...because I keep seeing examples of the bad things that result from Point Buy, namely hugely skewed and min/maxed stat lines. Something like 18/16/15/7/7/7, or along those lines.
I won't dispute that that is annoying, horribly min/maxed, and very likely outside the "spirit" of D&D.
But, and I don't have all my old books to confirm, I don't remember a Point Buy system that even allowed anything like that. 4e, for example, gave you an initial stat array of 10/10/10/10/10/8, with no means of lowering that 8 at all. You could the 10's to 8, but the points gained wouldn't be enough to raise a high stat even higher, so at worst, people kept the 10's as 10's.
And my recollection of 3e was that the system was somewhat similar, if not identical. Can anyone confirm?
Because, based on my memory (which could be wrong, I'll admit), putting forth the horribly min/maxed example above is a type of strawman.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
The method in the 3.5 DMG lets every stat begin at 8, but they could only be lowered through racial ability penalties. A half-orc monk with Int 6 and Charisma 6 was both entirely reasonable, and mechanically encouraged by the system.
Second Edition Skills & Powers had a point buy method where you had roughly 75 points to spend amongst your six stats, and little reason to not go 18/18/18/7/7/7. Skills & Powers was not exactly known for its balance, though.
There are also other point buy methods, rather than just the ones published in a few specific books. Point buy systems have a wide variety of implementations, many of which do allow you to "sell back" stats, or which start at the equivalent of 3 across the board. I believe that the Pathfinder system lets you start at 10 and sell back as low as 7.
The argument is only a strawman if it is specifically supposed to be an argument against one particular point buy method where it is not the case. If you're just talking about point buy systems in general, then that is indeed one of their common (though not universal) faults.
Thank you for the clarification. I was getting increasingly concerned that I was missing some vital piece of information.
So, that beng established, is the 4e version of Point Buy (no stat lower than 8, and mathematically untenable to lower another below 10) less ornerous, or more palatable to those who don't like point buy in general?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether people who object to point buy (in general) do so because of the propensity for min maxing, or some other reason. If the min maxing could be systematically be mitigated, would the objection be dropped, or at least lowered?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Many of us like the spontaneity, unpredictability, and originality of dice-rolling for ability scores.
A better system might be for a combination of dice-rolling and point buy.
Roll 3d6 for each ability score. Example:
12
12
14
5
8
8
Total: 59
Player is then given the difference in total value from a 75 point buy. In this case, an extra 16 point buy is given. No score can be improved beyond 15 using this point buy.
It does not unbalance the game and adds a level of unpredictability. Perhaps someone might create this character.
15
15
15
10
10
10
Another option would be to allow the character to improve each score 1 point at a time until all points are spent and not able to improve a score until all other scores have been increased as well. So we might end up with this.
Thank you for the clarification. I was getting increasingly concerned that I was missing some vital piece of information.
So, that beng established, is the 4e version of Point Buy (no stat lower than 8, and mathematically untenable to lower another below 10) less ornerous, or more palatable to those who don't like point buy in general?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether people who object to point buy (in general) do so because of the propensity for min maxing, or some other reason. If the min maxing could be systematically be mitigated, would the objection be dropped, or at least lowered?
Maybe. Because theres two reasons people use rolling instead. 1. They hate min/maxing 2. They just like rolling
I think a fix for min/maxing might win back crowd no.1, but the people who just plain prefer rolling will probably keep on rollin'.
Rolling is just a lot more fun from my group's perspective, but if other groups want to use point buy that's fine. We personally like the chaotic / organic development of our characters; we even recently started to limit keeping the stats in the order you rolled them, and only switching one score with another (we usually just roll them and put them wherever you want). I can see how that would infuriate other players, but we really do enjoy when a wizard has 15 strength, and suddenly you get the idea that maybe that wizard does a lot of labor on his farmstead or is just naturally ripped. Some of our most memorable characters have had sub-par stats. In a way it almost makes them more heroic. But I really do think that there should be a point buy system for those that have a strong character concept in mind, don't like rolling in general, or even for those groups that like to optimize their characters; but it just wouldn't feel like d&d to me if I didn't roll my stats.
