[3.5 D&D] How many points for point buy system?

[Tiscooler]

My players and I agree we should use the point buy system at the start of the game, but I don't know how many points to give.

If using the point buy system, how many points should be available to use? This would also be the first time I used point buy, so are there any suggestions to using this system or things I should know about it?

[Eloel]

Weak = 25
Average = 28
Above Average = 32
Powerful = 36

These, to my knowledge, are the most used PBs.

[Killer Angel]

Go for 28 or 32 pts.
Definitely, the point buy is better then die rolls. You'll avoid PCs with different totals: when a pc rolled two 18 and one 17, while the higher stat of another PC is a single 16, there's no good in it.

[Dubious Pie]

I am a Computer Programmer with a serious hobby-level interest in statistics, 4d6b3 is approximately a 38 Point Buy.

[Kol Korran]

as said above, use 28 or 32. i personally like giving 32, makes the players a bit happier, and doesn't affect the game THAT much.

[jiriku]

I typically use 25-PB for groups composed mostly of casual gamers or players who are new to D&D, and 32-PB for groups of heavy optimizers and powergamers who want to push the system.

25-PB is easier for you as the DM -- monsters and NPCs built on the Elite Array are also using 25-PB. If you switch to a higher PB, you'll need to improve the elite array to match the higher PB, and upconvert any stock elite monsters and NPCs to match as well.

[Eldariel]

I rarely go under 40 though I've played as high as 50pb before. Doesn't really help SAD types like Wizards or Druids any, but all the martial types profit. Not to mention, it lends itself well to both, covering your class's needs and whatever secondary stats you view your character as having high. For example, you could actually build a believable Roy with ~40pb.

[Kosjsjach]

Here's a handy point-buy calculator (http://tools.digitalightbulb.com/pbcalc.html) you can link to your players if you want to help them.

The first one apparently uses a Pathfinder version; in it, 25 points works out to roughly the same as 32 points in regular point-buy, and you can have attributes lower than 8 (before racial adjustments).

I like 32 point-buy, myself. MAD (multiple-attribute dependency) characters can spread their stats as needed (since lower scores cost less per point), and SAD (single-) characters aren't boosted as much as to be worrisome.

[subject42]

I use a 29 point buy using the Pathfinder rules. It comes out to just a little better, on average, than 4d6 drop lowest.

[Stegyre]

I am a Computer Programmer with a serious hobby-level interest in statistics, 4d6b3 is approximately a 38 Point Buy.
That . . . looks like a typo. If I remember correctly, it's around a 28-point buy.

[Mystic Muse]

I won't DM a game with less than 40.

[Amphetryon]

That . . . looks like a typo. If I remember correctly, it's around a 28-point buy.

Yup. The 3.0 writers pegged it at a 25 point buy, but there's a spreadsheet somewhere on the interwebz showing it comes closer to a 27 point buy. If you reroll 1s - even only once per die - it comes closer to 38.

[Ormur]

I wouldn't want to go lower than 32. Casters will always just put 18 in their casting stat and less point buy for them just means they'll be dysfunctional savants. Other classes generally need a wider distribution of ability scores and they can't afford low stats if there are higher tiers around.

[Saph]

The DMG and the Monster Manuals assume a point buy of 25. NPCs and class-leveled monsters typically are built with Elite Array, which is also a 25 point buy. 28 and 21 are both close enough that you don't really need to adjust. I usually use 28, because it works out statistically similar to the 4d6 method.

I don't recommend going much over 28 point buy, because it starts to affect balance and makes high stats much less special. At 28 PB, there's still a significant choice between putting a 16 and an 18 in your primary stat, or a 12 and a 14 in a secondary/tertiary. The higher you raise the point buy, the less significant the choices become, until having an 18 in your primary stat becomes the default. Some people think this is a good thing, but in practice all it does is raise everyone's standards; everyone starts thinking that their character's "weak" if they aren't at the human maximum.

Once you hit 35-40 PB and up, you have to start rewriting monsters on a regular basis: standard MM monsters have the nonelite array of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, which just doesn't cut it when PCs have all their primary and secondary stats at 16+. It does give the PCs marginally more flexibility in what build they want to play, but personally I don't think it's worth the effort.

[aboyd]

I would note that 25 points is what the D&D 3.5 edition authors were expecting. So all the CR rules and balancing is geared toward that level of power. If your characters are 32 point buy, you should expect that they are slightly more powerful than what's expected of their level. Keep that in mind when balancing encounters.

