D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

It all started when you made the claim that point-buy let's you make the PC you want.

Which is essentially true - it gives you the greatest degrees of freedom in designing your character, so you can build to a specific concept, every time. You may not get the specific numbers you'd ideally want (right away, there will be ASIs later), but you can create the PC you want.

Some concepts are out of bounds, of course, the straight-18 paragon, for instance, gets in the way of all good-at-a-particular-thing concepts. That array & point-buy prevent such concepts entirely, actually keeps more valid concepts on the table - ultimately, it speaks to array being the best for balance, and point-buy the second-best (because it's more susceptible to optimization).

I then pointed out that since the general population is assumed to be generated by the 3d6 bell curve, and that any NPC is hypothetically a valid PC, that any score from 3 to 18 is a valid score for a PC.

Which is, indeed the current, bizarre, convoluted point of contention, and one to which there is no clear resolution. 3d6 has a strong history in D&D tradition, and what 5e presents is reasonably consistent with it, without actually explicitly enshrining it. It's absurd to argue the 3d6 bellcurve isn't ingrained in D&D, but neither is it tenable to argue it a one-true-way that brooks no variations.

I like the point buy as best and really only fair solution.

Standard array while equaly fair is boring as it makes more or less whole party same.

Rolling is also equally fair - everyone rolls using the same method and has the same chance of getting good, fair, or bad stats out of it.

I do however feel that the rolling works best in your classic 1e, 2e and BECMI styled games which [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] runs or is involved in.

'Works best' only in the sense that that's how it was back then and nothing evokes the past like going back and doing it the same way. In the same sense, actually running 1e/2e/BECMI would be 'better' than styling 5e after it.

The horse was dead a long time ago. My statement was that "I've always been able to [build the character I had envisioned] with point buy.". I've since clarified that multiple times. I can't build superman, I can't build someone with all 18s or all 3s

The key is really when you do the envisioning. If you go into the process with a character concept already in mind, point-buy is better than array is better than random. If you go into the process blank and just hope something will come to you as you get started, random is better (because it might spark an idea, or give you an 'opportunity' to play a wildly over- or under- powered concept) than point-buy is better than array.

Or is it just:

1) I really want 3d6 bell curve to matter so therefore it does.
2) The 5E rulebook never mentions rolling 3d6 for commoners
3) go to step 1

No. The 3d6 bell curve is part of D&D's history & traditions, 5e still references it, in everything from the range of stats, to the straight-10s commoner, to the 4d6, keep the three highest default generation method.
Yes, it's significant, no, it's not an absolute OTW.

 

[Razamis]

Point buy/Standard Array is what the game is balanced around. All of the classes, all of the monsters, spell effects, everything, is all balanced on the assumption of that method of building your character and it makes a huge difference if you deviate from that, for the worse.

Rolling for stats is pointless, it either gives you a turd character, an OP character, both of which are un-fun for other players at the table, or finally a well balanced character, in which case you could have just used point buy.

Rolling stats is more fun is not a valid argument. Rolling stats takes a few minutes and is over after that point. While using point buy/standard array, may be less fun for a few minutes, is balanced and fun for the entire rest of the campaign.

Rolling for stats does not allow the player to create the character that they actually want to play, while the point buy system allows them to live the fantasy that they have thought up for their character, which is better.

Take the fighter class for example, part of the benefit to being that class is that they get two extra ASI, or.. a +4 total more stats. So if the fighter rolls 4 lower than the paladin rolls, the fighter just "lost" two of his class features. Unacceptable.

 

[Lanefan]

I might have a skewed perception, and I expect not everyone to agree with me on this, but the rolling system is ideal where the challenge/story/adventure is the group's foremost concern, while characters come secondary. That is not to say characters are not important or are easily disposable.

[raises his tower shield, expecting a rain of pretzels and empty beer cans]

No flying pretzels or beer cans from this direction.

In early editions the designers and set things up to mitigate things somewhat, if you didn't roll at least two 15s you rerolled.

While Gygax suggests a character without at least 2 15+ stats is at a disadvantage, there's no official rule anywhere calling for a reroll in such a case. You're probably thinking of a houserule you had.

3e also set things up to mitigate things somewhat. You re-rolled if your bonuses totaled 0 or lower or if your highest stat was 13 or lower.

This, on the other hand, is official 3e RAW...and almost exactly mirrors what I'd already been using as a guideline since about 1988.

... usually a lower stat PC ended up looting his stuff off his dead corpse. RIP high stat boy.

Very true, though people here don't seem to want to believe it. Starting stats don't play that much of a role in long-term survivability, given a reasonably lethal campaign.

Lan-"looting 'better' characters since the dawn of time"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Point buy/Standard Array is what the game is balanced around. All of the classes, all of the monsters, spell effects, everything, is all balanced on the assumption of that method of building your character and it makes a huge difference if you deviate from that, for the worse.

Assuming you're that concerned about fine-tuned balance. Some of us aren't...

Rolling for stats is pointless, it either gives you a turd character, an OP character, both of which are un-fun for other players at the table, or finally a well balanced character, in which case you could have just used point buy.

Rolling stats is more fun is not a valid argument. Rolling stats takes a few minutes and is over after that point. While using point buy/standard array, may be less fun for a few minutes, is balanced and fun for the entire rest of the campaign.

"Entire rest of the campaign" assumes one or more of: a) low or no lethality, b) low or no character turnover for other reasons e.g. retirement, or c) a short enough campaign that internal-party balance doesn't really have time to matter anyway. None of these apply to me, and I suspect I'm far from alone in this.

