in practice, without some fairly strong continuity. For instance, back in the day we didn't always play campaigns, sometimes we'd just play something at a given level range. I'd notice that if I offered to run something relatively low level, players would pull out a lot of multi-class non-/demi-human characters, typically with fighter one of the classes. If I offered to run higher level, I'd see a lot more single-class human characters, particularly magic-users.

If you're running high-level in a game with demi-human level caps then of course you're going to see more humans!

Your point is good, though: one-offs or mini-campaigns don't give long-term imbalances much if any chance to correct themselves. I always look at things from a long-campaign perspective.

When did anyone ever play those humans to get up to those levels, anyway?

Wasn't that what the 1980s were for?

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Or sticks his character-imperfect nose in it anyway and does what he can, whether successful or not. (never mind that Dave rolled awesome on h.p. while Bob's a glass cannon...)

Lanefan

Except, with the stat difference, Dave's awesome rolls just barely makes him an average character, while Bob's poor rolls results in him having the same HP as Dave.

It gets worse with casters too. Starting with an 18 stat and a +2 stat bonus race and you have a DC of 15 at 1st level. For a point buy character, you don't see that until 8th level at the earliest. Meanwhile, the high stat character has two feats on TOP of his high DC. So, he's got War Caster, granting him advantage on Con (and thus concentration) checks, can cast more spells per round since OA's trigger a spell, and, heck, for S&G's we'll give him Spell Sniper for an extra cantrip, double range and now he ignores cover for ranged attacks.

And that's not worth a level in effectiveness?

 

[Maxperson]

What do you know. We agree on something!

I agree that CR (and the XP guidelines) are just a starting point. The developers had to use a baseline, which presumably would be a 4 party team of casual players with average stats, no feats and minimal (if any) magic items.

The baseline assumed is 4d6 drop the lowest. That's the default stat generation method, so they can't assume a change to point buy or arrays.

 

[Arial Black]

It looks like you have racial bonuses to one character and not the other

The original post said that the CR system could not cope with 16/16/14/12/12/12. Since the CR system only has to cope with PCs and their ability scores after racial adjustments, then that 16/16/14/12/12/12 array must already include those racial adjustments.

 

[Oofta]

The baseline assumed is 4d6 drop the lowest. That's the default stat generation method, so they can't assume a change to point buy or arrays.

Point buy/array is roughly equivalent to the average die roll. As I've pointed out more than once. As the external site I pointed to showed.

 

[ccs]

Which is probably where you and I differ on a basic level: to me, balance over time is just fine; and can counterveil some day-to-day imbalances.

The campaign's lethality quotient will have something to say here. If it's a no- or low-death campaign then yes, you're running on a small sample size. A high-lethality campaign, however, will lead to a bigger sample size...and also tell us, after some analysis, whether starting stats make much of a difference.

Or sticks his character-imperfect nose in it anyway and does what he can, whether successful or not. (never mind that Dave rolled awesome on h.p. while Bob's a glass cannon...)

Lanefan

Exactly. Garth, my special needs 1/2ling (rolled stats, the best that could be said was "Well, he doesn't have a negative to his Con....) with his single digit stats, had more of an impact on the campaign with his bumbling than any other PC. And he was a blast to play!

Yes. The others were more effective at killing the monsters, passing checks, etc. (Which was a good thing as they had to deal with Garths effects)
But every week MY character had direct impact on steering & influencing the campaign. Good things, bad things, funny things.... And here years later he's the character players in that game remember.

Why? 1) Yes, because of his awefull stats, 2) But mostly because I DID THINGS.

You don't need comparable stats vs another PC. You need to be active. You need to do things. Participate!

 

[Arial Black]

So you have a problem with the fact that I gave them both armor? I'm pitting 4th level characters against a hell hound in a cage match. I thought I'd at least give them a fighting chance. But their AC is identical so it should have no impact on the scenario (assuming they both use heavy armor). Maybe someday I'll allow AC adjustment in my program.

I have no problem with your dwarf comparison, it's fine as is.

I just needed a better fit to examine the 16/16/14/12/12/12 array that was claimed to break the game, and barbarians need all three physical stats while heavy armour means you only need two.

The point I was going for was not that there is anything wrong with your program or your example, but to use your program to demonstrate that this game-breaking array makes zero difference in your hell hound scrap! Meaning that better stats do not inevitably result in 20-30% more combat effectiveness, or more 'powerful' characters.