...because I keep seeing examples of the bad things that result from Point Buy, namely hugely skewed and min/maxed stat lines. Something like 18/16/15/7/7/7, or along those lines.
I won't dispute that that is annoying, horribly min/maxed, and very likely outside the "spirit" of D&D.
But, and I don't have all my old books to confirm, I don't remember a Point Buy system that even allowed anything like that. 4e, for example, gave you an initial stat array of 10/10/10/10/10/8, with no means of lowering that 8 at all. You could the 10's to 8, but the points gained wouldn't be enough to raise a high stat even higher, so at worst, people kept the 10's as 10's.
And my recollection of 3e was that the system was somewhat similar, if not identical. Can anyone confirm?
Because, based on my memory (which could be wrong, I'll admit), putting forth the horribly min/maxed example above is a type of strawman.
3e started you at straight 8's. But yes, thankfully most Main-line D&D has never allowed the kind of sell offs that let point buy minmazing get truly insane (See: Tri-Stat, which functions on a vastly different DM/player social contract because of its loose and easily breakable system)
The issue (for me at least) is that the Spirit issue maintains even if you get fewer points and start with 10's. It's an issue of Creative Sterility. If you use nonrandom generation methods, there WILL be a mathematically 'perfect' execution that gets used ad nauseum. In 3e it's dependant on a lot of factors, but in general you'll see a high attack stat and constitution, a completley ignored Charisma (unless it's the attack stat, in which case Wisdom is ignored and the Force of Personality feat used to compensate for the will save), Completley ignored strength unless it's the attack stat (Encumbrance is stupidly easy to avoid if it's even enforced, and classes that don't use str to attack either don't melee or use touch, with which rolling to hit us usually more of a formality), and remaining points spent on a +Dex dependant on armor type worn, enough int to get your "essential" skills, and Wisdom for a better will save.
The general formula is really complicated, but in practice the execution is not: you just have to pick a class first. Assuming you're playing a (human) Wizard with the standard 25 points, you buy an 8 STR and 8 CHA (0pts) every time. You buy a 14 Con (6pts) and 16 Int (10pts) to cover your HP and Casting, and a 14 Dex (6pts) for AC in the early game and better hitting with rays later on and drop the remaining 3 points into Wisdom for a 11 Wis. Playing a human fighter? You buy an 8 CHA and 8 INT because they do nothing for you, 16 Str, 14 Con, 14 Wis (you need that will save) and 11 Dex: this is the build for weilding a two-handed weapon: it gives you plenty of HP, damage, and the ability to power attack. Your des suffers, since you can't use a bonus in full plate anyway.
Long story short: In a deterministic system, you can with a particular input predict, exactly, what the output will be. I, personally, find that to be not in spirit with D&D, and furthermore that having a mathematically solved system erects a psychological barrier to doing anything OTHER than usint the solve, dampening (not eliminating, just dampening) creativity. Not everyone has the same reaction ,and if you can innovate under point buy more power to you.
Some Comments on Rolling Stats and Common Misconceptions Thereof: An AsideShow
I also find that these debates get marred a LOT by bad definitions. Just as many random-roll players forget that selling down stats has never really been a thing in D&D, I feel that people tend to labor under some... odd ideas about rolled stats.
1) "My rolls suck! Now I'm stuck with a lousy character". This is a bit of a holdover from old editions: In 3e (the WotC edition that promoted random rolling as its primary generation method), the PHB itself says that any stat block that does not contain at least one score of 14+ or where the sum of the ability bonuses does not total to at least +1 can be dropped entirely. Scratch out those six numbers and reroll them. WotC understood that there needs to be a competency floor, and installed one from Day 1. As a random roller, I see no conflict with this: the purpose of randomization is not power-level-lottery, it's forcing me out of my box a little.
