you drew the short end of the stick

[Crothian]

Just... amazing. The psychology at work.

it takes all types I guess

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

it takes all types I guess

The amount of faith some people put into "luck."

At the end of the day, D&D is a game where "balance" is decided by the numbers, and it just doesn't care how you generated your ability scores, only that a 25-point buy character is demonstrably weaker than a 36-point character, over the aggregate of all the dice rolls you'll make in your character's career.

 

[Crothian]

The amount of faith some people put into "luck."

At the end of the day, D&D is a game where "balance" is decided by the numbers, and it just doesn't care how you generated your ability scores, only that a 25-point buy character is demonstrably weaker than a 36-point character, over the aggregate of all the dice rolls you'll make in your character's career.

I know, but because the Powerful Dice have willed their character to be this way, it must be okay. The Dice Gods have spoken!!!! :\

 

[Technik4]

At the end of the day, D&D is a game where "balance" is decided by the numbers, and it just doesn't care how you generated your ability scores, only that a 25-point buy character is demonstrably weaker than a 36-point character, over the aggregate of all the dice rolls you'll make in your character's career.

And there are definitely a great many people that feel that everyone at the table should always be given the exact same resources as everyone else, in favor of this balance. However, balance is not everything. You seem to be of the opinion that the point-buy system is flawless. Could you demonstrate the rolls that seperates these characters:

17, 15, 15, 11, 11, 9 [36 pt buy]

16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 [26 pt buy]

There is a gap of 10 points, which is apparantly a huge gap whenever we are talking about balance, so how often will the 26 pt buy character be "demonstrably weaker than a 36-point character"? Oh, point-buy is just a system, it takes human intelligence to use the system and create these balance 'rifts'. Which is why the example that spawned this poll was:

16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11 [an array that can be rearranged but not changed and happens to equate to 36 on a pt buy scale]

vs

25 pt buy

Characters will be stronger/weaker based far more on who is playing them than what scores they are given. If the playing level is equal or near-equal, then (and only then?) will statistics like ability score modifiers begin to show differences in balance.

And as many people mentioned, these kind of disparities (or worse) have been played in hundreds of tables before 3rd edition. I wish the poll hadn't been skewed to one side, but I don't know how to make polls.

Technik

 

[Crothian]

And as many people mentioned, these kind of disparities (or worse) have been played in hundreds of tables before 3rd edition. I wish the poll hadn't been skewed to one side, but I don't know how to make polls.

it wasn't skewed, it was the question I wanted to ask. It was inspired by a post you made, but in the end more people use point buy then arrays so I made the question appeal to more to more people. Besides, with the landslide of votes that say no, I doubt there would be that big of change.

 

[WayneLigon]

So, would you play a 25 point buy character in a game of 36 point buy characters?

It would depend on the exact campaign, but in most typical campaigns I've been in it would be almost suicidally stupid to choose the 25 point build.

 

[Technik4]

it wasn't skewed, it was the question I wanted to ask.

Fair enough. But you at least rearranged my words to make it seem worse.

So, in another thread a poster made what he callsa bold claim ( and I agree) that 36 point buy and 25 point buy could be played in the same campaign without much difference.

I tried to go through great pains to point out that I was not in fact saying that. You used my claim to ask your own question; it feels skewed to me.

Besides, with the landslide of votes that say no, I doubt there would be that big of change.

24% Said yes
13% Said no
42% Said no, and no one else should do this

Is that really a landslide? Its almost 2:1 against it, but I think it would have been a lot closer had it not sounded quite the way you made it.

"Do you think having characters choose between the following ability generations is unfair? Would you choose the weaker one?

Arrange 16,15,14,13,12,11

or

25 pt buy

Technik

 

[Crothian]

24% Said yes
13% Said no
42% Said no, and no one else should do this

and 21% thought it was stupid, which is alsdo not agreeing to play the character. That makes it better then 3:1

 

[Technik4]

and 21% thought it was stupid, which is alsdo not agreeing to play the character.

21% thought it was a stupid suggestion, which is not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.

Technik

 

[orsal]

So if you roll crappy, you're stuck with it, and that's OK-- that's a challenge.

But if the DM starts you out with fewer points, that's not fair. Got it.

What if the DM rolled everyone's stats beforehand, in secret? And your "random" rolls always seemed to add up to about a 25-point buy and everyone else always seemed to add up to 32-36?

That's OK. If we're going to go with dice rolling, I don't care who physically does the rolling.

At the end of the day, D&D is a game where "balance" is decided by the numbers, and it just doesn't care how you generated your ability scores, only that a 25-point buy character is demonstrably weaker than a 36-point character, over the aggregate of all the dice rolls you'll make in your character's career.

And once again you get back to the supposed issue of balance. And once again, I stress that balance is not at all an issue for me. I have no difficulty playing in games with heavily unbalanced characters. I'm not the type to get jealous just because some other character has 1-2 more points in every ability than me. As long as we're on the same team.