What is the least amount of Point Buy you'd play with?

[Crothian]

Yes, because we all know that the ability to wear plate armor, use your sword effectively, and take hits to protect others have nothing at all to do with being an effective paladin ...

None of that has anything to do with stats. Ability to wear plate is a feat, ability ro use the weapon is also a feat and combined with the best BAB makes them good at it, and being able to take hits is in their good d10 HD.

Stats will make them a bit better at these things, but not prevent them from doing it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

None of that has anything to do with stats. Ability to wear plate is a feat

The ability to wear plate armor is free to everyone. The ability to wear plate armor without high penalties is a feat / class ability. The ability to wear plate armor without high penalties and still be able to move is related to statistics - namely, Strength. A 12 Strength paladin can probably carry his armor - but that's about it.

ability ro use the weapon is also a feat and combined with the best BAB makes them good at it

That's right, just like melee monks don't need a decent Strength score to do well in battle ...

Sorry, but melee combat in D&D is Strength dependent. If you don't have a decent Strength score, you will lose - especially when all those monsters decide to just grapple you.

and being able to take hits is in their good d10 HD.

Which is why there are many effective melee builds that have an 8 Con score.

 

[jrients]

Yes, because we all know that the ability to wear plate armor, use your sword effectively, and take hits to protect others have nothing at all to do with being an effective paladin ...

Obviously our play styles are different. I would see no cause to complain if I ran a paladin with a 12 Cha and 14 Wis with everything else a 10 or 11. High stats are not a make-or-break thing to me. Surviving an adventure with a suboptimal character can be a very rewarding experience.

 

[Crothian]

A 12 Strength paladin can probably carry his armor - but that's about it.

Armor: 50 lbs
12 Strength: carry 130lbs

So, not all he can carry by a long shot

That's right, just like melee monks don't need a decent Strength score to do well in battle ...

Sorry, but melee combat in D&D is Strength dependent. If you don't have a decent Strength score, you will lose

Yes, it is strength dependant. That is why strength adds to attack and damage rolls. But a bad strength score does not gaureentee a lose, the chances of one are incresed by some. But the differences between a 17 and a 10 are only +3, and when rolling a d20 +3 is not that great. It helps but is not enough to ensure victory all the time when without the +3 the character was always going to loose.

Which is why there are many effective melee builds that have an 8 Con score.

We had a game with a character with an 8 con. the game went over ten levels, sure she had some problems but she was not ineffective. Most people though are just unwilling to even give them a fair chance.

Heck, in my current group we have a cleric with an 8 con. Yet the first death was the 15 con fighter. THe cleric knows his limitations and plays smart so he lived.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The minimum I'd play with is 6 points. It would be a game called Evolution where my character would be an amphibian that just flopped out on to the surface. My goal would be to build up my stats and develop until I became a minotaur. My first objective would be to gain levels and put my stat bonuses in intelligence. That way I could find magic books and read them to further boost my stats, eventually finding a way to reincarnate into something more viable. Of course everyone would have to start with 6 points, otherwise people would just be minotaurs right away and my little blob of jelly would be outclassed.

I've played with 7 point buy, but never with as low as 6. That's just crazy!

 

[Gez]

I prefer a system that doesn't penalize characters for being heroes. I don't like the concept of having lesser secondary scores just because you want your primary score to be 17 or 18 (or even 15!)

A variant I've seen consists on giving just 6 points to spread on ability modifiers.

So you could, for example, take +4 Str, +1 Dex, +2 Con, +0 Int, +0 Wis, -1 Cha. Which translates to Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8.

Then you get to increase three stats by 1 point (of course, you can't increase a 18). In our example, this could become Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 9.

 

[Crothian]

A variant I've seen consists on giving just 6 points to spread on ability modifiers.

So you could, for example, take +4 Str, +1 Dex, +2 Con, +0 Int, +0 Wis, -1 Cha. Which translates to Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8.

Then you get to increase three stats by 1 point (of course, you can't increase a 18). In our example, this could become Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 9.

very Ars magica...except that second part.....

 

[Desdichado]

I voted 12, because with the right DM and the right campaign, it wouldn't matter. I'd really prefer somewhere between 25 and 32 or so, though, and with the wrong GM, I certainly wouldn't enjoy 12. I'd really prefer some other system, to be perfectly honest with you. I don't really like point buy the way it's done in the DMG; I prefer to take the standard array and tell players they can take three ability increases to any ability. It has the same effect as point buy, but is much more simple.

 

[EricNoah]

I have never done point buy and probably won't any time soon. I have done "default array", "roll your own" or "select your own (whatever seems fair/right for the character concept)" in campaigns I have run or been a player in.

 

[Pants]

25 is the lowest I'd go. No lower than that.
28 is nice and fine, although I prefer 30-32 point buy.

This is for 'standard' D&D mind you, where several classes are somewhat dependent on multiple good scores (monks, paladins come to mind), but I guess that in a game that was d20 without some of the D&D ideals, I might go lower. Might.