point buy

[Malin Genie]

I prefer point buy (for many of the reasonss stated above) for a regular campaign. For a one-shot, rolling can be interesting, leading to stat configurations you would never have considered buying (I once had a Str 5, Con 4 Cleric...)

 

[S'mon]

Used too ?

Were people not having fun, were published adventures cake walks ? I am just curious as to the reason for stopping.

I was balancing high stats with low starting wealth (equal to the wealth-by-CR monster table, with PC as a monster of CR = their level). The combination seemed to make PCs who started very weak compared to longer-lived PCs and became unsatisfying at higher levels. PCs suffered from "eggshell w hammer" syndrome, able to dish out huge damage but very vulnerable to slightly tougher encounters. And my group has a big spread of powergameyness; I'm hoping that PB (and now level requalisation - I just levelled all PCs up to the level of the highest PCs) will reduce the disparity in PC abilities.

 

[Black Omega]

My personal preference is all point buy. It lets me build exactly the character I'm trying to build, without praying for good rolls on stats. I'd rather come up with the character first and tyhen add in the stats that fit rather than creating a character based on the stats rolled.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Point buy, for all the reasons stated. It's much easier for me as a DM to balance power levels, and all characters start off with equal potential. I especially like 25-point buy, since you're almost guaranteed to have one weakness, plus the DM can pull monster stats right out of the MM and know they'll balance right.

 

[reanjr]

One problem with both the standard point buy system and yours is that the increase from an odd number to the next even number costs less than the next step to an odd number, even though it's more valuable. If I were to design a point buy scheme I'd do something like

That's actually intentional due to people taking an odd number that they plan on upping by 1 at 4th level. Due to the numbers used, if you try it out, it's almost impossible to have all even scores and not have points left over. So people are forced to take odd scores; this is by design.

Another thing I don't like about your system is that you give too much credit in exchange for taking very low scores. The advantage of the "law of diminishing returns" approach (the more you invest in a particular stat, the less extra benefit you get from increasing that) is that its a disincentive for extreme stats, and therefore leads to a more normal (bell-like) distribution than a linear scale would. You keep this at the high end, but at the low end your system is backwards. I think it's an improvement to allow scores below 8, but I'd sooner have -1/2 per extra point drop, so that minimaxing really requires too much min for relatively little max.

That's due to the fact that as you go lower, the problems of that score become worse and worse. For example, having a -1 penalty to your saves is almost insignificant, while having a -4 means that you save is way below what it should be to challenge foes of your level. So you get way more screwed as you go lower. It also allows alot more flexibility in whether you want one high stat or several somewhat high stats. The whole problem with the standard point buy is that you end up with blah characters. By giving them incentive to have low and high stats, they are much more interesting.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm all about pointbuy. Well, sorta -- I actually think it's a bit unnecessarily complicated; I tell my players to use the standard array and then have three attribute ups to distribute wherever they want at character creation.

As takyris said; rolling bad on an action is one thing; rolling bad on something you're stuck with for the rest of the campaign really sucks, though.

 

[diaglo]

3d6 six times in order is the only nonmunchkin way.

 

[Will]

Someone claimed that 'hey, why whine, one person is powerful, one isn't with rolling...'

How about a game in which you roll a d20. Whatever you get, that's your starting level.

BOb: A 20! Wow!
Joe: A... 3. Um
DM: Oh, don't whine, it's an opportunity for character growth! And with the rubber band, you guys will be the same level in, oh, 10 levels or so... If you survive these epic monsters.
Joe: ...

Yeah, rediculous extreme, but having a really good roll is worth 1-2 levels vs. average. There can be effectively a 4 level spread, if someone rolls very poorly and someone else rolls very well. Fun.

 

[Felix]

By giving them incentive to have low and high stats, they are much more interesting.

Mmmm, Great warrior. Wars not make one great.

Similarly, stats not make one interesting.

 

[maddman75]

I prefer point buy for the reasons mentioned. Stats in 3e are far more important than in AD&D. In AD&D you got a small bonus or penalty for a very high or very low stat. Most times they didn't matter. In 3e, the bonueses and penalties are there for anything outside of 10-11!

I find the default one too complicated. AFAIAC if you have to look it up on a table its too complicated. So I have my players select their stats so that the total modifiers equal +8, with three even and three odd. Works rather well.