What's the big deal with point buy?

[ruleslawyer]

This comparison is simple to make with a fighter but is more complicated with a rogue or a wizard or a cleric.

Actually, the comparison works fine with the rogue. A high-Str rogue is MUCH more effective in combat; high Con makes the rogue much more durable. Count those in for at LEAST one level's worth of sneak attack (1/2d6). High Int gives enough skill points to count a level's worth, especially with improved mods from skill-associated stats.

Really, the comparison works for all non-primary spellcasting classes. It works for comparing odd-level to (odd+1)-level spellcasters as well, as noted earlier.

As to the "historical" argument stated earlier: I would suggest that history cuts both ways. As a long-time (A)D&D DM, I have long disliked the consequences of drastically disparate ability score arrays in my player groups. In fact, I ended up increasing the power of the wish spell in one game simply to allow the PCs who had slogged up to high levels in the shadow of one especially steroidal barbarian PC (Str 18/00, Dex 16, Con 17, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 16; yes, he rolled all these in front of me on 4d6 drop one, same as the other PCs) to raise their ability scores to comparable levels by about 20th-21st character level. I thus see (A)D&D's history of randomly rolled ability scores as demonstrating a weak point in need of improvement, which I think point buy resolves nicely.

That said, I fully understand that YMMV. If you *like* the randomness of rolled ability score generation, then you like it, and thus it is fun. QED. I do think that for DMs concerned about PC-to-PC balance, point buy is a superior option.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the big problem with random roll vs. point buy, is that pretty much all the monsters in the DMG and other supplements assume your playing a balanced character. If you take a look at most humanoid monsters stats, there seems to be a point buy system applied to them. Also with random roll you do have the possiblity of having a uber character. This was about 5 years ago, but in my gaming group we were all rolling characters with the DM and a guy actually rolled out three 18's, and I believe his lowest score was a 12. This was using the roll 4d6 throw out the lowest one, roll 6 times method. Now most everyone else in the group averaged a 10 or so with maybe a single 16 or 17 accompanied by a 12 or 14, fairly average characters with one really good stat, but nothing under 9 if memory serves me correctly.

What you notably fail to mention is whether the 18-laden character survived any longer in the game than the others; if it didn't, then your point kinda falls flat...

Lanefan

 

[Twowolves]

One thing I haven't really seen mentioned about the difference in point-buy versus rolling stats is the concept of "scrapping" a set of rolled stats.

When using point-buy, I do up my stats as I see fit, and that's that.

When rolling, and generate my attributes (using whatever manner), and then if they're not good enough (based on varying criteria), I can roll them again.

In fact, in one 1st ed game I played in, there was quite the pile of once-despondant-now-rotting-corpses of unwanted characters at the bottom of a cliff.

"Man, these stats suck. My character pulls a lemming and jumps off the nearest cliff. Hand me those dice again..."

 

[RFisher]

It is possible to play an effective Wizard without access to ninth level spells.

Balance is important to the game, but that only goes so far. Due to the randomness built into the game, balance can only be rough, not precise.

But even conceding that point: Personally, doing well because I have big numbers on my character record wears thin a lot faster than doing well because I had to make the best of what I had.

 

[RFisher]

"Man, these stats suck. My character pulls a lemming and jumps off the nearest cliff. Hand me those dice again..."

As one of the guys in my group said on classic Traveller character generation night: Looks like this one is going to be a belter.
[sblock]In classic Traveller, you can die in character generation. With the rules we were using, the belter career gave the best chance of dying during character generation. If you did survive, though, your skills would likely make up for low stats.[/sblock]

 

[Hussar]

LOL.

But, RFisher, it's not really about whether or not lower stats are more satisfying. That's a personal preference. Besides which, point buy is usually considerably lower than die rolled anyway, due to the rather higher chances of ones "falling off the table" than sixes.

However, while it is true you can play effective characters with lower points, it doesn't really change the fact that if your character is a 21 point PC and everyone else is 40 points, you're pretty much dead weight. So long as the stats between characters are roughly equal, things work, although the DM might have to do some extra legwork beefing up encounters.

