Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System

[Celebrim]

celtavian: I think the reason it is not encouraged it throws the assumptions of the game system off, and a DM is going to have difficulty setting challenges appropriately. A DM already has to be quite careful at low levels. With a 50+ PB, low level characters are going to be markedly more powerful than they would be at 28-32 PB. They will have few deficiencies regardless of class. Hit points, AC, and BAB are going to be high enough that CR <1 monsters represent no real challenge. CR 2 monsters are well within the capacity of the party. However, although the party has abilities equivelant to 2nd or 3rd level standard characters, they don't yet have the h.p. So monsters above the usual range of CR will when they get lucky kill PC's, even when the expectation is that the party should win.

After a level or two, the high CON bonus is going to overcome this and you begin to see PC's with more h.p. than would be expected of PC's a level or two higher than normal.

You are going to have to deal with the fact that if you throw the usual challenges against the party, they won't be challenged, but if you throw extraordinary challenges against the party they will level up just that much faster. So one of the problems I would have as a player of 50+ PB characters is that the game really wouldn't linger at a particular 'level' long enough for me to really explore my players capabilities. There would be a tendancy I think to gain new abilities before you've even had a chance to use older ones (I already have this problem with normal 3rd. ed.).

You are going to have to deal with the fact that certain classes gain more advantage out of high PB's than other ones. +4 h.p. per level at least doubles the h.p. of wizards and rogues, but is less than a 50% improvement for fighters and barbarians. This drastically improves the survivability of rogues and spell casters and allows them to survive adopting tactics that would otherwise probably result in thier death in a lower PB campaign. Barbarians don't normally make use of thier excellent skill set (when is the last time you saw a high int Barbarian). Usually favoring maximizing str, dex, and con. In a +50 pb, Barbarians don't have to make nearly as big of a trade off, and fighters suddenly start suffering thier weak skill set alot more than they would otherwise. High attributes drastically change the utility of feats. Skill focus and toughness have no purpose at all. You are already good at low levels. Who needs them?

So you have to deal with possible lack of parity between characters. Also, like high magic worlds, this to me encourages poor aquisition of dungeoneering skills. You create players whose repetoire is built arround the expectation of abilities that are extraordinary, and not around simple skills and tools available to everyone at all levels of play. (I'm always amazed by supposedly experienced gamers who can't think through simple problems without resorting to the use of a spell, and whose character sheets don't have things like 'flint and steel', 'rope', '10' pole', and 'torches' on them.)

All of these problems are subtle and I think more than most inexperienced DMs are going to be able to handle. Heck, I think that they aren't even going to be noticed by an inexperienced DM. I think the average DM will just assume that is the way the system works, and start adjusting the assumptions of his campaign world to compensate (ei all NPC's have high PB's, all monsters have above average or maximum hitpoints, magic is common enough that advantages is attributes are drowned out, and so forth). And this opinion is based on experience; not merely on theory. I've walked into campaigns were virtually every NPC's was assumed to have 18 in all stats and monsters all had maximum hitpoints because the DM had let players run wild at character creation and was trying to maintain control of the game and find suitable challenges for the players.

Moreover, for a young player, providing the option to set the PB at 50 or 60 or 70 is the same as telling him to do it. Power is very addictive and very tempting to a young player. The FIRST implus of a young gamer is to be Conan, Aragorn, Lancelot, Hercules, or <insert name of a paragon hero here>. In my experience, it is alot easier for a player used to playing the equivalent of 32 PB characters to adapt to a power gamer's world, than it is for a power gamer to adapt to a low power campaign world where the answer to everything can't be digging out a special ability from his huge tool bag of abilities. So in alot of ways, opening up that possibility from the start is the same as killing all other possibilities. (See the Forgotten Realms as an example.) Once you have wet your knees in gaming, you can always decide 'Heh, just for a change lets run a campaign where we are all demi-gods or thereabout. Or, heh, lets run a campaign where everyone starts out as princes.' But I wouldn't expect a gamer who had started out in games where players begin as uber-heroes to decide 'Oh, why don't we all start out as simple villagers who become heroes through thier actions in the face of great adversity.' until very much latter in his maturation, if ever.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Re:

And what's wrong with that, really?