[Amphetryon]

Designers also balanced for Weapon Specialization Longsword & Board Fighters with a Healbot and a Blaster Wizard, and figured the MM1 monsters would not use 'optimal' tactics.

EDIT: I find, for my games, that a 28 point buy makes my players feel sufficiently special without having them either struggle against, or walk through, the majority of level-appropriate challenges from the MM.

[aboyd]

Very true. If you know how to play a monster well -- especially if you can remember to apply all their DR & SR & immunities, which I never can -- then yes, they are definitely a CR higher, or two.

[Eldariel]

Once you hit 35-40 PB and up, you have to start rewriting monsters on a regular basis: standard MM monsters have the nonelite array of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, which just doesn't cut it when PCs have all their primary and secondary stats at 16+. It does give the PCs marginally more flexibility in what build they want to play, but personally I don't think it's worth the effort.

Could you rely on CR otherwise? I've found that regardless of pb, you'll have to rewrite or at least reassess monsters on a regular basis since CR is inconsistent to say the least, let alone if you use intelligent monsters with class levels (which I feel logical, at least for creatures that dwell in groups such as Giants and most Monstrous Humanoids) or advanced creatures.

And on the other hand, if a Fighter puts those 8 points to get 15 Charisma, I don't see it making a huge difference in combat encounters; combat-wise he's still equivalent to a 32pb Fighter, though obviously better off in social encounters.

[mucat]

I am a Computer Programmer with a serious hobby-level interest in statistics, 4d6b3 is approximately a 38 Point Buy.
Recheck your calculations; 4d6b3 averages to almost exactly 28 points. (The exact number depends on how you average in results under 8, which are impossible by point buy.)

[Zaq]

For the record, I've been playing with 33 point-buy (yes, thirty-three... my DM is weird) for a year or two now, making several characters, and I've never started with a pre-racial 18 in any stat, even on my most SAD characters. Anecdotes, varying mileage, etc.

I like 32 point-buy. It makes stat-boosting items more of a luxury than a necessity. You'll still want 'em, sure, but not nearly as badly.

Plus, it means that almost any character can afford at least a 12 in INT, which means more skill points, which everyone loves (GMs and players alike benefit from having a range of skills in the group).

[Aotrs Commander]

I use 30 points from base 8 on a point-for-point basis, which approximately comes out as about 38 points in 3.5's metric. (Never liked the logic of a non linear cost for a linear stat progression.) A typical array with this gives you 18,16,14,12,10,8. (I'm actually considering raising that by another 6 or so points, to avoid the "everyone in the party has 8 charisma" syndrome.)

I find that I can't use stock monsters ANYWAY (average party size six, access to most of 3.5 and moderate to high optimisation and teamwork skills on the part of my players) so really, the fact I have to make my own monsters doesn't bother me. (That and the fact that 90% of the opposition in my games will be classed humanoids anyway.)

[Saph]

I find that I can't use stock monsters ANYWAY (average party size six, access to most of 3.5 and moderate to high optimisation and teamwork skills on the part of my players) so really, the fact I have to make my own monsters doesn't bother me. (That and the fact that 90% of the opposition in my games will be classed humanoids anyway.)

Eh, I just don't have the time nowadays. I'd much rather be able to use monsters straight out of the Monster Manuals whenever possible. It cuts down on the mechanical part of the preparation enormously, which gives me more time to work out the rest of the session.

That's only half the reason, though. The other reason is that I think the quest for high stats is kind of a rat race. High stats are relative; if everyone else has a 14 in their primary stat, then to be special you need a 16. If everyone else has a 16, you need an 18. If everyone else has an 18, you need a 20, and so on. I really don't think a DM does their players any favours by giving them high starting stats - all it does is set the numbers to a higher baseline.

[Cahokia]

Either 28 or 32 point buy for me--28 for lower-power games, 32 for higher.

[Aotrs Commander]

Eh, I just don't have the time nowadays. I'd much rather be able to use monsters straight out of the Monster Manuals whenever possible. It cuts down on the mechanical part of the preparation enormously, which gives me more time to work out the rest of the session.

I make time. Wargaming and roleplaying are my only hobbies (I don't have any interest in sports, booze, the mating rituals of the living etc etc), so I am prepared to sink the hours in. Plus, making monsters is at least half the fun of adventure writing. (You are, after all, talking to the guy whose most current game world unilaterally tossed out the entire 3.5 bestiary (and Vancian casting and WBL) to re-design and re-image a new whole one from mostly primary sources! Up to a round 70 beasties so far...)

