Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System

What is your opinion of the Point Buy stat selection system?

  • Fine as it stands

    Votes: 143 76.5%
  • Needs a minor change

    Votes: 25 13.4%
  • Scrap it and start again

    Votes: 19 10.2%

I prefer point buys of 32 (28 for a change of pace) and dislike random rolling systems.

In my experience randon generation system tend to produce wide swings in character capabilities or they are just facades around "roll til you get high stats" designs. I recall a rollmaster game where one character, after propoting two 20's to 90 had 5 scores in the 20s and only two 90s (roll 10 d100, reroll anything below 20, promote two rolls to 90) while another character had two 100's and four 90's.

My only quibble with the current point buy is the price difference between 14 and 18 is so severe it tends to really skew towards broader characters, which is fine for many character concepts but not for others. if it were adjusted to give points increases below 14 and slightly tone down the upper end so that for instance buying a 14 cost 8 points and buy a 14 up to an 18 were 12, then it would seem more in line with supporting both extremes of character types.

Its just a quibble.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Petrosian said:

My only quibble with the current point buy is the price difference between 14 and 18 is so severe it tends to really skew towards broader characters, which is fine for many character concepts but not for others. if it were adjusted to give points increases below 14 and slightly tone down the upper end so that for instance buying a 14 cost 8 points and buy a 14 up to an 18 were 12, then it would seem more in line with supporting both extremes of character types.

Its just a quibble.

I don't entirely disagree with your quibble, the cost up to 18 are very severe, but I think making the costs linear is wrong too.

A linear bonus does not equal a linear benefit. To take the simplest example, an increase in Str is a double bonus (attack and damage), multiplied again if Hasted, multiplied again with Cleave.

14 might be a better cost for an 18 stat than 16, but 12 is too low.

I think it is a mistake to make taking an 18 at 1st level an easy choice. You can still be a high fantasy hero with your best number starting at 15, 16, or 17.
 

Ridley's Cohort said:


I don't entirely disagree with your quibble, the cost up to 18 are very severe, but I think making the costs linear is wrong too.

A linear bonus does not equal a linear benefit. To take the simplest example, an increase in Str is a double bonus (attack and damage), multiplied again if Hasted, multiplied again with Cleave.

14 might be a better cost for an 18 stat than 16, but 12 is too low.

I think it is a mistake to make taking an 18 at 1st level an easy choice. You can still be a high fantasy hero with your best number starting at 15, 16, or 17.

I think the problem is the only place you will find that double bonus is in str. What double bonus do you get for chr, for con?(sure hp, and fort save but they don't stack in effect like str hit+damage) so to fix the cost of str(it ebing a very powerful stat) every other stat suffers. For every other stat it is a linear benefit and for str is isn't really a doubling it's more of a 25%-50% more effective from 14 to 18 than it is from 10 to 14.

Not that the rolling method solves the str dillema.

Personally I don't increase the cost at all. Other than for str it is a linear benefit, and I don't feel the need to keep stats as rare as they would be if we rolled, or to try and make characters fit a certain mold, or any of the other reasons people have for likeing the current method. I use 25 points though so an 18 still can end up failry rare.(cue various min/max arguments to try and disprove this) And if people take the 18 it costs them in other areas so its not an issue to me, nor is min/maxing for that matter though I know its an issue to others.
 

celtavian: I'm not going to quibble with your specifics, not because I couldn't, but because it would be pointless.

What I do want to point out to you is that your answer shows a pervasive and mature balancing of the system which I would not expect an inexperienced DM to be able to do. The excellent use of tactics is fine, but no more than I would expect of the NPC's provided they were aware of iminenent attack. Nevertheless, it is tactics that show a great deal of understanding of the game and which a young DM might not readily adopt.

But even more striking is your claim that you are in effect running a low magic campaign. Bravo, but that is itself is not standard and from the designers point of view 'unexpected'. I agree, in the long run high stats give you less of a bonus than pervasive magic. As such, in the long run the high stats are nearly a moot point, and arguably if you are running a low magic campaign make the job of balancing the challenges alot easier on the DM.

For the record, I am willing to harp against 2nd and 3rd editions surplus of magic items at least as much as I am willing to harp against high stats.

I personally, as a DM would not want to build 'Lancalot' with 32 points. I looked at the old Legends and Lore, and discovered GG had built Lancalot with 60 some points (a direct comparison is not possible). I personally thought that was overkill. IMO, Lancalot can be the bravest and best simply by being high level, and certainly the arguement can be made that either of them are 32 point buy and their apparant advantages come from elsewhere. Both Lancalot and Aragorn have certain mystical properties to thier parentage. Better than creating them with high point buys would be slap a template on them and give them +ECL.