It is a necessity of Game Mechanics, unrelated to role playing, that I need an 18 in one stat (INT) in order to have the skill points to even approximate the kind of character I want to play. Since I tend to play a Ranger, this requirement is a bit odd, to say the least.

The trend that I see, continually, in modern RPGs is to tell players that their PCs are "Heroes", and then treat them as less skilled than the average Boy Scout. Needless to say, this irks me.

You misunderstand the concept of skill-points: a character with a maxed-out skill isn't good at it, he's way above the average. On the other side, a character with 0 ranks in some stat doesn't have to be bad at that skill (assuming it can be used untrained): he can still be good at it. He just won't be perfect with it.

The average boy scout doesn't have all maxed out ranks in 20 skills, he probably has no ranks in these skills, but he can do these things very good - for a non-hero. Skill points are the stuff of heroes, really.

Also, if you want to be good in more skills, you have to (a) choose a class with mor skill points, like rogue, or (b) not max them out, but distribute them evenly amongst the skills you want.

BTW - just because you don't like the Point Buy System doesn't mean that 3E is flawed because of it. As far as I know, the PBS isn't even mentioned in the PHB (it's been awhile so I could be wrong). I think they advocated using 4d6 - 1 in the PHB.

IceBear

Yes. 4d6-1 is the only thing explained in the PHB. The rest is from DMG.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Re:

And what's wrong with that, really?

It is a necessity of Game Mechanics, unrelated to role playing, that I need an 18 in one stat (INT) in order to have the skill points to even approximate the kind of character I want to play. Since I tend to play a Ranger, this requirement is a bit odd, to say the least.

The trend that I see, continually, in modern RPGs is to tell players that their PCs are "Heroes", and then treat them as less skilled than the average Boy Scout. Needless to say, this irks me.

You misunderstand the concept of skill-points: a character with a maxed-out skill isn't good at it, he's way above the average. On the other side, a character with 0 ranks in some stat doesn't have to be bad at that skill (assuming it can be used untrained): he can still be good at it. He just won't be perfect with it.

The average boy scout doesn't have all maxed out ranks in 20 skills, he probably has no ranks in these skills, but he can do these things very good - for a non-hero. Skill points are the stuff of heroes, really.

Also, if you want to be good in more skills, you have to (a) choose a class with mor skill points, like rogue, or (b) not max them out, but distribute them evenly amongst the skills you want.

BTW - just because you don't like the Point Buy System doesn't mean that 3E is flawed because of it. As far as I know, the PBS isn't even mentioned in the PHB (it's been awhile so I could be wrong). I think they advocated using 4d6 - 1 in the PHB.

IceBear

Yes. 4d6-1 is the only thing explained in the PHB. The rest is from DMG.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Re:

And what's wrong with that, really?

It is a necessity of Game Mechanics, unrelated to role playing, that I need an 18 in one stat (INT) in order to have the skill points to even approximate the kind of character I want to play. Since I tend to play a Ranger, this requirement is a bit odd, to say the least.

The trend that I see, continually, in modern RPGs is to tell players that their PCs are "Heroes", and then treat them as less skilled than the average Boy Scout. Needless to say, this irks me.

You misunderstand the concept of skill-points: a character with a maxed-out skill isn't good at it, he's way above the average. On the other side, a character with 0 ranks in some stat doesn't have to be bad at that skill (assuming it can be used untrained): he can still be good at it. He just won't be perfect with it.

The average boy scout doesn't have all maxed out ranks in 20 skills, he probably has no ranks in these skills, but he can do these things very good - for a non-hero. Skill points are the stuff of heroes, really.

Also, if you want to be good in more skills, you have to (a) choose a class with mor skill points, like rogue, or (b) not max them out, but distribute them evenly amongst the skills you want.

BTW - just because you don't like the Point Buy System doesn't mean that 3E is flawed because of it. As far as I know, the PBS isn't even mentioned in the PHB (it's been awhile so I could be wrong). I think they advocated using 4d6 - 1 in the PHB.