MM monsters wouldn't make it even if I had lower PCs stats, though. They just don't cut it against a well-organised team of players!


That's only half the reason, though. The other reason is that I think the quest for high stats is kind of a rat race. High stats are relative; if everyone else has a 14 in their primary stat, then to be special you need a 16. If everyone else has a 16, you need an 18. If everyone else has an 18, you need a 20, and so on. I really don't think a DM does their players any favours by giving them high starting stats - all it does is set the numbers to a higher baseline.

On the flip side, even with 25 points buy, the SAD characters are almost certainly going to have at least a 16 in the casting stat, and a 5% difference between save DCs (say) (i.e. 16 to 18) isn't something I care to lose sleep over. It also shores up the gap for the noncasters a touch (and every bit helps). As the maximums don't change, all the stats in the world don't stop the SAD casters from dominating if they like, however you assign them. But a higher point buy does make things like my Cleric/Monk Naruto-ninja-clone character actually reasonably feasible. (That particular one is a bugger because there are NO dump stats.) I'm also not really bothered about anyone's stats feeling "special", since everyone will have exactly the same number of pluses. (Since I'm using a point-for-point.) I expect EVERYONE to be having at least one 18 unless their crazily MAD.

Basically, I think a higher point buy helps the MAD characters (which basically translates to "more-or-less anyone except SAD primary casters) more than it helps the SAD characters; and theoretically, it might give you more or a variety in spread of stat modifiers across the group.

[Saph]

Basically, I think a higher point buy helps the MAD characters (which basically translates to "more-or-less anyone except SAD primary casters) more than it helps the SAD characters

I've heard this argument before, and I'm not convinced. I made some example builds once to test it out, and my conclusion was that the difference was microscopic. Maybe comparing the lowest to the highest extreme, the MAD characters benefited a tiny bit more, but it was insignificant compared to play style, DM decisions, houserules, optimisation level, etc.


and theoretically, it might give you more or a variety in spread of stat modifiers across the group.

I don't find that this applies either. The powergamers will dump their dump stats and pour all their points into their primary and secondaries; the RP-types will spread their points out to match their conception of the character. Stat variety is mostly a function of the personalities of your players, rather than the PB totals you give them.

[Godless_Paladin]

I am a Computer Programmer with a serious hobby-level interest in statistics, 4d6b3 is approximately a 38 Point Buy.

You meant "28 point buy."

Anywho, I usually run 28-32.

[Aotrs Commander]

I've heard this argument before, and I'm not convinced. I made some example builds once to test it out, and my conclusion was that the difference was microscopic. Maybe comparing the lowest to the highest extreme, the MAD characters benefited a tiny bit more, but it was insignificant compared to play style, DM decisions, houserules, optimisation level, etc.

I'm not convinced by your non-convinced-ness.

We could argue all day and it wouldn't matter, though. You won't convince me to use lower stats, and I'm even not gonna try and convince you. Maybe it's just a psychological thing, that we as players feel better because we've got higher numbers (i.e. more at the maximum cap and more above the "average"); whatever the reason, it works for me. We tend to use maximum hitpoints for everything as well (especially the NPCs nowadays!)

My games are a fairly radical departure from 3.5's supposed design average anyway, so if I choose to base the numbers slightly higher up, what the hey?

[Saph]

My games are a fairly radical departure from 3.5's supposed design average anyway, so if I choose to base the numbers slightly higher up, what the hey?

Eh, it's not a big deal or anything. I just think that for most games, it works better to keep the stats to something close to the book-standard. Obviously if the DM's willing and able to do the work to rebalance, the game's going to work fine no matter what power level you set it at.

I'll admit that part of it is that I've had a lot of frustrating experiences with players who have ridiculously high benchmarks for stats. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that a character's stats "suck", or that a PC is "gimped" . . . and then I total up the scores and it comes to something like a 42 point buy.

[Elfin]

When I've DMed, I've usually used 40 PB: the players in my group are mostly optimizers, and in my experience it actually does make a difference giving MAD characters more freedom. And, as has been said above, for optimized PCs monsters generally need reworking anyway.

In my main game at the moment? The DM allowed us a 60 PB. Sure, it's way more than what's expected, but honestly? It doesn't make that much of a difference when compared to a game with "standard" stats, especially since the DM (like me) often reworks monsters.
But yeah, if you're using strictly out-of-the-box enemies, I can see how higher PBs might start to show an effect.