The problem I see with die rolled PC's is that you have such a huge variance between PC's. While some might not see that as a problem, I do. From both sides actually. I don't want to be that dead weight character dragging everyone down, and, if I'm lucky enough to roll high stats, why should preferential treatment be given to the guy with poor stats? Why should I get shafted simply because the dice favoured me at chargen?

Or, to put it another way, if someone believes that stats don't matter, then why should lower stat characters get first shot at magical treasure?

 

[Crothian]

However, while it is true you can play effective characters with lower points, it doesn't really change the fact that if your character is a 21 point PC and everyone else is 40 points, you're pretty much dead weight.

The only dead weight character at a table has a dead weight player attached to him.

 

[airwalkrr]

However, while it is true you can play effective characters with lower points, it doesn't really change the fact that if your character is a 21 point PC and everyone else is 40 points, you're pretty much dead weight. So long as the stats between characters are roughly equal, things work, although the DM might have to do some extra legwork beefing up encounters.

My current campaign is direct evidence to the contrary of this. As I mentioned, the dwarf fighter has effectively a 21 point buy and he dominates the campaign in the face of three other characters with an average of about 32 points. He is the leader of the group. He directs them in combat. He deals out the most damage. He has the best AC. He has the most hit points. Part of this is because he is a fighter, the rest of this is because the player plays the game well. We have one guy who is relatively new to the hobby, having only played 3e, but the other two are veterans who are very good at the game. However, the fighter is the crux of the group. Without him, any combat situation falls apart. Would he be better if he had higher ability scores? Obviously. But the player did not NEED high ability scores to bring an effective character to the campaign, nor did he NEED high ability scores to play the concept he wanted. The dwarf fighter is anything but dead weight.

Now I suppose part of this has to do with the fact that we have a four character party. If we had, say, eight, then each character would be a less vital part of the group. But that has a lot more to do with the logistics of large parties than it does with any individualy character. It is one of the reasons I prefer to run small groups over large ones. Much as I hate turning players away from my campaign, I know that the larger my campaign gets, the greater the chance there is for one character to feel marginalized by the rest of the group. When there are four characters with four specialities, you tend to rely on the fighter with 21 points because he is the only one who specializes in fighting. In that respect, point buy might be a superior method for a larger group, but I don't think it solves the problem entirely, if at all. In such an environment there is still only one DM whose attention is now divided more thinly than ever. The min/maxers are the ones who will contribute the most to the group, along with those who do not share roles with others.

As a case in point, I once joined a Planescape campaign at 15th level. There were seven players in all, among them a rogue type, several warriors, and a couple priests. There were no mages so I opted to play a wizard/loremaster. I was unable to get much response from the DM in time for the first session so I created my character with an elite array, thinking it the fairest way. I arrived to find that the rest of the characters had been created with a 32 point buy. But I went ahead and played with my elite array, and as it turned out, my contribution to the group was huge. Why? I filled a niche that nobody else filled and could do things that nobody else could do. Only the pixie rogue had been capable of invisibility before, but I showed up with invisibility sphere and they Oooed and Aahed. They had no way to enter a heavily fortified keep, but I used passwall to great effect. Again, wonderment from the other players. The list goes on but the point was I filled a niche that hadn't been filled, and all while playing a "deadweight" character. :\

Now suppose you want to play a ranger. You have been planning this character concept since the beginning of proverbial time. When you join in the campaign the DM informs you the party includes a barbarian, a fighter, a ranger, and a druid. If you are rolling your ability scores, I guess you had better hope you roll high, because otherwise you will be marginalized. But if you insist on playing a ranger, is that really anyone's fault but your own? You are the one joining a group with many weaknesses and insisting on playing a class that reinforces their strengths and ignores those weaknesses. If you really wanted to contribute to that group, you should have chosen to play a bard, a cleric, or a wizard. Those things would have been a welcome and helpful addition. But the ranger is pretty redundant in a party that probably includes enough wilderness skill and fighting ability to choke a camel. And here is the clincher, even if everyone gets a 25 point buy, if your ranger is not as optimized as the other ranger, your character will still get marginalized. He would be the appendix, the unnecessary organ in an adventuring party.

