Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System
- Thread starter Esiminar
- Start date
Re
Well, I don't really like any character to have a 10 on a stat unless they have a good reason. It is false to assume that a character would alway have a weakness.
It would be better to state that a character always has strong points, which overshadow other abilities. For example, an 18 strength is a strong point, but a 12 or 14 charisma is not weak, but is weaker than the characters strength.
I know my method is not popular with most gamers. I and my gaming group prefer it.
As a DM, I view my players in the following way: The greatest heroes this fantasy world has ever known.
With this in mind, I feel the method for stat generation fits my concept of the characters.
How do you perceive the characters in your campaigns? I often wonder what motivates other DM's to keep the stats limited by point buy rather than giving a PC a chance to get lucky. Or even what motivates DM's to want to keep the players stats in the "above average" to "average with one extraordinary stat" range.
This doesn't seem to fit literary archetype heroes. What if one of your player's tells you they want to play a character like Sir Launcelot or Aragorn and they don't feel 32 points is good enough to reflect their stats? Do you simply deny this player the chance to play a character they might really enjoy playing?
Well, I don't really like any character to have a 10 on a stat unless they have a good reason. It is false to assume that a character would alway have a weakness.
It would be better to state that a character always has strong points, which overshadow other abilities. For example, an 18 strength is a strong point, but a 12 or 14 charisma is not weak, but is weaker than the characters strength.
I know my method is not popular with most gamers. I and my gaming group prefer it.
As a DM, I view my players in the following way: The greatest heroes this fantasy world has ever known.
With this in mind, I feel the method for stat generation fits my concept of the characters.
How do you perceive the characters in your campaigns? I often wonder what motivates other DM's to keep the stats limited by point buy rather than giving a PC a chance to get lucky. Or even what motivates DM's to want to keep the players stats in the "above average" to "average with one extraordinary stat" range.
This doesn't seem to fit literary archetype heroes. What if one of your player's tells you they want to play a character like Sir Launcelot or Aragorn and they don't feel 32 points is good enough to reflect their stats? Do you simply deny this player the chance to play a character they might really enjoy playing?
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
Some numbers on the above post:
11 of 15 had 14 CON
13 of 15 had 10 INT or less. The two above 10 were both wizards.
13 of 15 had 14 for thier second highest attribute.
84 of 90 numbers were even. All 6 odd numbers were unmodified 15's.
36 of 90 numbers were 14.
Only 11 of 90 numbers were less than 10. 10 of those were mental stats; 9 of those were either intelligence or charisma. All were 8's.
All the characters were either human, half-orc, or dwarf.
These are the actual numbers used.
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10
15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10
15, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8
15, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8*
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
16, 14, 14, 14, 8, 8
18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8*
16, 15, 12, 12, 10, 8
18, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8
*Some of the diversity is due to the fact that not all of those appear to be 28 point buys if I did them right (it's late).
Most telling to me is this comment:
Clearly, character creation got off on if not on the wrong foot, then at least not on the foot that I'd want to start it on.
PB has alot of things going for it, but I'm not sold on the concept.
11 of 15 had 14 CON
13 of 15 had 10 INT or less. The two above 10 were both wizards.
13 of 15 had 14 for thier second highest attribute.
84 of 90 numbers were even. All 6 odd numbers were unmodified 15's.
36 of 90 numbers were 14.
Only 11 of 90 numbers were less than 10. 10 of those were mental stats; 9 of those were either intelligence or charisma. All were 8's.
All the characters were either human, half-orc, or dwarf.
These are the actual numbers used.
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10
15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10
15, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8
15, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8*
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
16, 14, 14, 14, 8, 8
18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8*
16, 15, 12, 12, 10, 8
18, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8
*Some of the diversity is due to the fact that not all of those appear to be 28 point buys if I did them right (it's late).
Most telling to me is this comment:
Clearly, character creation got off on if not on the wrong foot, then at least not on the foot that I'd want to start it on.
PB has alot of things going for it, but I'm not sold on the concept.
Buttercup
Princess of Florin
I like point buy, but I usually give 30 points to distribute, and I don't allow any stat lower than 8 without a *very* good explanation from the player.
When we first started playing 3E, none of us really believed a character whose highest stat was a 16 could be viable, but we know better now.
When we first started playing 3E, none of us really believed a character whose highest stat was a 16 could be viable, but we know better now.
IceBear
Explorer
And Steve, did I say there was anything wrong with it? No. Someone asked what it was and I answered, so don't get preachy on me. If you read you will see I'm advocating using whatever method the GROUP likes.
