Should point buy be discouraged?

[hanez]

I think my method is the best. One 18, one 16, two 14s, one 12, and and a 10. Spread em how you like boys.

My players love it, and results in good, but not game breaking characters.

 

[Alzrius]

Of course they would. If they rolled an 18, they aren't suddenly going to put that score somewhere else. You will always put your highest score in the stat that you need the most for the class you want to play.

That's not the point of that paragraph though; if they'd rolled an 18, that'd mean that there were lots of other rolls that weren't 18 (presuming that they were using a system where you got to assign your rolls to your ability scores). This was them saying that they had already determined that they were going to have an 18 regardless of anything else.

Thats part of it. I want to determine the PC I play, not let the dice pick for me. If you want a character to organically grow from rolling thats cool, but most people don't play that way. They have a concept in mind and want to recreate it on paper.

Let's not get into "most people" stuff. There is no consensus; hence this thread.

But the other and equally important part is fairness and balance in play. Its great if you are the guy that lucked out and rolled 16's, 17's and 18's for all your stats. But sucks to be the guy that rolled 12's or less for everything. So what do you do in that scenario? Force them to play that PC? Knowing that that the first thing they are going to want to do is off themselves so they can make a new one? How is that fun? Or watching them perpetually be frustrated as the guy with the uber stats steals the spotlight?

I like to think that he'd realize that you can still have fun as a character who isn't uber-powered in everything, and even have fun playing a guy who's not so great at anything. That doesn't make the character crippled; it just makes them not-overpowered.

For what it's worth, I've got a deal with my gaming group that the next time I'm making a character (when someone else GMs and I'm a PC), that I'll use the 3d6 method of assign-them-as-you-roll-them. They think I'm insane, but I want to show them that it can be fun.

And despite claims to the contrary, you can't RP bad stats into better ones. No matter how much you envision your thief as a daring acrobat. If his Dex is a 12, he will consistently be outshined and outperformed by the PC who has the 18.

Except when the dice or role-playing decree otherwise. It's not always about the high stats. (And yes, I can hear the counter-argument of "if it's not always about the high stats, then why do you care if they point-buy high stats?" I care because oftentimes, PCs with high stats go out of their way to make sure that it's always about having those high stats. Less uber-ness tends to aid in focusing in other directions.)

Or do you let them reroll? Well, if everyone rerolls their way into better stats, just give them all 16's or 18's and be done with it or let them pick the stats they feel are appropriate. Just dispense with the farce of rolling altogether.

In the last PF game I played before the DM came to his senses, we all rolled 16's or better except one guy who rolled 10's or less. The DM let him reroll five sets of stats before he too finally got to the promised land of uber stats. Then the DM threw up his hands a few levels into the game because he felt we were all too powerful. Well, duh.

So he switched to point buy and it ceased to be an issue.

I would imagine so, considering that they were essentially using a point-buy with dice.

Rolled stats will be unfair or unfun at least some of the time regardless of game mechanics.

I don't think this is true, but take that with a grain of salt, as there's a maxim I believe in: "categorical statements are always bad."

 

[nightwalker450]

Unless they can somehow make Ability Scores less important (I think I've seen many posts wanting them to matter more, but they might all be the same person), then I'd rather have point buy than rolled stats. **Note, include the rules for it, but point buy should be the default, ESPECIALLY for public games.

I want to create a character I want to play, and I'd rather my players were playing characters they wanted to play. If we use point buy, everyone can play exactly what they want (and if someone wants to use less than the full points, they can, nobody will complain). If we roll dice, than there's no guarantee that everyone will be happy, unless you allow rerolls, but then why are you rolling dice to begin with?

Same goes for hit points, if I'm creating a big brawler, I want the hit points to match. I don't want to have less hit points then the rogue or wizard just because I've rolled badly on my hit point rolls.

 

[Greg K]

D&D's fixation with min/max is a sign of a much different problem in the game, one related to the fact there is little to no tradeoffs, handicaps or disadvantages built into the game; more is more is more in the game.

