What's the big deal with point buy?

[dracolich40]

You've all got good points. The way I look at it is, set two ways of doing it. If the person doesn't like the point-buy value, tell them that if they don't want to use those points then let them roll. If they don't like their stats, let them do a few sets. Usually, in my case, those campaigns work out the best for me. I'm not disagreeing with you guys, just posting my opinion.

 

[Hussar]

I absolutely agree that there is nothing wrong with some reasonable power gaming. In fact, 3.x very much encourages it, imo.

Why the 3.x caveat? Every edition encouraged high stats. Heck, you got bonus xp for them in earlier editions. Isn't that pretty much the ultimate encouragement?

Other than that, I agree with Cedric.

 

[airwalkrr]

See, I have the exact opposite opinion.

I have a few players, across the groups I DM for, that prefer rolling stats. A small part of that is, I think, nostalgia (they've been playing since 1E days), but they have told me that the reason they want to roll is for the chance at "really high scores".

I just don't see that as powergaming though. Powergaming has to do with building a character without weaknesses. Hoping for a character with good scores entails a risk that your character will have merely adequate scores. True powergamers (like myself) recognize that stability is the key to power. From a powergaming perspective, I would rather create a character from a 25 point buy than roll 4d6 drop lowest and arrange as desired because it gives me total control on where my abilities go and it nixes the possibility of a suboptimal character. In other words, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

[Kem]

Why the 3.x caveat? Every edition encouraged high stats. Heck, you got bonus xp for them in earlier editions. Isn't that pretty much the ultimate encouragement?

Other than that, I agree with Cedric.

AND a high stat was the only way to get a good bonus.

 

[Hussar]

I just don't see that as powergaming though. Powergaming has to do with building a character without weaknesses.

I disagree with this. Powergaming has to do with building a character which minimizes weaknesses. A subtle but important distinction. If my character is all about teh hack, then I don't care if I have a 6 cha, because it isn't going to come up. With die rolled, there's every chance that I will roll much higher than 25 points, even with a single low stat, and if I roll really badly, the DM will likely let me do it over.

 

[Cedric]

Why the 3.x caveat? Every edition encouraged high stats. Heck, you got bonus xp for them in earlier editions. Isn't that pretty much the ultimate encouragement?

Other than that, I agree with Cedric.

My point was that 3.x encourages power gaming. It's no more guilty than previous editions of encouraging high stats, other than providing numerous means to attain high stats, permanently even.

However the multitude of feats, prestige classes, class abilities and the like encourage power gaming, imo. I don't mean this at all as a bad thing. Merely pointing out that the mechanics of 3.x truly flourish when players take great care to optimize their characters. Additionally, there are numerous paths to optimization.

To my thinking, this makes 3.x much more power gamer friendly than previous versions of D&D.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

This is powergaming, nor are we in it.



Personally, I think the "encouragement to powergaming" could also be called ... "having options". Previously, honestly, earlier versions probably encouraged more "bad behavior" about stats than this edition primarily BECAUSE there were fewer options ... You were a "Wizard" with high or low stats ... and you stayed a wizard, with high or low stats, for the next three years on your way to 12th level.

I mean, in my personal gaming experience, I've certainly seen fewer "mysteriously high-statted" characters in 3.X than, say, 2nd. I saw alot of fighters with 18/00 Strength ... far and away many more than is statistically POSSIBLE given the sample size.

Earlier editions, there really wasn't any "point" in playing, say, a 14 Strength Fighter as opposed to an 18/00 Str Fighter ... even if that 14Str guy had higher Charisma and Intelligence and Wisdom. Other than "roleplaying" ... which you can do with any character. Now you can build an effective multiclass, or you can qualify for feats that require Charisma or Wisdom or Intelligence that you couldn't otherwise, that makes the character different from other characters of the same class.

It might be powergaming, but it's more fun to me than saying: "This fighter, with his lower strength and higher intelligence than my last guy, Smashdor Ironthews, will be more intellectual about combat ... I swing ... I miss ... I swing ... I hit."

Now, at least, I can take Dodge and Improved Disarm and Combat Expertise and also get some mechanical variation to go with my roleplaying of Smartdor Brassthews, the fighter with 14 Strength.

--fje

 

[Jedi_Solo]

This 1-20 planning idea borders on ridiculous

Not that I'm disagreeing - but what does that have to do with Rolling vs Point Buy? The only difference is if you can plan out the 20 levels before or after stats are officially created. Pre-plannig of levels can happen with either method.

 

[Darrell]

Hmmm...

Without having read the entire thread (only the first few pages), I'm moderately interested in this discussion, as I've all but abandoned both the rolling and the point-buy methods.

In the games I run now, we use the "Elite Array" method for stats (often with no racial modifiers). Everybody starts on an even keel, and can tailor stats as they rise in level. So far, my players seem to enjoy this more than either of the other methods.

Regards,
Darrell King

 

[airwalkrr]

I disagree with this. Powergaming has to do with building a character which minimizes weaknesses. A subtle but important distinction.

Actually, I'll give you that. To even further refine the idea, what we are really talking about are insignificant weaknesses. The fighter with 6 Charisma has a weakness alright, but it is insignificant compared to his role in the party. None of his class abilities (feats, use of armor and weapons, etc.) are based on Charisma so his weakness will rarely have a negative impact on his character.

With die rolled, there's every chance that I will roll much higher than 25 points, even with a single low stat,

Now it is my turn to make a distinction. There is a good chance it will be more quantitatively, but it is not a foregone conclusion, nor is it a guarantee that the allocation will be optimal. If you get two 18s and four 8s, you will have a bit of trouble building a balanced character, but with point buy you can at least nominally cover all your bases without letting any of your significant ability scores be abyssmal. And let us not forget how many complaints there have been about "unplayable" characters after rolling. With so many complaints about "worthless" or "no-fun-to-play" characters, the risk of getting a low roll must definitely be real. Characters who like rolling are risk-takers, not min/maxers, although I suppose min/maxing and powergaming are not synonymous. So I guess I meant to say that min/maxers will choose point buy over rolling because it minimalizes risk, which is what min/maxing is all about. The bird in the hand being worth two in the bush analogy surfaces again here.

and if I roll really badly, the DM will likely let me do it over.

As I've stated before, this is apparently an idiosyncrasity of your gaming group(s) and is by no means a universal standard. If I am min/maxing my character, I do not enjoy gambling my character's effectiveness on the DM's roulette table of mercy. I do not allow "do-overs" in my campaign and I have heard others say the same, although admittedly there are several who also do things the way you and your group(s) do.