IceBear

Yes. 4d6-1 is the only thing explained in the PHB. The rest is from DMG.

 

[Grog]

You are going to have to deal with the fact that certain classes gain more advantage out of high PB's than other ones.

But by the same token, low point buy also skews the playing field in favor of certain classes. For example, compare a monk, who has four different stats that are fairly important to the class, with a wizard, who really only needs one good stat. Low point buy makes it very difficult to play classes that rely on a lot of different stats.

 

[Celebrim]

Grog: I do think a certain case can be made for that, though I don't think it is Wizard that you can make the easiest case for. A first level wizard without some bonus in Con and/or Dex is going to have a hard time of it. I'd much sooner start a wizard with 15 INT, and dump whatever points I had left into Con and Dex. A fighter really only needs to capitalize on strength to be quite effective, since he can compensate for low dex with good armor, and his d10 HD makes up for less than stellar Con.

I've never been a fan of monks in a Western inspired game setting, don't encourage people to play them, and frankly don't feel that they are all that effective even with good stats. However, assuming we are using a very low point build, and assuming that the level of the characters is low, monks are probably every bit as effective (or ineffective) as wizards. However, again, though I don't necessarily agree with the particular example, I do agree that some classes rely on more attributes than others.

 

[Storminator]

I run a game with a couple of very well statted PCs. One of them has

18, 16, 16, 13, 9, 9

which works out to a 43 point character. He rolled those stats. I can accept good stats if they're rolled, but point buy has the added advantage of controlling your stats. Combined with 43 points, that's much too good. Who would make this PC with point buy? No one. Those 9s are wasted points, as is the 13.

Of course to compensate I made the PC dirt poor and hunted by all the local power brokers. Toss in that the only PCs were a pair of rogues, and they desperately needed good stats...

PS

 

[Bastoche]

But by the same token, low point buy also skews the playing field in favor of certain classes. For example, compare a monk, who has four different stats that are fairly important to the class, with a wizard, who really only needs one good stat. Low point buy makes it very difficult to play classes that rely on a lot of different stats.

28 PB is not low PB, it's normal PB. 20 would be low PB.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

32 pt is average to me. 28 is on the low end of average.

DM already has to be quite careful at low levels. With a 50+ PB, low level characters are going to be markedly more powerful than they would be at 28-32 PB

I agree with this, high stats have a much greater impact at low levels making low level challenges much easier.

The opposite is true at high levels, IMO. At high levels, if stats aren't magically enhanced, the characters will fail to defeat the challenges present before them.

Considering that I don't much like magical stat enhancement, I prefer to have the characters already possess high stats. Even then, they often need stat enchancements to compete.

Evil outsiders, dragons and other such creatures they fight at high level are very powerful. It makes the game difficult if the players don't have an optimal chance of survival.

That is why I don't mind them being overpowered at low levels, because it will even at out at higher levels. I greatly prefer the high level game over the low level game. The adventures are by far more interesting at high level.

You are going to have to deal with the fact that if you throw the usual challenges against the party, they won't be challenged, but if you throw extraordinary challenges against the party they will level up just that much faster. So one of the problems I would have as a player of 50+ PB characters is that the game really wouldn't linger at a particular 'level' long enough for me to really explore my players capabilities. There would be a tendancy I think to gain new abilities before you've even had a chance to use older ones (I already have this problem with normal 3rd. ed.).

This is a false assumption unless ones sole idea of a challenge is very simple combats involving nothing more than an exchange of rolls in an open combat field.

For example, my group, all of them possessing stats that would make most EN world players puke, faced an enemy priest and his rogue forces. Not a single bit of this encounter was changed from the module. (If you have it, it is the Night Below Module. Ranchefus, Balrat, Wilmors, some zombies, and a single additional thief.) All the characters were 3rd level which is the recommended level for the encounter.

They entire group set up a defensive position in room with a single door. The rogues flanked the doorway and readied to attack the first person entering the room. Ranchefus readied a hold spell to cast on the first person entering the room.

The high statted PC's decided to rush the room. The first fighter was held, and the second fighter tried to push past him but was flanked and sneak attacked for nearly all his hit points. Suffice it to say that they were summarily repelled. They had to rethink their plans.

