What's the big deal with point buy?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I never use random aspects in character generation (or leveling up. Fixed HP for the win). I dont particularly liek a system that encourages inequality, but what really annoys me is the idiots who choose to use dice, then actually complain that a PRC/spell/item is overpowered. HELLO. You threw balance out the window to begin with.

 

[billd91]

I never use random aspects in character generation (or leveling up. Fixed HP for the win). I dont particularly liek a system that encourages inequality, but what really annoys me is the idiots who choose to use dice, then actually complain that a PRC/spell/item is overpowered. HELLO. You threw balance out the window to begin with.

Um. No. The system is balanced using dice, quite balanced indeed. I make my players roll stats, I make them roll hit points. And I roll the dice for NPCs and their hit points too. The system is quite balanced in that regard. And the more hit dice they all get, the more their total number of hit points tends to conform to the expected value.
Sure, there are variances between individuals in the system, but that does not cause imbalance, certainly not like the frenzied berserker (arguably) casues imbalance. And as characters advance, particularly in skills, the effects of variation in stats diminishes. Any claims of really substantial inequality really is a tempest in a teapot.

 

[tzor]

"I have the worst luck at rolling dice so it's unfair to make me roll my ability scores."

"Characters who roll high steal other characters' niches."

"If I don't get the ability scores I want, I can't play the character I want."

First of all, I do have the worst luck at rolling dice. But then again the law of averages only works on a large number of rolls, and I've got this selective amensia that only reminds me of the times I've hated my rolls. Still I would rather roll dice than do point buy unless I have a specific idea in mind.

Second of all, most of my rolling experience as a PC and DM has come from the AD&D days. If I were to convert my experiences into d20 speak I would suggest that high attributes really do give a character a CR advantage that can warp the encounters for everybody. I would not say it would "seal other character's niches" but it can have a drastic impact.

Finally there is, even in 3.5E a notion of class prerequisites. I was pondering a campaign once and suggested the average point buy. One of the players (and they are all good players by the way) commented "well I guess I can't play a paladin then." Yes technically he could play a paladin with low stats but you really need better ones to get the character to be any good. While there are no longer prerequisites there are different quantities of "important stats" for each class. Some classes only need one or two important stats, some three or more.

Still I like rolling for stats, even though I'm probably not going to get an 18.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Um. No. The system is balanced using dice, quite balanced indeed.

No, its not. Its balanced using the standard array. If a character gets all 18's, and another gets all 10's and a 14, they arent balanced. So since you want to encourage them to be unbalanced, why complain when someone takes a PRC that makes them more powerful than someone else... when that was your intent in using dice to begin with? And yes, having one player get an extra 2-4 on all rolls DOES matter.

 

[Cedric]

I never use random aspects in character generation (or leveling up. Fixed HP for the win). I dont particularly liek a system that encourages inequality, but what really annoys me is the idiots who choose to use dice, then actually complain that a PRC/spell/item is overpowered. HELLO. You threw balance out the window to begin with.

I actually think the overall trend towards this necessary 'balance' is one of the things wrong with current RPGs...and I think some of it stems from computer games influencing RPGs.

Look at 1e...I love 1e, have had a great time with it for years, but there isn't the slightest semblance of class balance in 1e.

So they keep building up some classes and watering down others to achieve this elusive 'balance' and all they manage to achieve in me usually is boredom.

Take a fictional example...I loved the Fellowship of the Ring. Great story, great characters, very moving. However, it should be crystal clear that balance did not, in any way, exist in that group...yet they still had fun.

If every person in your group needs to feel that they are just as powerful as every other in the group, then do whatever works for your group (I always encourage that).

But if you want me to play the plucky, but useful, comic relief rogue that is very capable, but nowhere near the most powerful character...SIGN ME UP! I'd love that role.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I actually think the overall trend towards this necessary 'balance' is one of the things wrong with current RPGs...and I think some of it stems from computer games influencing RPGs.

Look at 1e...I love 1e, have had a great time with it for years, but there isn't the slightest semblance of class balance in 1e.

And the game sucked. There were only a few character classes that actually contributed anything to the success of the group. If you werent a wizard or cleric, you may as well not even show up past 10th level. Believe it or not, something might actually benefit from years of research and experience behind its design, as opposed to what gygax and company cranked out one night after a bunch of stiff drinks.

Take a fictional example...I loved the Fellowship of the Ring. Great story, great characters, very moving. However, it should be crystal clear that balance did not, in any way, exist in that group...yet they still had fun.

Well, theres a difference betwen a novel and a game. If a group is going to play a superheroes game, and someone gets handed superman, and the other player gets handed gleek the space monkey, they'll probably complain.

But if you want me to play the plucky, but useful, comic relief rogue that is very capable, but nowhere near the most powerful character...SIGN ME UP! I'd love that role.

Why cant you play the comic relief rogue who is just as useful as another character?

 

[Christoph the Magus]

I don't like point buy. It's just doesn't feel like D&D to me. The method I use in my games is 3 sets of 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange as you wish. You get one floating point that you can assign anywhere, but you cannot use it to raise an ability above 18. It works for us.

 

[Kormydigar]

I actually think the overall trend towards this necessary 'balance' is one of the things wrong with current RPGs...and I think some of it stems from computer games influencing RPGs.

Amen. Back in my day we didn't have this fancy schmancy game balance. The thief was usually always at least a level or more higher than the fighter and two or more levels higher than the magic user and we liked it!!!!

 

[Cedric]

And the game sucked. There were only a few character classes that actually contributed anything to the success of the group. If you werent a wizard or cleric, you may as well not even show up past 10th level. Believe it or not, something might actually benefit from years of research and experience behind its design, as opposed to what gygax and company cranked out one night after a bunch of stiff drinks.

That's your opinion, many of us loved it and embraced the lack of balance. And regardless what character I've played in high or low level 1st ed D&D, I've contributed to the overall success of the party because of my skill as a player. I may not have thrown down as many dice as the Arch Mage standing next to me...but I contributed and was pleased with my effort.

Well, theres a difference betwen a novel and a game. If a group is going to play a superheroes game, and someone gets handed superman, and the other player gets handed gleek the space monkey, they'll probably complain.

Why does their have to be a difference between a novel and a game? In the end, you are telling a story of companions surviving against the odds and obstacles of a war-torn world. I understand that some people feel each companion needs an equal voice, I'm just not one of those people.

Why cant you play the comic relief rogue who is just as useful as another character?

I can, I've happily played 3.0 and 3.5 since release. Why can't you play the 'less capable' character who has to contribute in ways that go beyond their stat block?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Why can't you play the 'less capable' character who has to contribute in ways that go beyond their stat block?

Lots of people can. But some people prefer not to, and the ultimate point is that the game shouldn't force them to do so. Rolling stats doesn't always force someone into the inferior position, but it certainly can, and often does. Point-buy, for those who choose to use it, eliminates that.