PC: "I want to play Aragorn! I want to play Aragorn! It's not fair that you don't let me play Aragorn! I want to be a real hero!"

DM: "*sigh* Ok, you can start out as a 1st level 'Heir of the Numenorean Kings', just understand that everyone else is going to start as 5th level characters."

(Not that the +ECL system doesn't need a rewrite)

Personally I think down that road though, you'll soon be getting players going 'I want to play Fizban! I want to play Fizban! It's not fair that you don't let me play Fizban! I want to be a real hero!' and 'Can I play Thor?' At which point you have to stop and say, 'Ok, we can either play D&D or we can play Champions in a D&D setting.'
 

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

Fine. Then normal point buy makes it very difficult to play classes that rely on a lot of stats.
 
Last edited:

I'd rather see a steeper curve, all scores starting at 10, NEGATIVE costs for scores below 10, and more points overall.

So you could have several 14's with relative ease, if you weaken a score or two and forgo having ANYthing above those 14's. (three or four 14's makes a monk just barely viable, IMO).

Here's a suggestion:

Code:
[color=white]
[b]Attribute Costs:[/b]

Score ... Cost
     03 ... -12
     04 ... -10
     05 ... -8
     06 ... -6
     07 ... -4
     08 ... -2
     09 ... -1
     10 ... 0
     11 ... 1
     12 ... 2
     13 ... 5
     14 ... 8
     15 ... 13
     16 ... 18
     17 ... 25
     18 ... 32
[/color][color=red]

(Note the progression is +1, +1, +3, +3, +5, +5, +7, +7 for
positive scores; -1 for the first two negative steps, then -2
for each step beyond that)

[/color][color=white]
[b]Starting point totals:[/b]

 ... Gritty, 10 (average score roughly 11.0)

 ... Low-Power, 20 (average score roughly 12.4)

 ... Mid-Power, 40 (average score roughly 13.5)

 ... High-Power, 80 (average score roughly 15.1)

 ... Godlike, 160 (average score roughly 17.2)
[/color]

Yes; each power level doubles the points available. With the more-swiftly-increasing point costs, however, this tends to produce an average increase of only 1.5 in the attribute scores you could get, if you spent your points evenly across all six attributes. What it does also do is significantly increase the "low score" attributes. Above mid-power, scores below 10 will pretty much disappear; at mid-power some players will take an 8 or 9, or two, to make up the few points they need for that last point of their "key" attribute. Below mid-level, lower scores will be seen more often, especially among spellcasters who have to reach for "the almighty 14" in their spellcasting attribute.

This lets people CHOOSE to have lower-than-average scores, if they want points available for better attributes. Even in a "Gritty" level game (truly villages thrown headlong into adventure, like it or not ...), you COULD pull off an 18, before racial modifiers (it'd just take a 3, a 4, four 10's, and your precious 18).

Mid-Power comes out with about the exact same average score (13.5) as "4d6-1" does, as it turns out.

Now, to take things a step further: add in the option to spend those same points on OTEHR advantages (and possibly disadvantages). Make a true Point-Buy character generation system. Some ideas, truly just off-the-cuff:

1 ... +10% starting money (can purchase repeatedly)

-1 ... -20% starting money (can purchase repeatedly)

5 ... Patent of Nobility (must have purchased +50% starting money already); your character is a member of the lowest rank of Nobility; requires GM approval

5 ... Increased Social Rank (includes +10% additional starting money without additional cost; must have a Patent of Nobility first); your rank among the nobility increases by one step; requires GM approval

20 ... bonus feat (requires GM approval)

2 ... bonus skill point, at first level only (requires GM approval)

-2 ... wanted criminal (petty crimes); one nation only; examples include pickpocketing, shoplifting. Use worst Wanted level only.

-5 ... wanted criminal (minor crimes); one nation only; examples include burglary, robbery, simple assault/brawling. Use worst Wanted level only.

-10 ... wanted criminal (capital crimes); one nation only; examples include murder, rape. Use worst Wanted level only.

-20 ... wanted criminal (high treason!); one nation only; GM approval required; examples include inciting rebellion, attempted (or even successful) regicide, or the misfortune of being the sovereign's elder half-sibling (heh) ... use worst Wanted level only.

variable ... declared a heretic by a major eligion (GM's discretion on permissibility and value, based on the power of the relgion in question and the severity of the heres(-y/-ies) named; use the Wanted Criminal totals as a basis for a complete theocracy, and scale value down from there).