This particular group is very powerful as well, yet they were defeated through good tactics on my part, the DM. All players, no matter their powerlevel, can be challenged by a good DM. Even if the NPC's are not equal to the PC's, the DM can use the environment to provide suitable addition to the challenge.

You are going to have to deal with the fact that certain classes gain more advantage out of high PB's than other ones. +4 h.p. per level at least doubles the h.p. of wizards and rogues, but is less than a 50% improvement for fighters and barbarians. This drastically improves the survivability of rogues and spell casters and allows them to survive adopting tactics that would otherwise probably result in thier death in a lower PB campaign. Barbarians don't normally make use of thier excellent skill set (when is the last time you saw a high int Barbarian). Usually favoring maximizing str, dex, and con. In a +50 pb, Barbarians don't have to make nearly as big of a trade off, and fighters suddenly start suffering thier weak skill set alot more than they would otherwise. High attributes drastically change the utility of feats. Skill focus and toughness have no purpose at all. You are already good at low levels. Who needs them?

This is not true at all. A low level wizard will survive better, a high level wizard will still die very easily. High level monsters are much stronger than they ever were before. No wizard can go toe to toe with say a giant or even an ogre and expect to survive.

There low chance to hit would prolong the battle to the point where additional hit points does very little for said wizard. Whereas a barbarian or fighter could go toe to toe with a giant or an ogre, the balance between the barbarian hit points and base attack would allow him to survive.

Remember, base attack must be taken into account along with hit points and Ac when determing the battle efficiency of a class.

As far as Barbarian's skill set, they possess very few combat skills and will in no way outshine a fighter. Feats are much better than skills and often better than the barbarian's rage ability.

Not one player in my gaming group has played a straight class melee. They always include a few levels of figher because battle feats are so important to being a melee combatant.

Toughness is not a well-designed feat and does not increase survivabilty at low levels save versus very weak creatures such as Kobolds and goblins.

For example, your average orcs strength bonus alone offsets the advantage of toughness. Should the advantage of a feat be offset by an average orcs melee abilities? Think about it, your average orc if he hits does 9 pts of melee damage. An average wizard or rogue with a 14 con (a fairly good con) will have 9 and 11 hit points respectively. The strength of many of these creatures in 3rd edition make Toughness a moot point to begin with.

Skill Focus is still a very good skill. When I made a half-elf bard/rogue explorer, I took skill focus (disable device) and skill focus (search). Why? Even with an 18 intelligence, a search roll for an average glyph of warding is DC: 28. That means at first level if maxed out, I have a +9 roll. I need to roll a 19 to find an average glyph.

My chances only improve by 1 per level. That means at 9th level, my total will be 12 skill, +4 intelligence, +1 half-elf. Now I need to roll an 11 or better at 9th level to find an average glyph. I still only have a 45% chance of finding an average glyph. If it is a greater glyph of warding, I have to roll a 14 or better to find it. That means I only have a 30% chance of finding an greater glyph. Let's not even talk about Symbols.

I would say Skill Focus is still useful considering it improves my chances of finding traps by 10%.

So you have to deal with possible lack of parity between characters. Also, like high magic worlds, this to me encourages poor aquisition of dungeoneering skills. You create players whose repetoire is built arround the expectation of abilities that are extraordinary, and not around simple skills and tools available to everyone at all levels of play. (I'm always amazed by supposedly experienced gamers who can't think through simple problems without resorting to the use of a spell, and whose character sheets don't have things like 'flint and steel', 'rope', '10' pole', and 'torches' on them.)

This statement I agree with, though I don't believe it is high stats that discourage good dungeoneering skills or the acquisition of useful feats such as Skill Focus.

Magic items are the real culprit that ruin the game. Magic items provide utterly insane bonuses totally eliminating the need to take Skill Focus or Iron Will or some other feat that a person would rarely take.

That is why I prefer to allow my players high stats and keep tight control of certain types of magic items. Lens of Detection pretty much allows a low level rogue to perform as if 10 levels highter than normal. Cloak and Boots of Elvenkind make scouting a joke. Ring of Free action ruins hold spells.

