Whats your opinion on the Point Buy System

[Shard O'Glase]

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

This is the best method, the one the group likes. For me its a unweighted point buy. For reasons I can't fathom this topic daws some heat, so I wont yet again go into my reasons why, and i'll just leave it at that.

 

[Celebrim]

Buttercup: Can you let me borrow your players? They sound like the sort that make DMing entertaining.

DM's need fun too!

Bastoche: It was my impression that normal people where made with 12-15 point buys. I was under the impression that a 25 point buy made a character that was already quite exceptional and capable.

My only current PC was made with the 4d6-1 method.

His starting numbers where:

16-12-12-12-12-9 = 27 point buy

I'm perfectly happy with him. I doubt that there are many campaign worlds where the DM holds the opinion that 16-12-12-12-10-9 (25 point) is average. Most DM's I'm familiar with hold the opinion that 11-11-11-10-10-10 (15 point) is average.

 

[IceBear]

Buttercup: Can you let me borrow your players? They sound like the sort that make DMing entertaining.

DM's need fun too!

Bastoche: It was my impression that normal people where made with 12-15 point buys. I was under the impression that a 25 point buy made a character that was already quite exceptional and capable.

My only current PC was made with the 4d6-1 method.

His starting numbers where:

16-12-12-12-12-9 = 27 point buy

I'm perfectly happy with him. I doubt that there are many campaign worlds where the DM holds the opinion that 16-12-12-12-10-9 (25 point) is average. Most DM's I'm familiar with hold the opinion that 11-11-11-10-10-10 (15 point) is average.

Average for the race or average for PCs for that race?

I'd consider an average human to be 10-10-10-10-10-10. I'd consider your character an average PC. PCs are supposed to be head and shoulders above the majority of their race.

IceBear

 

[Bastoche]

Bastoche: It was my impression that normal people where made with 12-15 point buys. I was under the impression that a 25 point buy made a character that was already quite exceptional and capable.

My mistake. My argument is even stronger then.

 

[Celebrim]

Indeed it is.

IceBear: I mean average for all races before racial modifiers and increases do to training are applied. 12-15 point buy being 'average' for all members of the race. 28-32 point seems to satisfying most people as a good comprimise between having to make tradeoffs to get the high numbers you want, and getting a character with alot of innate ability.

Presumably an average drawf commoner has something like 11-11-13-10-10-8, and the average drawf expert something like 10-10-12-11-11-9, and the average drawf warrior something like 12-12-14-9-9-7. At least, that is how I stat out my average NPC's. Compared to such, a 25 point PC ought to feel quite well rounded and abounding in talent. Obviously, a 28 point dwarf, even more so.

And note further that these are average. The town fool, the field hand, the simpleton, the scullery maid, the blind begger, and the drunk are probably worse off than that.

{
Big sidetrack starts HERE: I tend to assume that the more numerous the race, the more likely you are to meet exceptional individuals, so that there are quite a few 20-25 point dwarves and humans (well, say 5% of the population), but that there are not that many 20-25 point ogres or giants (because 5% of the ogre or giant population is still alot of flesh).

If I went to the trouble to stat every NPC, I might use something like this:

Less than 0 (<1% of the population)
1-5 (~5% of the population)
6-10 (23% of the population)
11-15 (42% of the population)
16-20 (23% of the population)
21-25 (~5% of the population)
26-30 (~1% of the population)
31-35 (~.1% of the population)
36-40 (~.01% of the population)
41-45 (~.001% of the population)

And so forth.

END SIDETRACK}

To me, it is more interesting that a hero succeeds because of some force of will or unique aspect of thier character, than if a hero succeeds because succeeding is easy for them. In other words, I don't particularly think it makes for a great story if heroes are born, but rather heroes are made. I don't really think you have to be a 41-45 PB person to be a hero, and I seriously doubt that there are enough such people to go around. Besides, not every potentially capable person makes the decision to become a hero.

I've played at every end of the stat spectrum. I had a character once that was equivalent to 66 PB. Basically it is no different than being a 20 point buy character. The challenges are just a little tougher at a given level of the character if your points are higher. It's all good, and sooner or latter any character is going to move on to more and more challenging scenarios with larger and larger impacts on the surrounding world. I do really wonder at the people who insist that they have to be gigapoint buys before they feel like it is fun. Why?