2) "His rolls were better, therefore his character will always be better". This would be true if all other factors were equal. Which, in Dungeons and Dragons, they basically never are. When was the last time you saw a campaign where two characters were exactly the same in every way (at the same time, not just Dead Guy Mk II)? For me, the answer is "Never". It's rare as hen's teeth to see two members of the same class in the same game. Add WotC-Era build options into the fray? It shouldn't ever happen. So what really occurs when somebody hit the stat jackpot and somebody else just squeaked in above the competency floor? You find out that above a certain threshold, stats (especially secondary stats) actually don't tend to do that much for you. A fighter with (18, 17, 15, 14, 12, 11) and a rogue who rolled (15, 13, 11, 11, 10, 8) are both baseline playable. The rogue will have to make some harder choices with skills at level 1 than he might like to, but in the end they engage with the campaign in different ways, and since the rogue still has the minimum stats to do his thing, he gets to do his thing. The fighter on the other hand, will have more toys than he would otherwise have, but at the same time, his toys don't take away from the rogue's toys because they're looking for different things out of their stats and build.
3) "More power = More Fun. Therefore, To have equal fun we need equal power." At best, this is a personal opinion. I contend, though, that Fun is not a direct function of power, even relative power in an extent. You do want to be in roughly the same band, but an artificial floor combined with the natural bell curving and cap handle that already where stats are concerned. aside to an aside: The First Time I played D&D...Show
I played a wizard who won the stat lottery bigger than any character I've seen since. An 18 floating about, a 17 in that Int, and not a stat below 15: That's rolling 3d6 and placing them in order. I clearly did enjoy that game, seeing as I stuck with the hobby, but I have to say it wasn't my favorite PC to run, all things considered. The stats really had little to do with it. The fighter of the party? She had pretty average stats: a positive sum of bonuses, I think, but nothing to write home about. Loved every minute of it, and wasn't nearly as satisfied with technically "Better" characters in later games.
Hopefully we can agree that... a) Point buy is a valid system b) Rolling for stats is a valid system and c) D&DN should let groups choose which they want to use.
As long as there's a choice present, I don't particularly care which gets top billing.
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round]
Well traditionally their are four reasons I know of to dislike pointbuy.
1. You're one of those obnoxious people who never rolls below 16. 2. You dislike the min-maxxing 3. You think there's something special about being forced to think about your stats instead of just placing them to max out your build 4. You don't like the extra math
Nobody outside group 1 likes them so forget'em.
Three is variable, sometimes it's fun and engaging, especially when you don't have a really solid character concept before you start. When you do wanna play a specific character it gets really annoying if the dice don't agree. This could especially be a trap in 3e where the class balance was so borked up since you could roll low mental stats forcing you to choose between playing a weak class that matched your stats or a strong class that didn't.
The fourth reason is a bit meh, but I'm a bit of a math snob so I'm biased.
Two is what you're addressing. I don't know how you plan to mitigate the min-maxing though.
Anyway I think a superior solution would be a synthesis of point-buy and rolling. You roll each stat and the result costs a number of points, or gives a number if sufficiently low. So using the 3.5 system a roll of 15 would cost 8 points out of 25, and a roll of 6 would give 2 points back. Once you've rolled the final stat you then add or remove stats as if using the point-by system until you balance to 0.
So assuming the example character rolled 15 str, 6 dex, and then 8's accross the board, he would have 25-6+2 (21) point buy points remaining with which to alter his stats as per the normal point buy rules, with the limitation that he can only add points if his pool is positive, or subtract them if his pool is negative.
The specific example you gave is factually incorrect, yes. No edition of D&D has allowed it. (except maybe S&P, I don't remember that being legal by the S&P rules, but I could be wrong.)
However, it's more of a mistake than a strawman. The spirit of the example and of the argument is absolutely true. It is mathematically a bad idea to have a 4E character who has more than two stats with significant point investment (and in some cases, more than one stat). You basically don't see more than two stat arrays, with a third one popping up in some weird cases.
That fact is what I object to about point buy; with the way D&D stats are relevant to classes, it's just a bad idea to have anything other than the mathematically superior array.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