The above is one possible problems. Others include
1. The attitude of certain players in their approach to the game (with non-like minded players and/or DMs).
2. DM's that don't want min/maxing and failto do one or more of the following:
a. talk with the players prior to character generation and discuss concepts
b. vet characters before the start of play
c. tell their players, "No. This is inappropriate for the campaign I am running.
d. throw in a wide variety of situations including those that highlight the negatives of hyperspecialization.
e. use standard point buy.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

What is and what should be the minimum score a character needs in a stat in order to be an effective member of a specific class? What do players believe is the minimum effective score? Can a character be played effectively if they have ability scores of 10 10 10 10 10 10? Those are the questions that should be answered before we start arguing over character generation methods.

 

[CM]

I don't think point buy should be discouraged.

Lay out the various options. List their pros and cons.

Let the DM / group choose what they feel works best for them, without outside bias.

So much this. I don't see why the rulebook should encourage one method over another. It smells like an accusation of badwrongfun.

 

[Hassassin]

What is and what should be the minimum score a character needs in a stat in order to be an effective member of a specific class? What do players believe is the minimum effective score? Can a character be played effectively if they have ability scores of 10 10 10 10 10 10? Those are the questions that should be answered before we start arguing over character generation methods.

Depends on the class and edition. In 3e you can't cast any spells if you only have 10s. All non-casting characters could work with those. Fighter would do best I suspect.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yes. Point buy is the devil.

 

[Herschel]

flumphs,

curious day yesterday, watched a guys review of Advanced Players Guide on youtube and he had a good observation: point buy for abilities lead to min maxing of characters. Which in turn leads to overpowered pcs. He stressed that you do point buy so everyone is treated fairly in the character creation process. Alternatively he said that it would be better to role a 3d6 or a 4d6 to generate characters. Yes, some people would have average characters and there would be the occasional uber character generated but it solved the problem of bland and boring min maxing.

is he right?
foolish_mortals

He's flat-out wrong and this comes from someone who was a big fan of rolling stats.

1. With consistent point-buy you have all characters on an even playing field. It actually limits min-maxing a bit as in order to have multiple high stats you have to make some serious trade-offs. It would be different if you had a 22-point buy with no-limits and each point was just 1 point, but it's not. Going from a 13 to a 14 costs 2 points, etc. and the cost keeps going up. You simply can't get two pre-racial 18s with standard point buy.

2. Rolling stats also creates a greater disparity between characters, leading to actual "overpowered" characters in relation to his fellows. It also lead to more min/maxing. If you had baseline stats to play a Paladin, why play a Paladin mechanically? You were better off using that 17 in another stat and playing a class with an XP boost for it.

3. Rolling stats also creates the desire to "cheat" to get the stats you want to play the character you want. Unearthed Arcana introduced a whole new generation method to not only all but guarantee you'll get to play the character you want, but that many of your other stats would be higher also.

4. Point buy has always been part of the system, though a bit more random initially: The all stats are 8 and roll X d6 and add to stats.

5. Rolling stats also means that without aberative rolls your stats are MORE likely to be all inthe "average" range, not sticking out really in any one area. Back in college we started a game where we could either roll 3d6 and arrange to taste or 4d6 and play them as they lay. I really wanted to play a sword-swinging Ranger for the way the DM described the campaign and would settle on a fighter if worse came to worst. All four who chose 3d6 came out with stats 8-12, with one 13 and one 4. I rolled the 4d6 and got an 18....in Dex and a 9 strength and none of the other needed pre-reqs. Nobody was happy with their characters as everyone saw them as boring or weird (my 18-Dex, 9-STR Fighter) and that was a short-lived campaign.

 

[Greg K]

And as far as point buy encouraging min/maxing. Ridiculous.

Yep, this is an issue involving individual players, DM and/or the group.

EVERYONE min/maxes. Its human nature to take the best options you see. Even so-called "role-players" will take all the feats and abilities that help them maximize their character concept. That just may not be a combat oriented concept.

I disagree. Min/maxing is trying to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses. It is an extreme form of optimization. It is often related to power gaming (which I define as playing with an emphasis on either being a powerful character and/or the accumulation of power as defined by the game)
. It also often involves treating the game as a competition and trying to guess where the DM is going to place importance so they use dump stats and ignore areas they thing will not come up (or come up often)

I would say that most "role players" do "optimize" to the concept (I use optimize to be, consciously, spending resources to meet a concept. Furthermore, there are degrees of optimization). However, this does not mean, necessarily, maxing out skill bonuses or being the most effective. If the character grew up a a dirt farmer, they may allocate some resources to acknowledge that despite it not being something likely to come up.