[Gnaeus]

I've heard this argument before, and I'm not convinced. I made some example builds once to test it out, and my conclusion was that the difference was microscopic. Maybe comparing the lowest to the highest extreme, the MAD characters benefited a tiny bit more, but it was insignificant compared to play style, DM decisions, houserules, optimisation level, etc.

That "argument" is like the argument that a + 5 sword is better than a +1, or that a wizard 20 is more powerful than a fighter 20. Past level 8, a druid is highly unlikely to care at all whether his stats array is 18,16,14,14,14,14 or 18,16,14,14,3,3. At high levels, the wizard has the same lack of caring, for the same reasons (neither one spends much combat time in their original form, so their natural str or dex is irrelevant). The SAD classes can avoid low scores (Glibness or charm>Cha, Polymorph or crafting a golem> Str), or amend them to be closer to where they want (Persist or quicken a stat buff, or make a wand). Mad classes typically can't. You may be unconvinced that water flows downhill, and that is your opinion, it is just wrong.

The statement about play style, DM decisions, houserules, op level, etc is just a red herring. Houserules are endlessly flexible, and can just as readily invalidate any statement about the game, starting with "there are 6 attributes, ranging between 3-18" up and down the line. DM decisions and playstyle may alter what is better to play, but they don't change that a druid past level 8 needs 2 good stats and 2 decent ones, and a monk needs a lot of good stats. At any optimization level, it is easier to play a SAD character than a MAD one at low PB.

[Susano-wo]

I tend to agree that higher stats tend to create inflated expectations. I know in my group an 18 was always expected, to the point that Dm's would riase your highest stat or let you siphon from other numbers to get that 18.

A side point is that I've always felt that armor was balanced with this in mind. If everyone has enough for 16 dex (or a lot of people do at least), there is no reason for them to wear heavy armor, unless they expect to be caught flat footed an awful lot..

And I always liked the incremental idea. The logic is (and maybe you understand this, Aotrs Commander, but disagree..)that 18 14 is more valuable, most of the time, than 16 16, no matter what your priary is. to take two extremes, with fighter, that 18 to your attack stat is 5% to hit, probably damage, and in cases where you have more BAB than needed, gives you more freedom for power attack. Caster means that you have another bonus spell of 1 higher level availible to you, and if you are planning on using offensive magic, that's 5% more your attacks will stick.

[Saph]

You may be unconvinced that water flows downhill, and that is your opinion, it is just wrong.

Let's take a look at some numbers. We'll pick a MAD class (the monk) and a relatively SAD one (the wizard). I'll compare a 24 point buy to 32 (25 would be more common, but it's easier with even figures).

24 point buy

Monk: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 14, Int 8, Cha 8.
Wizard: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 10, Int 16, Cha 8.

32 point buy

Monk: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 16, Int 8, Cha 8.
Wizard: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 12, Int 18, Cha 8.

There's no 'correct' way to distribute stats, so this is going to vary in practice, but this is only for comparison anyway.

Now, who's stronger under 24 point buy? I'd say the wizard.
Who's stronger under 32 point buy? Again, wizard.
Is the monk stronger with a 32 than with a 24 point buy? Yes.
Is the wizard stronger with a 32 than with a 24 point buy? Also yes.
Are both playable? Again, yes. (Yes, yes, I know, you won't be able to solo encounters with the monk, but if you wanted to do that, you wouldn't be playing a monk in the first place.)

So the only question is: does the monk benefit relatively more than the wizard from the PB increase?

You claim that they obviously do, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong/stupid. I don't agree. In our above example, the wizard gets +1 to his attack DCs, +1 to his Will save, and possibly an extra spell. The monk gets +1 to attack/damage, and +1 to his Wisdom-based abilities and save. Who benefits more?

Frankly, I don't think there's much in it. A class that relies on one attribute will by definition get twice as much benefit from a PB increase to a class that relies on two attributes. The only limiting factor to this is when you hit the PB cap. This does have an effect, but the SAD classes still have ways around this (say, picking a race that boosts it, and using their extra points to make up for the penalty). Hence I don't think higher PB totals make it easier to play a MAD character.

[Tytalus]

I am a Computer Programmer with a serious hobby-level interest in statistics, 4d6b3 is approximately a 38 Point Buy.

It has been done many times before and that's simply not the case; you might want to review your code.

