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

[was]

It does tend to make the decision to up your stat or choose a feat a harder one.

 

[Quickleaf]

I know it wouldn't work for some players but I really like the idea of moving away from a scarcity model by letting players just pick their stats. I wish 5e had more guidelines and examples of what each ability score in each stat means. What is the difference in a 10 Wisdom versus a 16 Wisdom character, or what are example literary characters embodying that difference?

 

[Curmudjinn]

I also never saw the point of repeatedly re-rolling my scores. I see most games allowing two sets of 4d6, pick the best. During AD&D, I started giving every player a single 3d6 set roll, but anyone at the table can share that set. Community stat rolls, if you will. It removed all ability issues since I started doing it, 20 years ago now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It does tend to make the decision to up your stat or choose a feat a harder one.

If your prime stat can't be "high enough" (whatever that means) at 1st level, then the impetus to use that first stat boost at 4th as a stat boost is presumably that much stronger. The opportunity cost for feats is increased, because primaries are so important, and you can't max them out quickly without sacrificing some feats.

Why that would be a good reason when feats are optional, though...?

 

[thalmin]

It would not surprise me if the DMG extends the point-buy chart to include buys up to 18. I also kind of expect variant point-buy totals, like in previous editions.

 

[doghead]

I like the 5E system. It has a nice risk reward element.

Point buy is risk free, but you max out at 15 (before racial adjustment).

Rolling carries risk, but offers the possibility of getting a 16, 17 or 18. I think that I would run with 2d6+6 six times, arrange as desired. With the lowest possible result an 8, it eliminates the need to consider how to deal with seriously bad rolls (while not totally eliminating the possibility of a negative modifier to stats).

thotd

 

[Geoffryn Kaladon]

It's stupid, and restrictive.

If you're worried about the actual roll, then you simply set the computer to 4d6, drop the lowest, and take the set of rolls.

I was happy with the one 18 I had, put that into Int, and put the 8 in strength. (Wizard PC.)

We've been running the game like this FOREVER. WHY in HELL does Wizards of the Coast INSIST on pissing us all off?!? Didn't they ever hear, "The Customer's always RIGHT?" Didn't they learn their lesson when we simply refused to play 4e? When the whole world went to Pathfinder, till WoTC came to their senses and restored normalcy?

 

[Oofta]

It's stupid, and restrictive.

If you're worried about the actual roll, then you simply set the computer to 4d6, drop the lowest, and take the set of rolls.

I was happy with the one 18 I had, put that into Int, and put the 8 in strength. (Wizard PC.)

We've been running the game like this FOREVER. WHY in HELL does Wizards of the Coast INSIST on pissing us all off?!? Didn't they ever hear, "The Customer's always RIGHT?" Didn't they learn their lesson when we simply refused to play 4e? When the whole world went to Pathfinder, till WoTC came to their senses and restored normalcy?

So you resurrected a thread from 3 years ago ... to rant?

 

[jgsugden]

...We've been running the game like this FOREVER. WHY in HELL does Wizards of the Coast INSIST on pissing us all off?!?

Speak for yourself, not all of us. Because not all of us have this view.

 

[Valetudo]

Holy craptacular I just realized this is a necrothread. Why?