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
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
Last edited:
Buttercup
Princess of Florin
Murrdox said:
I suppose it depends on your players. In my group, we have a fighter with a 15 CHA, a wizard with a STR of 14, and a fighter/sorcerer with STR, DEX and CON of 12 each. The players picked these stats to reflect the concepts they had for their characters. The fighter is a lady's man, the wizard is a big, husky girl, and the fighter/sorcerer is a scrawny little guy who is on the run from someone, or something, he won't tell his companions about.
I played 4d6 drop lowest, make 3 sets pick the best and in pratice, it turns out as the equivalent of 40-50 point buy. Too powerful.
I played with the point buy system with characters having scores ranging from 32-50. Higher than 32 is way too much IMO. Some encouters are too easy and others way too hard. I've never seen "stat-dependant" classes being overused. In fact I've seen very few paladins or monks. We kinda dislike these two classes.
One thing I want to point out is that "normal" people have 25 point buy in the monster manual. 28 point buy makes the PC heroes. They're 3 points better than normal.
We would never return to stats rolling. We would never use any other system then the PBS from the current DMG.
I played with the point buy system with characters having scores ranging from 32-50. Higher than 32 is way too much IMO. Some encouters are too easy and others way too hard. I've never seen "stat-dependant" classes being overused. In fact I've seen very few paladins or monks. We kinda dislike these two classes.
One thing I want to point out is that "normal" people have 25 point buy in the monster manual. 28 point buy makes the PC heroes. They're 3 points better than normal.
We would never return to stats rolling. We would never use any other system then the PBS from the current DMG.
Celebrim
Legend
Steveroo: I really want to agree with you. I'm not perfectly happy with 3rd. Ed. either, and I would suggest experimenting with GURPS if you want to see a real point buy system. If what you want is a broad character, then GURPS will give you the capacity to be a broad character.
I really want to agree with you, but I just can't.
Because, after reading your post I don't get the impression of someone who wants to play a broad character.
If that is the only problem you got, I suggest you start play with a level in expert. This will give you as many skill points as a ranger with 18 INT, even if you have no intelligence bonus. What, you also want to have +1 BAB, track, and a variaty of combat feats and abilities? You aren't willing to sacrifice your combat skills in order to be that well rounded character you want to be? Suppose I said, "Ok, you can have 8 skill points per level, but the ranger will only have d8 h.p. and rogue BAB progression. That OK with you?" It sounds to me that you think you need a 68 point PB to make a 'reasonable character' having all the abilities you want him to have. Are you sure you aren't a power gamer? Are you sure the abilities of the characters you create have nothing to do with your self-image?
Look, I have nothing in particular against power gaming. If you want to play an uber-hero, find a gaming group that creates its characters with 80 point PB, starts out at 3rd level or something, and gives you 30,000 starting gold. You should have all the abilities you need to feel heroic then. Go to town. Knock yourself out. Have fun. But don't complain that the problem is the system, and don't imply thereby that rolling the dice makes for the character you want, because to be honest that sounds like a cover phrase for setting the dice on the table with the results you wanted and not leaving things to chance at all. Real dice rollers accept that their character is going to have a 4 in some stat and just have fun with it. They don't whine about how they need to 18's just for the game to be fun. If you need two 18's to enjoy the game, then you have likely been using a high end PB behind the other gamers back for a while now and just saying your rolling the dice.
I really want to agree with you, but I just can't.
Because, after reading your post I don't get the impression of someone who wants to play a broad character.
If that is the only problem you got, I suggest you start play with a level in expert. This will give you as many skill points as a ranger with 18 INT, even if you have no intelligence bonus. What, you also want to have +1 BAB, track, and a variaty of combat feats and abilities? You aren't willing to sacrifice your combat skills in order to be that well rounded character you want to be? Suppose I said, "Ok, you can have 8 skill points per level, but the ranger will only have d8 h.p. and rogue BAB progression. That OK with you?" It sounds to me that you think you need a 68 point PB to make a 'reasonable character' having all the abilities you want him to have. Are you sure you aren't a power gamer? Are you sure the abilities of the characters you create have nothing to do with your self-image?
Look, I have nothing in particular against power gaming. If you want to play an uber-hero, find a gaming group that creates its characters with 80 point PB, starts out at 3rd level or something, and gives you 30,000 starting gold. You should have all the abilities you need to feel heroic then. Go to town. Knock yourself out. Have fun. But don't complain that the problem is the system, and don't imply thereby that rolling the dice makes for the character you want, because to be honest that sounds like a cover phrase for setting the dice on the table with the results you wanted and not leaving things to chance at all. Real dice rollers accept that their character is going to have a 4 in some stat and just have fun with it. They don't whine about how they need to 18's just for the game to be fun. If you need two 18's to enjoy the game, then you have likely been using a high end PB behind the other gamers back for a while now and just saying your rolling the dice.
Similar Threads
- Guest 7037866
- *Dungeons & Dragons
