Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System

[Lord Zardoz]

Ever consider 5d4 stat generation?

So the debate here, as I am interpreting it has had the following points made.

1) Standard point buy means that two characters of a given class are likely to have identical stats.

2) Point buys lead to either crap stats in less useful abilities from min/maxing, or to absolute median characters.

3) Point buy as written means that people are less likely to take a heavily stat dependent class (Paladin or Monk).

4) Dice methods lead too easily to stat envy among players from rolling at the extremes (too high or too low)

Why not try 5d4 generation? That method will put a higher amount of the stats in the median area then 4d6 drop 1. Since I got bored, I wrote a small program to brute force out some statistics:

average score for 4d6 drop lowest = 12.244599 iterations = 1296.000000
average score for 5d4 drop lowest = 12.500000 iterations = 1024.000000
results:

3 on 4d6 drop: 1 (0.00% of rolls) on 5d4: 0 (0.00% of rolls)
4 on 4d6 drop: 4 (0.00% of rolls) on 5d4: 0 (0.00% of rolls)
5 on 4d6 drop: 10 (0.01% of rolls) on 5d4: 1 (0.00% of rolls)
6 on 4d6 drop: 21 (0.02% of rolls) on 5d4: 5 (0.00% of rolls)
7 on 4d6 drop: 38 (0.03% of rolls) on 5d4: 15 (0.01% of rolls)
8 on 4d6 drop: 62 (0.05% of rolls) on 5d4: 35 (0.03% of rolls)
9 on 4d6 drop: 91 (0.07% of rolls) on 5d4: 65 (0.06% of rolls)
10 on 4d6 drop: 122 (0.09% of rolls) on 5d4: 101 (0.10% of rolls)
11 on 4d6 drop: 148 (0.11% of rolls) on 5d4: 135 (0.13% of rolls)
12 on 4d6 drop: 167 (0.13% of rolls) on 5d4: 155 (0.15% of rolls)
13 on 4d6 drop: 172 (0.13% of rolls) on 5d4: 155 (0.15% of rolls)
14 on 4d6 drop: 160 (0.12% of rolls) on 5d4: 135 (0.13% of rolls)
15 on 4d6 drop: 131 (0.10% of rolls) on 5d4: 101 (0.10% of rolls)
16 on 4d6 drop: 94 (0.07% of rolls) on 5d4: 65 (0.06% of rolls)
17 on 4d6 drop: 54 (0.04% of rolls) on 5d4: 35 (0.03% of rolls)
18 on 4d6 drop: 21 (0.02% of rolls) on 5d4: 15 (0.01% of rolls)
19 on 4d6 drop: 0 (0.00% of rolls) on 5d4: 5 (0.00% of rolls)
20 on 4d6 drop: 0 (0.00% of rolls) on 5d4: 1 (0.00% of rolls)


With the 5d4 method, you end up with roughly 76% of the results being between 10 and 15. The 4d6 drop method puts about 69 percent in that area.

If you consider less then 10 to be an unacceptable stat, then 18% of the stats are in that range for 4d6 drop, while only 12% of the stats for 5d4 are unacceptabe.

At the same time, hitting a 16 or greater is less likely to happen on 5d4. And though possible, the odds of hitting 19 or 20 on the dice are pretty much unheard of.

Using 5d4 seems to be a useable solution to the four problems listed above, though it is not perfect. It is still very possible for someone to hit all stats above 13 while another ends up with all stats at 14 and below.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Icebear,

That is all I wanted to hear. All that you say is true, and I agree with you.

I am just saying that Aragorn is a particular type of character that someone might want to play with higher stats to begin with than one could obtain with 32 points. That is it.

I just don't think 32 points should be considered the highest level of heroic play. I wish they would include an option that was somewhere in the 40 to 45 point range.

That would make even me happy. I never seem able to capture a character I would like to play with 32 points.

Kind of like when I play GURPS. I can't make a character concept with 100 points.


Celebrim,

Yes...it would be an opinion. If you have read LotR and all the other books associated with the Tolkien mythos, then you know 32 points would be a little low to capture some of the characters in those books.

I have read the Simarillion and LotR more times than I can remember. The Hobbit only a little less. I haven't yet delved deeply into all the Middle Earth Histories and such, so I won't claim to have done so.

I love those books as well as the Arthurian legends.

I feel the D&D character point system doesn't take into account some heroic archetypes.

That is the sole basis of my argument, nothing more, nothing less.

I am not arguing that you need 68 points to capture such characters, but 32 points is definitely too low.

I cannot imagine that raising the maximum heroic limit to 40 or 45 would seriously disrupt game balance.

