D&D 5E Why no 16-18s allowed in Point Buy?

[smbakeresq]

Having a point buy limited to no 16-18 as a standard makes the rest of the game easier to design. You can build published encounters and monsters around +5 for a main attack stat at first level, then growing from there.

The first session should always be a PC building session where players roll their Pc abilities right there. The table
will tell you if it’s unplayable. This eliminates any confusion about rerolling.

We use 4d6-L, have so for years. I want PC to hav above average scores or odd numbered scores to encourage more feat taking, which diversifies PCs.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having a point buy limited to no 16-18 as a standard makes the rest of the game easier to design. You can build published encounters and monsters around +5 for a main attack stat at first level, then growing from there.

I'd speculate that it's to build a little more scaling into the game in the face of the very limited scaling from proficiency, maybe to give more impetus for using ASIs as such instead of spending them on feats, possibly to enable more 'all-around'/MAD builds rather than always having a collection of idiot-specialists and/or emphasize the importance of all stats (something the 6-save system also seems to be trying to do), and, perhaps, to give a more consistent PC-capability target to balance monsters against at low level.

Or it could've just been arbitrary, or to make rolling look more desireable. :shrug:

 

[Caliban]

I was wondering what is the rationale that the point buy system only goes to a max of 15 in a stat (so 17 with racial bonuses).

I understand the higher stats being very expensive, but not to include them at all seems a bit limiting imo.

Because 1st level adventurers are generally relatively young people at the beginning of their career. They don't start off as demi-gods.

Most adventurers start with a 15 or 16 in their primary stat (and few naturally gifted ones with a 17), and as they become more experienced and train themselves they can develop their stats into an 18 or 20 stat via feats and ASI's.

Do you think an NFL football player started their career in peak physical condition, or did they reach it after years of training and dedication?

But from a game mechanics perspective, its because of the bounded accuracy concept - keep the bonuses in a reasonable range based on the tier of play.

 

[BookBarbarian]

A three year Thread Necro! Most impressive.

I think point buy is limited to scores of 8-15 to encourage groups to roll for stats.

But hey, I've been wrong before.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Because 1st level adventurers are generally relatively young people at the beginning of their career. They don't start off as demi-gods.

Most adventurers start with a 15 or 16 in their primary stat (and few naturally gifted ones with a 17), and as they become more experienced and train themselves they can develop their stats into an 18 or 20 stat via feats and ASI's.

This maybe works if you assume that starting characters are 15 or 16 year olds, but that's never been the case with any of my groups.

Do you think an NFL football player started their career in peak physical condition, or did they reach it after years of training and dedication?

http://www.footballperspective.com/age-and-the-nfl-draft/

I think the reason is more that it gives you an avenue of growth for your character in their primary quality. So over their career a barbarian becomes noticeably stronger, a wizard becomes noticeably smarter etc.

I also think it fails pretty miserably, simply because the entire system of d20 + mods doesn't really work on that scale. The difference in the rolls of a 16 int wizard and a 20 int wizard will disappear into the noise of that gigantic d20 roll. So sure - increasing your primary stat makes a difference, but whether it matters in gameplay is another matter.

 

[Caliban]

This maybe works if you assume that starting characters are 15 or 16 year olds, but that's never been the case with any of my groups.

Who said anything about 15 or 16 year olds? I only assume the starting ages given in the PHB.

I have no idea why you would expect me to know about or account for the starting ages of characters in your groups.

 

[Hussar]

Well, considering that the PHB states that humans reach adulthood in their late teens (so, presumably 17-19) and that's supposed to inform your starting age, I wouldn't say he's that far off. Granted, you don't have to start that young, but, it's not terribly unusual. Particularly if you started off in 1e where starting ages were VERY young.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Who said anything about 15 or 16 year olds? I only assume the starting ages given in the PHB.

I have no idea why you would expect me to know about or account for the starting ages of characters in your groups.

Sorry, I mistakenly had a lower number (ie - early 20s) for when people "peak". A lot of what I'm seeing says 30 is a better number... but the explanation for how that was derived seem a bit flaky to say the least.

I mean the whole thing also fails since most of the published adventures run characters up the levels in periods measuring under a year, which also doesn't really scan with any real world training regimen.

I just don't think the answer can be found if we look at it from a simulationist angle.

 

[Caliban]

Sorry, I mistakenly had a lower number (ie - early 20s) for when people "peak". A lot of what I'm seeing says 30 is a better number... but the explanation for how that was derived seem a bit flaky to say the least.

I mean the whole thing also fails since most of the published adventures run characters up the levels in periods measuring under a year, which also doesn't really scan with any real world training regimen.

I just don't think the answer can be found if we look at it from a simulationist angle.

...wow, so you completely ignored the last sentence of my original post to nitpick (incorrectly) the "fluff" portion.

But from a game mechanics perspective, its because of the bounded accuracy concept - keep the bonuses in a reasonable range based on the tier of play.

 

[Saeviomagy]

...wow, so you completely ignored the last sentence of my original post to nitpick (incorrectly) the "fluff" portion.

Well, no. I addressed the fluff portion which was 3/4 of your post. And despite my making an incorrect assumption, your explanation still doesn't work.

I'm not sure I buy the bounded accuracy thing either... the only place it really makes a difference is in balancing the different affordable armors against light armor wearers (and balancing out barbarians between medium and no armor).