Lanefan

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Balance has never been much of a concern at my table, and nobody gets worked up over the stat differences. A prime example in my current game was the Paladin, he was a stat monster. He's dead. The fighter was never complaining about "losing" features due to him being so much better stat-wise. They died about 6 seconds apart in the end.

 

[Oofta]

"Entire rest of the campaign" assumes one or more of: a) low or no lethality, b) low or no character turnover for other reasons e.g. retirement, or c) a short enough campaign that internal-party balance doesn't really have time to matter anyway. None of these apply to me, and I suspect I'm far from alone in this.

Lanefan

I'm curious. What's the fatality level in your campaign? I suspect that most people - myself included* - expect to play their character for the length of the campaign. In addition, most campaigns I've been involved in last a year or more. If I remember correctly around a year is a general average they found when designing 5E.

There are all types of games, all types of groups. Perma-death is rare in the games I've played unless the player wanted the character to die for some reason.

*unless I'm playing someone with elven blood, then they don't get past 2nd level

 

[Yardiff]

While Gygax suggests a character without at least 2 15+ stats is at a disadvantage, there's no official rule anywhere calling for a reroll in such a case. You're probably thinking of a houserule you had.

Lan-"looting 'better' characters since the dawn of time"-efan

I had posted this before, you either have forgotten or missed.

1e PHB pg 9.

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Assuming you're that concerned about fine-tuned balance. Some of us aren't...

Admittedly, 5e balance is not remotely 'fine-tuned' to begin with, but the potential imbalance from random stats can be pretty profound. It's not so much a matter of not caring if one PC has far better stats than another, as it must be liking it that way, now & then.

"Entire rest of the campaign" assumes...

In context, it assumes that the campaign lasts significantly more than the "few minutes" it takes to generate the character.

I'm curious. What's the fatality level in your campaign?

Lan plays 1e. 1e PCs are like the atoms of matter hanging around after symmetry breaks. Miraculous, in a way, but all there is.

Very true, though people here don't seem to want to believe it. Starting stats don't play that much of a role in long-term survivability, given a reasonably lethal campaign.

Edit: I suppose, on second thought, if you don't count death at 1st level against "long-term survivability," it could work out that way, though.

I've always found they do, under random generation, that is - at least, certain stats, like DEX or CON or primary stats. I mean, more hps or more AC or better at what you do helps you survive, obviously. But there's a perverse player-side aspect to it, too: High-stat characters, though often the most capable in the party, sometimes are the most cautious, because, now that you've finally gotten the stats to unlock whatever coveted class/MAD-build you've been dying to play, you're not going to just, well, let it die. Conversely, even if re-rolls aren't allowed, rolling a new character usually is, so playing less cautiously - including drinking from every magic pool, and donning every suspicious magic item, drawing the limit from that Deck of Many Things, etc - can get you a better character, one way or another.

Of course, depending on the DM the classic game could be so randomly (or certainly) deadly that player motivation & skill might not amount to a lot...
...then there's perverse DM-side aspects to the wonderfully or pitifully rolled PC....

Very true, though people here don't seem to want to believe it. Starting stats don't play that much of a role in long-term survivability, given a reasonably lethal campaign.

I've always found they do, under random generation, that is - at least, certain stats, like DEX or CON or primary stats. I mean, more hps or more AC or better at what you do helps you survive, obviously. But there's a perverse player-side aspect to it, too: High-stat characters, though often the most capable in the party, sometimes are the most cautious, because, now that you've finally gotten the stats to unlock whatever coveted class/MAD-build you've been dying to play, you're not going to just, well, let it die. Conversely, even if re-rolls aren't allowed, rolling a new character usually is, so playing less cautiously - including drinking from every magic pool, and donning every suspicious magic item, drawing the limit from that Deck of Many Things, etc - can get you a better character, one way or another.

Of course, depending on the DM the classic game could be so randomly (or certainly) deadly that player motivation & skill might not amount to a lot...
...then there's perverse DM-side aspects to the wonderfully or pitifully rolled PC....

 

[Arial Black]

Rolling, I hate with passion. Unless it is bordered with high or low score limits(which is another point buy method(worse) in effect).

Also it leads to too much power spread between characters. From "ubermench" to more or less candidates for disability aid.

There are random stat generation methods which are guaranteed to be 'fair', not only in terms of equal starting chances (roulette, etc.) but also in terms of results.

I posted one such method earlier in this thread: the one where you deal cards to each stat. Random, but since everyone has the same cards and uses them all, every PC ends up with the same stat total.

'The rolling method' is actually many different variations of rolling, each (usually) mitigating one, some or all of the disadvantages of 'pure rolling', while retaining the advantages.

Point-buy has advantages/disadvantages too (although not every claimed advantage is actually true), but I haven't come across any point-buy variations that mitigate the disadvantages of point-buy.

 

[Caliban]

There are random stat generation methods which are guaranteed to be 'fair', not only in terms of equal starting chances (roulette, etc.) but also in terms of results.

I posted one such method earlier in this thread: the one where you deal cards to each stat. Random, but since everyone has the same cards and uses them all, every PC ends up with the same stat total.

'The rolling method' is actually many different variations of rolling, each (usually) mitigating one, some or all of the disadvantages of 'pure rolling', while retaining the advantages.

Point-buy has advantages/disadvantages too (although not every claimed advantage is actually true), but I haven't come across any point-buy variations that mitigate the disadvantages of point-buy.

What you consider disadvantages. For those of us who don't share that particular opinion, point buy works just fine.