What's the big deal with point buy?

[ThoughtBubble]

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.

D&D is kind of weird about it's options. The way I describe it is that, when asked "Can I do X?", D&D says "No, unless you do..." A good example is feat selection. The typical way to get a good feat is to have a stat of at least X, and take two other feats (which may also have stat requirements). This is shown perfectly in 3.0's dual wield feats. To be effective at it at level one required 2 feats, meaning that you needed to be a fighter, a ranger, or human and already proficient in the weapon you want to use. Also, watch that dex.

Archers are a similar sort of deal. Yes, I could use my level 1 feat to get precise shot, my level 3 feat to get point blank shot, and my level 6 feat to pick up longbow proficiency. Prestige Classes only add to this.

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

Yeah, you're very right that the feat and skill systems do a great job of making sure that the character is quite a bit more than just stats. And that's a lot of why I got back into gaming with 3.0.

But in the end, D&D is a game that makes you jump through hoops to get to the candy. That makes the game less accessable, and with fairly limited resources (say 7 feats over the entire course of a character's career -- potentially years of playing), that makes some of these hoops incredibly expensive.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the design of 3.x rewards planning ahead and taking efficient paths while punishing non-proficiency and non-specialization. It's not having options that encourages the powergame mindset, it's having restricted options with high rewards for efficient use of limited resources.

 

[Zweihänder]

I feel the exact opposite of these alleged players: I refuse to DM or play a game in which point buy is used (with the exception of one-offs at Gameday, but... well, I'm not making the character, so I don't care). I believe the soul of D&D is randomness, and if you take that away... well, what have you got left? Standardized bull. This is the same reason I refuse the option to take 20 on anything but a Search check, and, even then, I only do it rarely. The only time I'll even take 10 is on a Use Magic Device check (with my Warlock <3), and, even then, that's only because I was granted the ability to do so specifically; it's one of the selling points of the class!

In short: random = good, point buy = evil. Also, virus = very yes.




I hope no one here gets that last one. That would be a sign of the bad sort of overlap between ENWorld and 4chan...

 

[an_idol_mind]

In short: random = good, point buy = evil. Also, virus = very yes.




I hope no one here gets that last one. That would be a sign of the bad sort of overlap between ENWorld and 4chan...

I get it.

 

[Zweihänder]

I get it.

Oh dear...

Just remember, a cat is NOT fine too!

 

[Hussar]

Now, by no means would I refuse to play in a rolled game. As I said, I did it for years, and don't loathe it by any stretch. The fact that in all likelihood I will wind up with a 40 point character means that I'm pretty happy with 4d6 (That was meant as a joke, I know that things like that don't work so well on the 'net)

However, in my games, I simply don't want to be bothered for the reasons I've outlined. PC's with very high stats can seriously bump up the power level of a party, making adventure design a pain. A wide spread between PC's in stats can lead to friction and hard feelings, which is another problem I don't want to be bothered with.

Not that any of the above is always true. Of course not. It's only my mileage varying.

Airwalkrr, again, your experience has been very different than mine. As a DM, if I tried to force players to play stats they weren't happy with, I'd see an awful lot of suicide in my games. Having seen it before, I know that it does happen. As a player, under a fair number of DM's over the years (I've moved 11 times in the last 13 years, including two continents and still managed to play fairly regularly), I can honestly say that every DM I've ever played under had the same attitude.

So, as it has been said, it's all about the mileage.

 

[RFisher]

How about this for an argument...?

Don't measure the strength of a character by his ability scores. A player can have fun with low stats. A character can be effective with low stats if he has an excellent player behind him.

Of course, an excellent player will probably be even more effective if he has a character with great stats. His being effective with poor stats doesn't mean that stats don't factor into your effectiveness. It just means that he can be more effective with poor stats than a poorer player (in the sense of being an "effective" player) will be with better stats.

What about the poorer player? Is this only a game for the good players who can overcome poor stats? Maybe a better system would be to give a stat handicap for poorer players, to counter their less effective playing skills?

How about this for an argument...?

A PC's effectiveness is not greatly affected by ability scores no matter who is playing that PC. This is my experience & no way of spinning it is going change that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

In short: random = good, point buy = evil. Also, virus = very yes.


I hope no one here gets that last one. That would be a sign of the bad sort of overlap between ENWorld and www.homestarrunner.com

Fixed.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Someone mentioned that point-buy allows one to better do the 1-20 plan-out during initial character conception, or something like that; I was merely trying to point out that whether a particular roll-up method makes 1-20 planning easier is or should be a non-sequitur, as the inherent assumption involved - that the character will make it to 20 - is flawed.

Lanefan

 

[Aus_Snow]

Someone mentioned that point-buy allows one to better do the 1-20 plan-out during initial character conception, or something like that; I was merely trying to point out that whether a particular roll-up method makes 1-20 planning easier is or should be a non-sequitur, as the inherent assumption involved - that the character will make it to 20 - is flawed.

Yep. The character might not survive, for example. More fundamentally though, most campaigns don't go to 20th.