It comes out to 29-30 PB (note: not 28 as some other posters claimed), depending on how you cost the scores that can't be achieved with pointbuy. Perhaps you meant to say 28 instead?

That doesn't sound too far off - perhaps you just forgot to exclude those results that qualify for a re-roll.

[Aotrs Commander]

And I always liked the incremental idea. The logic is (and maybe you understand this, Aotrs Commander, but disagree..)that 18 14 is more valuable, most of the time, than 16 16, no matter what your priary is. to take two extremes, with fighter, that 18 to your attack stat is 5% to hit, probably damage, and in cases where you have more BAB than needed, gives you more freedom for power attack. Caster means that you have another bonus spell of 1 higher level availible to you, and if you are planning on using offensive magic, that's 5% more your attacks will stick.

Oh, I understood what they were trying to do with it, I just thought it was cobblers; a bit of a holdover from the days of yore when you rolled your stats and an 18 was rare and impressive and should therefore be difficult to obtain via points. The point of me shifting to point-buy from rolling was so I didn't have to manually keep looking over everyone's stats to keep them relatively even. (The actual numbers in the stat blocks didn't really change between AD&D and 3.x, just got more balanced. Ish.)

Perhaps it's partly that; something of a carry-over from AD&D (and Baldur's/Torment) and Rolemaster, where middling stats had no real differentiation until you hit the upper levels (e.g 16+ or 75+ respectively). In AD&D, there was nothing worse than having a character with all middling stats, which was kind of boring. So you swapped points around and squeezed and 18 or so out of them so you'd have something... We play at a high power level, no question (PCs are defined by me as specifically being the elite, the protagonists, so they are thus supposed to be Better Than Lesser Mortals). A cursory glance at any of our Rolemaster parties would also show that the characters have more stats in the 90+ range than not.

(Indeed, in our top party, the guy with mostly 90s in his stats was actually sufficently WEAK, since the upper tiers had stats well over 100 - which in Rolemaster means the bonuses skyrockets upwards - that I had to boost him to their level! Heck, that party is so unilaterally super-humanly fast, only their time-travelling ninja-monk enemies can actually keep up with them!)

Maybe there is an element of higher numbers are more fun too (contrary to the sometimes stated belief, within a certain level of magnitude).

As I say, there might be an element of psycology in it.



High stats are most important at lower levels anyway, and gradually become less so the further up you go. Equipment has tended to render everyone's starting stats kind of moot by the time you hit mid-to-late levels, so, as they say, what the hell.

That said, once you get to about a 30-odd point buy, the SADs have already hit their cap, so more points doesn't make them more betterer, as dear ol' Grimlock would say, at their primary stuff; it just makes them a bit more rounded. At that point, it matters only more to MAD characters for their actual mechanics; the wizards and druids just get some more to flavour with, since they've already done all their mechanical work.



I can see the logic of wanting to keep to lowish stats if you want to run things out of the book, at least theoretically. Sort of. Sometimes.

I ran my group through the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, WotC's 3.5 conversion. It was kinda a fill-in, so I wanted to run it with a minimum of tweaking. (Boy was that dumb.) I gave the party a point buy of base 8, 24 points, point for point (which equates to, what, say, 18,14,12,12,8,8, so about a 30-point buy in D&D's terms) and made them level 10 (a level lower than the expected), buffed the number of monsters up by 50% (to account for six PCs, and resigned myself that the solo monsters were just going to have to have problems even with max hitpoints). And watched the PCs just totally butcher the module anyway. Their stats were nearly totally irrelevant. (Seriously, the crusader could have nearly solo'd the module, on the sole basis of having level-appropriate armour and a shield.)

Lessons learned: 1) stats don't make any difference compared to my PC's optimisation and teamwork skills (and gear at that level) 2) the 3.5 edition Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is a terrible, boring, badly-converted module* and 3) anyone who thinks that it's a good idea to draw a basically un-PC mappable dungeon in with pale blue floors and *@%$&£* pale grey walls wants to be disembowled on a very, very blunt spear. Fifteen times. While on fire.

Other people's milage may vary, of course, depending on how the PCs work together and optimise.



*It's always such a good start when a module designed for 11th level characters has almost no encounters whose creatures actually reach double-digit CRs and whose final quote unquote villain is a Complete Warrior Samurai. Vampire. *facepalm*

[LordBlades]

Let's take a look at some numbers. We'll pick a MAD class (the monk) and a relatively SAD one (the wizard). I'll compare a 24 point buy to 32 (25 would be more common, but it's easier with even figures).

