Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System

[Pax]

In principle I like the idea of point buy, in practice I think the existing method is very bad, for two reasons.

1. It enables all non-human races with stat bonuses to gain extra unearned bonus points, by reducing a stat with a low point cost and increasing one that is, say, at 16. Thus the elf with an 18 Dex(6 freebie points) and a 10 Con (2 points down) actually has a net 4 points over the human... so he can buy off his disadvantage and *still* have an extra 2 points to bump up another useful attribute!

Point buy allows canny non-humans to nullify their ability disadvantage and *still* get more points to spend than humans!

But humans still get their bonus feat and bonus skill point ... which still makes humans very attractive as a race choice.

That bonus skill point, by the way, translates for skill points only into the equivalent of a +2 Intelligence ... which means humans can more afford a lower intelligence, if they're not a Wizard, compared to nonhumans ... trading their edge in skill points, for (by PB system) 2 to 6 build points.

2. It is great for fighters, wizards, clerics and rogues. Classes who can benefit from focussing entirely on a single attribute and pumping it up. A class that needs more than one good attribute (ranger, paladin, sorcerer, heaven-forbid monk) has a much more difficult time building a competative character.

Which is why I suggested the shift in costs like my system, where a single 18 costs as much as FOUR 14s (8 points for a 14, 32 points for an 18), or almost as much as TWO 16's (18 points for the 16).

That way, given the same totals, you can EITEHR have one ro two very high stats, OR, several middling stats. Making monks return to viability (while also strengthening other multi-stat characters, and multiclass characetrs as well) is the primary reason to steepen the price-curve the way I did.

I like the principle of eliminating the bad-die-roll/great-die-roll effect, but I think the current system just doesn't work well for the two reasons above.

(I use a flat 75 points buy across the abilities at present, waiting for something better)

Check out my post above, tell me what you think.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I don't really understand your logic here. If you're inflating both the PCs' stats and the stats of the NPCs they face, how is that any different from not inflating either of them in the first place? Either way, the PCs are appropriately challenged; the only difference is that, in your method, the numbers on both sides are larger.

You are quite correct. If you are going to make literary heroes, you must have literary villains. The villains were usually on par with the heroes or slightly less capable. In D&D, that usually holds true anyway. That is why I do it.

My interest is not completely in game balance, though it suffices to make the playing table even between PC and NPC.

For myself, having high stats is also an attempt to capture a certain feel for the game. As I stated before, the PC's are the greatest heroes of their time by deed and characteristics.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

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.

The fighter in question is a fighter/ranger. He had a 16 wisdom. That gives him a +3 Will Save.

The enemy was a cleric with a 17 wisdom. The save for his Hold Person was 15. That means the player had to roll an 11 or better. Now, I converted all the NPC's over to 3rd edition. I gave the cleric Spell Focus (Enchantment) because he was the head of a kidnapping ring. That increased the save DC to 17.

The fighter had to roll a 14 or better. He didn't roll a 14 or better. I wouldn't say rolling less than a 14 was a bad roll, it just wasn't good enough.

 

[buzz]

For myself, having high stats is also an attempt to capture a certain feel for the game. As I stated before, the PC's are the greatest heroes of their time by deed and characteristics.

Right. My confusion is simply that things are balanced and PCs are above-average to begin with. You're just making the numbers bigger on both sides.

If this were 1e or 2e, I might be sympathetic, as bonuses didn't start happening then until you hit 14 or 15 in a given stat. But in 3e, everything from 12 onward is "heroic." Even using the "starting package" method (Take 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 8 [iirc] and assign to stats to taste), you've got a character with half of their stats well above the majority of the population. And that's just at 1st level!

Of course, you play how you want. I'm just saying, you don't need to uber-munchkinize stats to have a "heroic" game. IMO, characters like Aragorn and Lancelot aren't stat-monsters; they're simply high-level.

 

[Epametheus]

Let's see here... The way I handle things, 10-15 point characters are Generics with capitol G's. They're cannon-fodder/civilians/un-notables. Interesting people generally are not 12 point characters.

A 25 point character represents an average not-lame-classed person. The town priest, the captain of the guard, the local wizard. Important people in their spheres, but you'll find at least one in every town.

People made on the same point-buy as the PCs are "heroic" individuals. These are people/entities with real potential to change the world around them. While actions define heroes, being a step above the norm of people who matter certainly helps.

The current PB we've using is a bit different, but I've been liking how it works. First, do a 25 point buy. Then add +4 to one stat, and add +2 to another stat (not exceeding 18 before racial adjustments). This generally results in characters with two exceptional stats, but since it's based off of 25 point buy, characters usually wind up with a weakness. In addition, we allow the option of dropping a stat below 8 for more points (1 for 1 basis). Does it allow for more power gaming? Certainly. Does it allow me to put the PCs though a little more hell than I normally could with characters of that level? Certainly.