 

[Aluvial]

I would have to agree with the majority opinion that 68 points is high even for me - who likes high stats. At that point, they are so much more powerful than was intended by the designers that a party of said characters is probably on the order of 2 or 3 levels higher according to their EL. In other words, you would have to increase the EL of their foes by ~3 to give them the same challenge a standard party would have (and not give them higher XP).

I really like Ravener's method of 3d6 base + 9d6 distributed according to taste before rolling. I completely agree that that would increase the variablitily of PBS but at the same time still allow players to have general trends in their characters. Moreover, it balances very well towards PCs with classes that are more stat dependent or have the need for multiple good stats.

I have always used 4d6 assigned after rolling, reroll all 1's. The averages work out to be more around 14 or so (from experience, not from calculations). Moreover, I still find that low stats are possible - they are just not as low as would be detrimental to the character (typically nothing below a 6) . I have developed this system not because of my players, but rather me as a DM. I tend to vigorously challenge my PCs beyond what most would be considered balanced simply because I am such a hard-ass. If they are going to survive, they really do need to be a cut above the rest. (Of course, I grant them proportional experience and treasure, so in my games, those who do survive tend to advance much more quickly and proportionally increase in power.)

I must say though Ravener, your system has very much intrigued me and I think the next game I DM (which will be City of the Spider Queen - starting with drow characters from Menzobarrenzon, rather than your traditional heroes), I may adopt it.

ditto. I do exactly the same thing....

Aluvial

 

[MadScientist]

Re: Re

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 arguement seems to contradict itself to me. After all a point buy system gives the player MORE control over their stats than when rolling randomly. What happens to the poor player who wants to play an Aragorn, but gets stats more suitable for a Sam Gamgee? Player can get unlucky too. It also ignores the problems that large inequities in character power can produce.

The power of PC's can be controlled using a point buy ability generation system to ensure that PC's are at the power level the group wants to play. Rolling randomly doesn't do this very well.

 

[smetzger]

Good things about PB:
Its fair, no PC outshines another due to ability scores.

Bad thing about PB:
All PCs tend to have the same spread of points. Once a player finds the spread they like they rarely deviate from it.

--- warning house rules -----------
What I like to do:
Everyone rolls.
Everyones highest score is replaced by the highest of the highest scores.
Everyones lowest score is replaced by the highest of the lowest scores.

 

[Henry]

One of my problems with point buy is that I can look at a set of ability scores for a character and immediately tell if it is point-bought or not.

1. Over half of the stats end in even numbers.

2. No ability is below an 8.

3. One stat is a 16 or a 17, but none higher.

4. Two to three of the stats end in "break points" - a 15, 14, or an 8.

Despite what people say about variety in point buy, I still do not see it. Rarely do I see a point buy character with a 13, 10, 10, 10, 11, 10 - or a 16, 14, 9, 5, 10, 17. While the two sets are not value-equivalent, the former actually has one advantage over the latter, by not being below average. The character comes from what you make of it, not its relative worth in point buy.

Our group uses all sorts of variants of dice rolling, based on what the DM decides for the power level of the game. Our most common one is 4d6-1d6, seven times. Keep the best six scores. I recently used 4d6-1d6, but oversaw the character's scores, and added one to two points to each character secretly, where I felt they needed it. They then rearranged their scores to taste.

 

[kreynolds]

The character comes from what you make of it, not its relative worth in point buy.

Its not that simple. Take these stats (7, 9, 8, 10, 11, 9), for example (which I have seen a lot from a coupe of the players in my group). Sometimes the dice just aren't on your side, and a suck character is a suck character. Yeah, you get out of it what you put into it, but by the same token, a character with crappy stats like that can't hold much to begin with. Roleplay is very important, I agree, but it means nothing if your character is lame at anything he/she does.

Yes, you can roll multiple sets of stats until you get one that you like, but I'd rather not waste the time. I use point-buy simply because its faster, and it lets you build the character that you want to play. When you have a lot more to work with, you can flesh out your character with roleplay even that much more. After all, a fighter that can't hit anything, hurt anything, or take any damage isn't a fighter, no matter how good your roleplaying abilities are.

Here's another good example why I don't like rolling for stats (myself or my players). What if the party could use a spellcaster? Well, if you end up with the stats above, it doesn't really matter. No matter how you arrange those stats, you're gonna be an awful spellcaster. So, what do you do? Roll again. And if those don't work out either? Roll again. During all this rolling, your fighter player over there is now wondering why he didn't get to roll as much as this spellcaster, and the only reason that this other guy is getting to roll for his abilities so much is simply because he needs to be able to cast spells, cause that's what the party's lacking...a spellcaster.