What's the big deal with point buy?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Some of you do. We didnt, our 1e and 2nd e games were a mess of house rules and such that helped ensure that a single class human fighter was a character that helped the group as much as the mage, or multiclass abomination.

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.

And I'd say you're in the minority. But guess what, you're in luck. You can still intentionally make a sub par character even WITH balanced rules.

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?

Like problem solving? You know, the thing the wizard does between cups of coffee using scry and contact other plane? If your rogue did anything worth mentioning in 1st edition, it was because the wizard player had passed out, or the DM just handed you the opportunity. There was a reason the class advanced fast, it sucked. Gygax and company in their terrible "wisdom" decided that its a good idea to make a system that punishes certain players the longer they are involved. Thats right fighter, you get more marginalized as you play! What great insight!

 

[Mercule]

I can go either way.

For a "serious" game, I prefer point buy. Why? I'm putting in a lot of time and effort, as GM, to make the game interesting and tailored to the PCs. I want them to have characters they like and who are appropriately powered to working as an ensemble.

For a "beer-n-pretzels" game, I'm fine with dice. Why? Because it's about making the best of what you've got, trying to survive crappy situations, and the occasional need for a new PC. But, if we're going for randomness in stats, I want to do 3d6 (or 4d6, for slightly higher powered PCs) in order.

Basically, I think one should pick a school of thought. Either plan and choose your stats, or get a random set.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

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.

As both a writer and a gamer I can say that there is a difference. When I write, I want things to happen so they do. Sure, occasionally I do model the characters off of actual builds and occasionally I even allow dice to randomize my writing by indicating the speed a conflict is resolved or to what level a story character is successful. But the difference is that if I want to write about a fighter or thief that rules the world, I can. In D&D the game, it is far less likely to happen.

Having said that, I do prefer a game that has an attempt at balance. I don't demand nor expect perfect balance because my RL experience tells me that it isn't perfectly balanced. But I do want a guarantee that I can meaningfully contribute. It could happen in 1e, but its more likely to happen at all levels in 3e.

Besides, as it was pointed out. In an unbalanced game, you can't always play a character that is great. In a balanced on, you can. In both games you can choose to sub-optimaly play.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

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.

And that is great. Going back to my Runt Rogue, I'm trying to recall what I did contribute and I'm coming up fairly dry. I'm sure I opened locks and disabled traps but there aren't any that stand out in my mind (the fact that this character was 5 years old or so doens't help, I'm sure). I recall the times the fighter rolled high on the Open Locks check after I rolled a few 5s and 6s. I didn't have the hp to spend much time in melee so sneak attack didn't happen very often. If I had something solid to contribute in combat (out-of-combat wasn't a problem. I recall quite a few enemies I contributed with my back story) I probobly wouldn't have been so upset about the rolls.

Why does their have to be a difference between a novel and a game?

One has an author. The other doesn't (or at least, shouldn't). In one, a select group (usually one) has complete control over what happens to every character. In the other, there are many who have control and most of those involved only have control of one character (or two with cohorts and such). In one, the creator knows - most of the time - who is going to be alive at the end of the story when they start writing it. In the other, no one knows who will survive when they start.

In the end, you are telling a story of companions surviving against the odds and obstacles of a war-torn world.

And... in theory at least... each should have an equal chance of survival.

Don't get me wrong - I will willingly go out like Borromir. A self-sacrifice to try and protect others. I don't need to survive to have fun here. But I want to actually make a difference in my last stand. If the the big bad is designed to challange the big stats person in the party I'll be lucky to land a single attack.

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?

Like a sidekick? At least Robin was able to contribute to Batman's adventures. I want to be able to contribute something. I want to remember that I was able to contribute something.

I didn't have the stats to be the faceman of the party. I'm sure I had to be the best at locks and traps - but that isn't what I remember. I don't demand the spatlight or require that I be the best at everything. Heck, I'm currently playing a bard (and enjoying it)! I don't have the biggest bodycount when it comes to combat but I know that I am helping the others when the weapons come out; I know how I am helping the others when the blood starts to spill and I feel that I am able to help the others when their lives are on the line.