I already stack things in house, but an official 40 or 45 point level would be nice so that we could at least see that as an official option.

Too many people are serious rules lawyers when it comes to D&D or other roleplaying games. If it "ain't in the book, it ain't an option to them."

 

[IceBear]

Well, that's not 100% true - I actually think that many DMs are quite flexible about rules and whatnot, it's just that stats are pretty core to the system's internal balance and messing with them could lead to balance problems. Before you take offence, like I said before, if you guys are having fun with a higher point buy then more power to you, but I personally wouldn't like it.

I like the idea of starting out at low levels and struggling and growing into powerful heroes. Having high stats at the beginning takes away from this sense of struggle somewhat (hit more often, do more damage, better skills, better saves and more hitpoints). I also lose interest in the campaign once the PCs get around 12th level (as do my players). I have a feeling that our interest in the PCs would wane even faster if the stats were very high. We like the feel of challenge of the low and mid levels.

I personally feel, compared to the standard commoner in the DMG, that PCs are already heroic. There's no need, with my players, to make them any more heroic. In one campaign I recently played it, one of the paladins pretty much became Lancelot. Sure, it took him to 10th level before he seemed that powerful (rather than 5th), but we all felt he was pretty damn heroic as he was.

IceBear

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Icebear,

Don't get me wrong. A 32 point character or lower for that matter can be heroic and is still a very good character. A 32 point character to me is "above average with one, possibly two, extraordinary stats".

Alot of it depends on the power level of the game world. If you have fun playing, that is the most important part of the game.

Just for myself, point buy would be alot more appealing if they had a 40 to 45 point official option.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Celtavian,

I think I see where you are coming from now.

I would humbly suggest that the style you are thinking off would best be handled by campaign specific +ECL templates.

This is the obvious route to take with Aragorn.

And I don't think there would any point in watching a low level Aragorn rip the heads off kobolds with his bare hands.

The big advantage of +ECL templates is you can still use challenge rating system.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Ever consider 5d4 stat generation?

So the debate here, as I am interpreting it has had the following points made.

1) Standard point buy means that two characters of a given class are likely to have identical stats.

No. It means that two characters of a given class, concept, and long term plan are likely to have similar stats.

A first level fighter could have
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 (plans to be a fighter/wizard; also potential swashbuckler build)
15, 10, 14, 10, 12, 14 (Heavy armor type, may have plans to multiclass paladin)
10, 17, 14, 13, 10, 10 (swashbuckler type, may have plans to multiclass rogue)
17, 10, 14, 12, 11, 10 (Two handed weapon bruiser; may be a half-orc or have plans to multiclass into Barbarian and Tribal Protector)

Similarly, there are a number of ways that clerics could be built:
14, 10, 14, 10, 15, 12 (pretty standard melee focussed cleric of a war god)
10, 10, 10, 12, 17, 13 (pretty standard spellcasting and skill focussed cleric--probably with the knowledge domain)
12, 14, 14, 10, 14, 12 (This guy may well be a cleric of Olidammara or Brandobaris (if a halfling) with plans to multiclass rogue)

If point buy characters end with similar stats, it's probably because the players are making similar characters. Then again, it's true of 4d6-1 and other systems too. If my cleric ends up with 9, 11, 12, 15, 18,13 for stats, I don't think I'll be making a warrior priest of Heironeous--more likely a knowledge and magic priest of Wee Jas or Boccob. OTOH, if the cleric's stats are 16, 11, 15, 9, 15, 12. . . . well, half-orc cleric of Mayaheine, here I come!

2) Point buys lead to either crap stats in less useful abilities from min/maxing, or to absolute median characters.

The "crap stats" in less useful abilities observation is true of any system in which players have the opportunity to arrange their ability scores. Even 4d6-1 arrange as you see fit won't result in barbarians with high int and high charisma (unless they plan on multiclassing). And if the player gets lucky and rolls nothing under 15, I'd be willing to bet they pick a class like Paladin or Monk that makes nearly every ability useful.

Absolute median characters is only from the point of view that expects every PC to have an 18. If you're comfortable with the concept that a 16 is a very good stat, then point buy characters won't look median.

3) Point buy as written means that people are less likely to take a heavily stat dependent class (Paladin or Monk).

Nonsense. It means that the choice is dependant upon their willingness to make sacrifices rather than their luck with the dice. People who roll for stats won't get many monks if their rolls are 18, 16, 13, 7, 9, 7. (And if they can't rearrange their rolls, they'll see even fewer monks or paladins). And I doubt you'll see many 4d6 paladins if the rolls are 17, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9,7.