As a side note, one of the ugliest 3e battles that I've run involved a 22 HD pit fiend made on the same point-buy as the PCs. While heroic-scale PCs can eat generic mortals for lunch, they don't do so hot against heroic-scale monsters. If I ever ran a dragon on that sort of scale, I'd probably get a TPK.

 

[IceBear]

Re: Re

The fighter in question is a fighter/ranger. He had a 16 wisdom. That gives him a +3 Will Save.

The enemy was a cleric with a 17 wisdom. The save for his Hold Person was 15. That means the player had to roll an 11 or better. Now, I converted all the NPC's over to 3rd edition. I gave the cleric Spell Focus (Enchantment) because he was the head of a kidnapping ring. That increased the save DC to 17.

The fighter had to roll a 14 or better. He didn't roll a 14 or better. I wouldn't say rolling less than a 14 was a bad roll, it just wasn't good enough.

Sorry, just with some of the point buys being thrown around here, I thought he had a 25 wisdom or something

I still maintain that your "legendary" figures are simply high level and not necessarily high stated. Aragorn wasn't born and immediately a legend (well, maybe he was, but not for the reasons we're arguing here). He grew into it.

IceBear

 

[frisbeet]

Here's something I've recommended in the House Rules forum. Rather than link, I'll repeat myself:

-----------------------------------
Assume that everyone in your 3e D&D world have abilities which follow the 3d6 generation method distribution. If this is the case, then doing a little math, you'll find that on average, in 36 encounters with NPCs, one of them will have at least one 18 for an attribute, randomly assigned. That's different from saying that one in 36 will have an 18 Str. If you do a little more math, you find:

at least ?? 18(s), randomly assigned___probability___1 in

1___2.75E-02___36
2___3.18E-04___3149
3___1.96E-06___509169
4___6.84E-09___146199694
5___1.27E-11___78667665893
6___9.85E-15___101559956668416

So if you bumped into 101.6 trillion NPCs, one of them is probably going to have an 18 for every attribute. Somehow I doubt your world is that big.

Now, what about those NPCs with an 18 Str?

?? 18(s), exactly assigned___probability___1 in
1___2.75E-02___216
2___3.18E-04___46656
3___1.96E-06___10077696
4___6.84E-09___2176782336
5___1.27E-11___470184984576
6___9.85E-15___101559956668416

So one in 216 will have an 18 Str.

Here's my idea, given that characters are supposed to be chosen from a cream-of-the-crop distribution (ie 4d6, point buy, etc.):

Want an 18 Str?

Great! Now role 3d6 for your other attributes.

Your character has been selected from a special pool of people, better on average than 215 comrades in one attribute. That's not such a stretch, is it? I mean, if you're reading this forum, and especially if you play D&D, you're already in an elite subset of people, right?

------------------------------------

Anyway. Point buy is a good solution for truly fair play. One caveat:

I've done a bit of analysis on the Neverwinter Nights point buy scenario: 30 pts, no score < 8. While two in 3149 will have two 18s in the 3d6 world, NONE will have two 18s with the NWN 30 pt buy method. More generally: point buy prohibits some combinations of scores (lots of high scores especially). Maybe for some it's something to consider.

If you're interested in the probability distribution for the NWN point buy method (it's pretty dry stuff), see the NWN Bioware forum thread:


NWN point buy vs. other methods

 

[Celtavian]

RE

You would definitely have a hard time convincing me that Aragorn and Launcelot weren't high statted and high level. I could not imagine a single 32 point stat block that would accurately render either character.

 

[IceBear]

Re: RE

You would definitely have a hard time convincing me that Aragorn and Launcelot weren't high statted and high level. I could not imagine a single 32 point stat block that would accurately render either character.

And that's the fundamental problem. I have no problem imaging that.

IceBear

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: RE

You would definitely have a hard time convincing me that Aragorn and Launcelot weren't high statted and high level. I could not imagine a single 32 point stat block that would accurately render either character.

I am with Icebear.

The Aragorn and Lancelots you know were all very high level. You never saw them when they were starting characters. That is probably why your imagination is failing you.

What was King Arthur as a young whelp? Someone who could be slapped around in the judgement of the seasoned knights.

The only truly remarkable stats Aragorn displayed were Con and Wis. And those need not be terribly high in his youth, 15's or 16's. The rest could have been quite unremarkable -- above average or average. I think that could fit in 32 points. Throw a levelling stat increase or two in, Endurance, and Iron Will. Voila!

Lancelot did have an 18 Str starting out. But the guy was dumb as a brick and with a questionable wisdom score as well. If ever a character powergamed by abusing dump stats, it was the player who created Lancelot. 32 points? No problem!