I know what my character is capable of and what I can help with. I know, going in, what I bring to the group. That is what can be removed if a one character completely outmatches another character. I recall the background and the rogue's storyline. I recall a couple of cool fights that had villains from my rogue's storylline (I don't recall what I did in those fights - although I'm sure that in one of the fights I went unconcious very, very quicly. Again - that happens. Doesn't make me feel better though.). I don't recall what my rogue added to the party.

I don't feel like I added anything to the party and THAT is the problem.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Do you make your PCs roll or do you use point buy? It seems like every other DM I know uses point buy and I cannot help but feel that point buy has spoiled a lot of players into thinking they can create a character with no holes.

I give them a choice. There are some players that believe that they're incredibly unlucky with dice, so I give them a choice: 25 point buy, or 4d6 drop lowest. It works great. about 30% of my players choose point buy.

 

[Crothian]

I've only skimmed the thread, but I'm surprised that I haven't noticed anyone saying they let their players choose.

That would be my calling card. THis thread is about point buy and I didn't see a need to derail it.

 

[Lanefan]

So far, I pretty much agree with Cedric.

A few things to keep in mind:

Unless your campaign is going to be one of those awful "PC's will never die and the PC's that start the campaign must finish it" set-ups, the character you roll up now is not by any means going to be the only character you play! So, if you get a bad one, play it into the ground (as entertainingly and memorably as possible), decline to be raised, and try again. How simple is that?

Stats don't make the character. The character, and the player, make the character. Sure, some people like to brag about their all-18 character, but the stories that last longest are those of the derring-do - or derring-don't - of various PC's ("remember that time we lined ourselves up in perfect order of ascending height and then opened the door with a medusa behind it?") that nobody remembers the stats of.

Lane-"give me the dice and stand back!"-fan

 

[Cedric]

I don't feel like I added anything to the party and THAT is the problem.

And I agree completely, that's a problem. If you feel that way, then something needs to change because, honestly, that's just not fun.

As to my thoughts on balance. Eh, I'm old and stuck in my ways. I didn't like the fact that 2e watered down mages...and I didn't play mages back then.

So I totally understand that most people playing now disagree with me, and I'm fine with that. I try to do the best I can, within reason, to optimize my character, I like being effective at what I do.

I just prefer that there be a random factor involved in that creation process when I'm playing D&D. If I wanted static points to spend, again, I'd play Hero. So basically, when I want a different style of play, I play a different game system.

From D&D, I want random character generation and I am not particularly concerned with balance is it relates from one character to another.

 

[Plane Sailing]

"Whoever rolls the highest is going to end up dominating the whole campaign. That's not fair at all. I want to be able to have the spotlight sometimes too."
(Ability scores are not the be-all, end-all in 3e. Although they are arguably more significant at lower levels, the higher you get in level, the less ability scores matter because things like magic, skills, class abilities, and feats easily make up for those deficiencies.

I think you underestimate the effect of this. As other people have said, at any given level the character with the good luck of rolling better is ALWAYS better than the other players - by a significant margin too. It can make a lot of unfun for the less well endowed PCs.

My group tend to use point buy now because there are no concerns about how 'lucky' someone got when rolling up a character at home - we know that everyone is on the same footing.

The big downside of it is that all the classes that rely upon a single big attribute tend to start off with an 18 - Ftrs with 18 str, wizards with 18 Int, rogues with 18 dex, clerics with 18 Wis for instance.

I quite like Mouseferatus suggestion that everyone rolls and then the best set of rolls is used by everyone (presumably rearranged to suit each players personal preferences). That would give a nice level of randomness while still remaining 'fair' between players.

Cheers

 

[werk]

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

I agree, except that with regard to stats, your sample size is one. With a sample so small, statistical variation does not have the opportunity to blanace everything out.

If you roll poorly for stats (provided you don't reroll unitl you get acceptable stats) that character will be penalized for it's entire life, likewise good stats will benefit a character it's entire life.

Dice are balanced in an appropriate sample. Since characters don't reroll their stats every level, it's a a fixed value, and therefore...not balanced by the laws of random variance in any way.

Point buy, it's the only fair way.