4) Dice methods lead too easily to stat envy among players from rolling at the extremes (too high or too low)

Sometimes. Personally, I think that the biggest problem with rolling is that players can't say "I want to play a knight in shining armor whose faith protects him" (Fighter/Paladin/Cleric or multiclass thereof, placed in vague terms to avoid the "point buy powergamer--you can't think in non-mechanical terms, can you?" accusation) before rolling their dice. Players have to look at their dice and say "Let me see, I could make a pathetic paladin, a worthless monk, a halfway decent fighter/barbarian, or a good wizard with these rolls. I guess I'm not playing Sir Rudyard but rather Maximillian the Magnificent evoker of the third circle. Oh well."

Having some PCs be overpowered for their level (effectively ECL +1 or +2) due to good rolls while others are underpowered (maybe ECL -1) due to poor rolls is second on the problem list.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Hmm...

Ok Elder-Basilisk, I concede most of your points. My statements were a bit more general / less focused then they needed to be to make my points. But I do beleive that you did a better job stating the points I meant to make then I did.

Allow me to try to clairify a bit then.

I agree that a 16 is a great stat. And the nature of the standard point buy is such that when you look at just the stats alone, all of the possible results are balanced against each other. Taking an example from your post, the following two stat combinations:

14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10
17, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10 /*re-sorted*/

Neither has an obvious advantage. But different stat choices work much better for some classes then for others. And players have a tendency to build characters to be as effective as possible. Under the standard point buy, it is much easier to make a very effective Fighter or Barbarian then it is to make an equally effective Paladin or Monk.

A Paladin has all of the same basic needs as a fighter, plus the need of a very good Charisma, and ideally, a positive Wis modifier, assuming you want to use any of the spell abilities ever. A fighter can better focus the points purchased, and as a result, is generally more effective. The paladins non combat abilities (Turning, lay on hands, Cha to saves) can offset the edge he gives up to the fighter in melee combat. But at lower levels, those abilities dont matter for much.

How many people do you know choose paladins or monks at 1st level with Standard Point Buy? As you so aptly put it, while someone may want to play a Paladin, if the stats they can get dont quite work for what they have in mind, they take something else.

Anyway, the problem at its root is mostly intractible. Either you give point buy and end up seeing the same character 'templates' over and over, or you use Dice and get characters of potentially wildly varying power.

Besides, you did not answer my question. Have you considered 5d4 generation?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Hmm...

How many people do you know choose paladins or monks at 1st level with Standard Point Buy?

More than a few. They're fewer and futher between than fighters but tend not to multiclass as much.

As you so aptly put it, while someone may want to play a Paladin, if the stats they can get dont quite work for what they have in mind, they take something else.

Anyway, the problem at its root is mostly intractible. Either you give point buy and end up seeing the same character 'templates' over and over, or you use Dice and get characters of potentially wildly varying power.

I think the difficulty of seeing character "templates" over and over again is exaggerated. The RttToEE game I played in until last September was 30 point buy. For the last session, a friend brought in a 6th level half-orc fighter/barbarian/ranger for the session (we'd recruited some help after getting our asses handed to us at the main gate--well actually we won the battle but had to hoof it before reinforcements arrived).

So, I thought I knew what to expect. Then his 18 strength monstrosity broke out a whirlwind attack. 13 int?!? Not something you see on half-orc fighter barbarians every day. But it worked. The nice thing about 3e is that you have so many options that, even if you have a really large player pool, limited point buy, and obviously optimal templates for certain character classes, you very rarely see the same character twice. At least that's been my experience in the various Living Campaigns.

Besides, you did not answer my question. Have you considered 5d4 generation?

END COMMUNICATION

I'm afraid I haven't. The last game I ran, I was foolish and allowed 36 point buy which I think results in characters that are too powerful for their level. If I run another home game, what I plan on doing is either 25 point buy/Iconic Spread (to experiment with a "life is cheap" low-power, high death rate meat grinder game) or a hybrid point buy system allowing for ECL in the point buy--something like:
1. All characters must be ECL 0-ECL +2
2. The following point buys are available
Points-ECL
22 ECL-1
28 ECL-0
34 ECL+1
3. The standard races are available. . . plus
Aasmar ECL +1
Tiefling ECL +1
and a few other ECL races.

That way, characters can choose to have really good stats but be behind the other characters in level (they're the young and inexperienced but naturally skilled types) or be further behind the curve by having special heritage and good stats or have a special heritage without the normal ECL penalty by taking less points for stats.

In the end, I think I'd choose to do point buy over the 5d4 method you propose. Rolling takes too long, doesn't guarantee the availability of certain character concepts, and, while a reliable average is good, it can still result in lucky or unlucky rolls.