When you roll, you get an array at the end. Depending on the exact system, you may or may not arrange those rolls in any order. You may have some control, but not total control of the points you rolled.

Let's say you rolled 15/14/15/12/12/12 and fancied a human barbarian. You would add +1 to Str and Con. Your job, as a barbarian, is to be an effective front line fighter. If you were to apply those racial adjustments to other abilities then you would be making an objectively less effective PC for the job role you fill.

If you used point-buy, then the same criteria (be as good as I can be in my job role) applies, and you can afford the 15+1/14/15+1 in the physical stats that your role requires. That leaves you two points, which should be put in the same remaining stat.

So the end PC in each character creation process is trying to fulfill the same basic job role criteria. The difference between the two methods is that point-buy's total control means that you can make the 'best' allocation of those points every time. This means that there is a 'correct' use of those points, and any other use of those points is deliberately gimping yourself.

You cannot play a 'smart' or 'charismatic' barbarian in point-buy, without choosing to make yourself an objectively worse barbarian! The character concepts of 'smart yet effective barbarian' and 'charismatic yet effective barbarian' are forever closed to you, because point-buy forces you to choose between 'effectiveness' and 'ribbon'. And for a barbarian, 'smart/charismatic/' are ribbons for a front line fighter.

My whole problem with what you've said on this thread has never been about which method you like. We both have acknowledged that each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. My problem is that when you say that 'point-buy lets me create the concepts I want', it misleads readers into believing that 'point-buy allows players to create whatever concept they want'. It doesn't allow them (or you) to create un-gimped smart/charismatic barbarians. And that's just one out of an infinite number of concepts that point-buy won't let players have.

Although I cannot tell you what you personally want, I do note that when you use point-buy you may have to adjust your concept slightly in order to comply with 27 points, and this doesn't bother you; you still count this as 'making the concept I want'. Yet when asked to do the exact same thing and adjust your concept to match your die rolls, then this is beyond the pale!

When making that human barbarian with point-buy, you have only four choices:-

* be the most stupid and most foolish PC
* be the most stupid and most bland PC
* be the most foolish and most bland PC
* be a gimped barbarian!

And that will be true forever! Every time you use point-buy to make a human barbarian, those are the only four choices you will ever have. This is a very far cry from 'point-buy lets you create the concept you want'!

Meanwhile, over at the rolling method, any given rolled array will only give a limited, un-gimped set of possibilities; just like point-buy. The difference is that rolling means that every time I roll a human barbarian I'm likely to get a new set of possibilities each time! I'm not limited to cookie-cutter barbarians, or min-maxed barbarian clones with 16/14/16 in their physical scores and two 8s and a 10 in their mental scores. Rolling opens up an infinite idea space of possibilities. Point-buy does not. It fails to live up to the promise that it lets players create the concepts they want.

Another, perhaps minor, effect of point-buy: when creating non-barbarian front line warrior-types, point-buy results in Str/Dex of either 16/8 or 8/16. Anything else is gimping yourself. You either wear heavy armour, or light armour. There is no place for medium armour! Heavy armour lets you dump Dex, light armour lets you dump Str, and point-buy actually rewards you for stat-dumping by giving you more points to spend elsewhere.

So you have a fighting population of two sets of clones: Str 16/Dex 8 heavy armour users, and Str 8/Dex 16 light armour users.

Meanwhile, in the more realistic rolled population of fighting types, there are plenty of combinations of Str and Dex, many of which would benefit from medium armour!

I like the realistic population better. If I'm forced to use point-buy then I'll make one or the other of those two clones, because if I don't then I've intentionally gimped myself and the party that is relying on me to do my job.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION], I didn't take time to read everything. I usually do, but simply don't have the time/energy at the moment.

We simply disagree on multiple things. I state that I can build to my character vision, which I can based on my definition of "build to my character vision". What that means may mean something different to you.

In addition, combat is only part of the game. I chose 1 scenario that shows a significant difference because people stated "it was never a big deal". That's all. In my experience, someone with a poor number that wants to play a character in heavy armor will put that number into dexterity. That's why I chose my scenario. Trying to simulate the other aspects of the game or impact of dissimilar saving throws is beyond the scope of what I want to do. How much ability scores matter outside of the more concrete rules of combat will vary wildly.

No disrespect, but what are you even arguing about? That my opinion on what "build to my character vision" means is wrong? That you enjoy variability? We stated our opinions 50+ pages ago. Why keep harping on it?

Apologies for not going through your post, but I haven't had enough caffeine and I may be offline off and on for the next week or so.