I would rather have a fighter with a high wisdom have a better chance of making a saving throw, than have that same fighter wearing a Ring of Free Action.

High stats do not ruin a game. They do not make creating a challenge hard for the DM. Magic items are more likely to destroy a game and create disparities between the players.

A few good magic items or a single powerful magic item can really make a DM's life very hard. Yet, I don't see as many people harping on magic items as I see harping on stats.

All of these problems are subtle and I think more than most inexperienced DMs are going to be able to handle. Heck, I think that they aren't even going to be noticed by an inexperienced DM. I think the average DM will just assume that is the way the system works, and start adjusting the assumptions of his campaign world to compensate (ei all NPC's have high PB's, all monsters have above average or maximum hitpoints, magic is common enough that advantages is attributes are drowned out, and so forth). And this opinion is based on experience; not merely on theory. I've walked into campaigns were virtually every NPC's was assumed to have 18 in all stats and monsters all had maximum hitpoints because the DM had let players run wild at character creation and was trying to maintain control of the game and find suitable challenges for the players.

How were the PC's equipped? Did they have above average magic as well as above average stats?

You may be right for inexperienced DM's, but even then I am not sure. I have been playing a longtime myself, and we have almost always run players with high stats.

As a DM, I didn't have trouble challenging PC's with high stats. I had trouble challenging PC's with a great many magic items.

I find players with potent magic far more difficult to challenge than players with high stats.

Moreover, for a young player, providing the option to set the PB at 50 or 60 or 70 is the same as telling him to do it. Power is very addictive and very tempting to a young player. The FIRST implus of a young gamer is to be Conan, Aragorn, Lancelot, Hercules, or <insert name of a paragon hero here>. In my experience, it is alot easier for a player used to playing the equivalent of 32 PB characters to adapt to a power gamer's world, than it is for a power gamer to adapt to a low power campaign world where the answer to everything can't be digging out a special ability from his huge tool bag of abilities. So in alot of ways, opening up that possibility from the start is the same as killing all other possibilities. (See the Forgotten Realms as an example.) Once you have wet your knees in gaming, you can always decide 'Heh, just for a change lets run a campaign where we are all demi-gods or thereabout. Or, heh, lets run a campaign where everyone starts out as princes.' But I wouldn't expect a gamer who had started out in games where players begin as uber-heroes to decide 'Oh, why don't we all start out as simple villagers who become heroes through thier actions in the face of great adversity.' until very much latter in his maturation, if ever.

Young gamer's are probably always going to mess around testing the power level of the game. Heck, when I was young, I did plenty of the stupid things you hear young players doing: making gods, running super powered characters because you read too many comics, handing out every possible magic item just because it seems cool.

They will grow out of it. For me, high stats are more an indication of a type of character. I do understand that heroes are defined by their actions, but there are different types of archetype heroes.

Some can be made with low points, others cannot. For ezxample, no one here has argued that you can make a heroic archetype like Aragorn or Sir Launcelot with 32 points. Why? Because you know it can't be done.

Such heroic archetypes would require a far greater number of points. They are the most powerful figures in their particular fantasy settings, and are the types of characters you would design a whole campaign around.

My biggest problem with the point buy system is that the creation of such characters is not even included as an option. That is unfair to players would enjoy playing a character like Sir Launcelot or the many other heroes in the same ilk in the various fantasy books that many of us gamers like to read. That is the main reason why I view the point buy system as needing modification to include more options.

32 points should not be considered the highest level of heroic play, period.

 

[IceBear]

If that fighter had such high stats, how did he fail his Will save? I'm going to guess he rolled REALLY bad. A bad roll (or good roll) tends to negates stats regardless.

BTW - legendary characters, IMHO, aren't legendary because of high stats - it's because they are high LEVEL. There is nothing I've read that makes me think Aragorn or Lancelot would have unusally high stats that they couldn't have gotten from a 32-point buy and stat increases from levelling.

I like to start small and work my way up. If you don't, more power to you. I guess the main differences is I have more fun at the low and mid levels while you have more fun with high level play; thus the inherient differences in opinion on good stats.

IceBear