...

That sort of thing. So in a gritty game, you could play a fairly successful but wanted burglar who has had the misfortune of killing one too many of his victims (Rogue, ofc), wanted in the campaign's starting kingdom for (on the worst level) major crimes (murder), with 6 extra points for attributes (for a total of 16) and +40% starting money. Attributes then could be STR 10, DEX 14, CON 13, INT 12, WIS 9, CHA 12 ... someone just above average in brains and charm, pretty healthy, very agile, but not inclined to thinking his actions out beforehand in a crisis ... a good amount of gear and/or cash on hand, but his description is on wanted posters here and there throughout the campaign's starting home base.

Conversely, the next player may decide to play a characetr with STR 9, DEX 10, CON 9, INT 10, WIS 10, CHA 12, +50% startign money, and a Patent of Nobility ... with the Aristocrat NPC class ... a very -minor- nobleman's son, a bit weak and sickly but not cripplingly so, and enough charm to give him possible promise as a minor diplomat; all HIS attribute points went into advantages.

Thirdly, the party cleric might have been named a heretic by the currently-ascendant religion, his own having been driven undeground (nothing worse than being a priest of the wrong faith, but the church doesn't make thelaws ... yet; -15 points); his attributes are STR 10, DEX 10, CON 10, INT 12, WIS 16, CHA 14, and he has only 40% of the expected starting gear/money (-3 points), as his in-hiding "church" can't afford much more than FEEDING it's clergy, let alone equipping them well. His charm and high wisdom are almost all that has kept him out of the clutches of the now-ascendant faith, despite being named -- and carefully described- for heresies on posters placed all through the land, and despite the concurrently large price on his head ...

Mind you, the costs above, especially those not for attributes, are literally off-the-cuff, and Ihaven't given them huge thought (yet). However, given the quickie characters above at the "Gritty" level, I'm inclined to like this idea (if I do say so myself).

...

Thoughts, ideas, suggestions, high-velocity rotten fruit?
 
Last edited:

Pax said:
Thoughts, ideas, suggestions, high-velocity rotten fruit?

The biggest problem I see with this system is that not all stats are created equal. Players will probably almost always sacrifice the stats they don't think are important in order to get more points for the ones they think are important. So instead of having a bunch of players walking around with 8 charismas, you'll have a bunch of players walking around with 3 charismas.
 

Well a 3 charisma is a -4 penalty. Assess simple RP penalties on them.

Mind you, I tend to adjust prices of goods, as well as NPC reactions, based on charisma modifier. The Bard or Paladin with a +3 or +4 Charisma modifier will pay a lot less for something, than the -5 charisma modifier Dwarf barbarian would pay ... for the exact same item ... from the exact same merchant. (we're talking maybe 3% per +1 or -1 of charisma, and 1% to 2% per rank in an appropriate skill; Craft (Blacksmith) gives you a better ability to buy and sell stuff the skill would be used to make ...).

Not to mention getting more of a hassle from the guards at every gate to every city in creation.

And so on.

:) Not to mention, GM approval comes in at every stage; GM's would be well within their rights to say "No attributes bought below 6" or "charisma only gives half the points for lowering it" or the like. :)

NO system will be perfect. Can't happen. But I think the costs are better with my idea, than with the standard DMG system.
 

Pax: That is a good system. I've been wanting to get an article in Asgard for a while on advantages and disadvantages, but the fact that I'm working and going to class full time hasn't left me alot of time to spend writing up something. If you are interested in writing something up combining your system with an ad disad system, maybe you could email me.
 

PAX: Persoanlly I'd hate to play in a system like that where the costs for stats above average get really and prohibitivly expensive. I would feel railroaded into playing a character the DM wanted me to play(stat wise). Sure there could be some degree of versatility, but the costs increase so much so fast you'd have to be a real hard ass for your character concept if you saw your character as a prodigy/savant in a certain stat and to actually take the stat to represent that.

IOW I would find the constraints irritating as get all out. It's childish but in a non-scaling system I'd be much more likely to make a 12-14 character, in a system where I'm be rules mechainc forced into taking those stats, i'll bend over backwards to break it and get an 18 even if it criples me, and I'll probably end up not likeing my character. I don't mind a DM coming up and discussing with the players and coming to an agreement on what types of stats we should have for the genre of the game, I hate a rule mechainc being enforced on me to do the same thing.

edit: I always liked the idea for edges/flaws or whatver you want to call them. And what you had was an interesting start. Though since I didn't like your point mechainc, I'd have to use a different scale of points though.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top