So here is the bottom line, as I see it. If a player chooses to play a character concept that is redundant to the rest of the group, he is not going to be as valuable as he would if he choose a character concept that is novel to the group. Point buy merely ensures that the power-gamer who knows how to allocate his points optimally will outshine the sub-optimal player. A player with a novel character concept will be a valuable member of any party, regardless of whether he has a point buy that theoretically "balances" him with the other players or whether he has randomly generated ability scores.

My conclusion? Neither is superior, which has been my point all along. When I choose to use random ability score generation, that is an expression of a preference, and it does not mean my players are going to be at any more disadvantage than they would be if they were playing with a point buy. A novel character concept is more vital to getting "face time" with a group than "balanced" ability scores.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

This is still going on. It's pretty amusing.

I'm still waiting for some more people to answer my original question though. It's not about which one is better. It's not about how important your stats are. It's about the goals of the game and play style, and what generation type fits that best.

I've done point exchange games, and that was a blast. Each person started with one +2 card to each stats, then got 1 random card. I left to get pizza, and they could exchange cards as they wished. If I was to do it again, I'd probably start all the stats at 7 or 8, then give everyone more cards to shuffle. Then I could hand out 3 random +1 to stats, and a few miscelanious modefiers.

Also, Crothian's method rocks. Here's the converstaion from the game I tried something similiar.

"So, how do I get my stats?"
"Pick them. You can have whatever you want."
"So, I can have an 18 here?"
"Yeah."
"And I can have an 18 here?"
"Yeah. Whatever you want."
"Wow"

As my games are leaning more and more towards cheap satisfaction, but with a sense of earning it, I'd probably do my next game with a rolling method that returns hugely inflated stats. You rolled them so they're YOURS darn it. But look at how big and shiny they are!

 

[Hussar]

My current campaign is direct evidence to the contrary of this. As I mentioned, the dwarf fighter has effectively a 21 point buy and he dominates the campaign in the face of three other characters with an average of about 32 points. He is the leader of the group. He directs them in combat. He deals out the most damage. He has the best AC. He has the most hit points. Part of this is because he is a fighter, the rest of this is because the player plays the game well. We have one guy who is relatively new to the hobby, having only played 3e, but the other two are veterans who are very good at the game. However, the fighter is the crux of the group. Without him, any combat situation falls apart. Would he be better if he had higher ability scores? Obviously. But the player did not NEED high ability scores to bring an effective character to the campaign, nor did he NEED high ability scores to play the concept he wanted. The dwarf fighter is anything but dead weight.

See, I have a real problem buying this. Most damage? Best AC? Most HP's?

Are the other three PC's wizards?

The cleric, with the much higher stats, SHOULD be better at all three of those. He should have a better AC, he should do more damage and he should have more hp's. If he doesn't, then what's wrong with him?

However, it still boils down to the fact that your Dwarf with the poor Cha is leading. He's not playing the character that's on the paper. IIRC, he had a 6 Cha. This guy should be absolutely loathesome. Take a look through your MM and see what gets a 6 Cha. THAT'S how horrid your dwarf is.

Yes, if you are playing the only wizard in the party, you have your niche and you are contributing. However, you are still lagging far behind everyone else because of poor stats. Your save DC's are measurably worse, you have no hp's, and, at higher levels, the party has to carry you because you can't cast higher level spells.

As I said, I've seen the flipside of this. In a 2e game, the DM allowed one of the players to play an ogre with a 20 str and 20 Con. We figured it out that his damage and hit bonuses as well as his hit points were actually on par with a character THREE levels higher than the rest of us. He completely dominated the game. He could easily destroy anything that was a serious threat to the rest of us. If he sneezed, monsters died. If the rest of us got anywhere near something that could threaten him, we died.

I accept that rolling works for you. I reject the idea that point buy is for powergamers to twink their characters. I like the idea that I can have a concept for a character and then build him without having to roll the dice umpteen times to get what I wanted in the first place.