24 point buy

Monk: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 14, Int 8, Cha 8.
Wizard: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 10, Int 16, Cha 8.

32 point buy

Monk: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 16, Int 8, Cha 8.
Wizard: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 12, Int 18, Cha 8.



Tbh, I think your comparison is a bit faulty. First of all, the 24 PB wizard could be built much better as

Str 8, Dex 10, Con 14, Wis 8, Int 18, Cha 8.

Doing so maximizes the wizard's potential to do his job (killing people with spells) while not sacrificing much. Comparing to your stat suggestions , mine loses 2 reflex, 1 will, 2 attack with rays, but gains +1 DCs and 1 extra 4th level spell slot. In a non-core environment, mine could just use greater resistance on the extra spell slot to make up the save difference (actually end up 1 ahead in ref and 2 ahead in will). Keeping it core, he can just use one of the decent lvl 4 defensive spells, like Globe of Invulnerability or Displacement. Hell, you can even use Polymorph into something with high dex if you need good ref or ray attacks that badly

Moving on to PB 32. The PB 32 wizard contributes in no significant way more to the combat. Of course, he has +2 ref (when not polymorphed) and +2 will, but that only helps him survive more, it doesn't increase his offensive potential at all.
The monk however has gained +1 to hit and damage, +1 grapple, +1 DCs to his wis-based abilities. Whereas it's not a huge leap, it does allow the monk to contribute more to the fight.

[Doug Lampert]

Tbh, I think your comparison is a bit faulty. First of all, the 24 PB wizard could be built much better as
... ANYTHING that actually looks like a SAD character.

Claiming you're comparing a SAD and a MAD character at different point buys and then having the low point buy SAD character spend over HALF his points boosting his number 2, 3, and 4 abilities is rather blatantly comparing MAD to MAD.

He's built his wizard EVERY BIT as MAD as the Monk! They both boost exactly four abilities to scores above 8.

And that's not a SAD to MAD comparison at all. It's MAD to MAD so naturally they both get about the same edge.

[Susano-wo]

@Aotrs Commander: Gotcha. Yeah, psychology is pretty much why I like rolling dice, on a gut level. :P

@Saph. I have to agree that the whole point of SAD/MAD is the ability to a SAD to easily focus, whereas a monk will have to put its points into many stats (I would have probably cut the con a bit to increase dex or STR to 16, but I'm not exactly the best optimizer, so I might not know what I'm talking about on the best stas for the monk >.>)

In any case I think the MAD issue is probably best solved by adding points, whether extra points in the point buy, or by, say a racial style +2bonus to maybe STR and WIS (or maybe to either STR or Dex, and WIS), with a normal racial cap on them. In other words, it wouldn't give a human a 20 STR or WIS capability)

This way you get:24 point buy

Monk: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 16, Int 8, Cha 8.
Wizard: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 10, Int 16, Cha 8.


32 point buy

Monk: Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 18, Int 8, Cha 8.
Wizard: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 12, Int 18, Cha 8.

Which makes it much easier to play ye olde monk, since his attack and special ability stat now has at least the same bonus as the wizards (or not even as much, under the 24pt buy is you maxed the wizards INT

[Tetsubo 57]

For me, 28 is the bare minimum. I prefer 32, both as a GM & a player.

[Saph]

Tbh, I think your comparison is a bit faulty. First of all, the 24 PB wizard could be built much better as

Str 8, Dex 10, Con 14, Wis 8, Int 18, Cha 8.

Yep, under your point buy the Wizard gets no offensive advantage by going from 24 to 32. On the other hand, he gets significant defensive and utility bonuses: +2 to AC, Reflex, Initiative, Will, and Perception. While the monk gets +1 to his attacks and +1 to some of his defences, more or less.

Again, I don't think there's much in it.


Moving on to PB 32. The PB 32 wizard contributes in no significant way more to the combat. Of course, he has +2 ref (when not polymorphed) and +2 will, but that only helps him survive more, it doesn't increase his offensive potential at all.

I disagree. Characters don't contribute much to the fight if they're on negative HP, and bonuses to initiative and defence are a good way of helping you stay active rather than becoming a bleeding-to-death liability. If you build a character to be a glass cannon and then give them a PB increase that makes them less glass but still just as much of a cannon, that's significant. Defence matters.

[Endarire]

I prefer 32. This gives non-casters a chance.

Even with a 28 point buy, a Wizard can go 18 INT, 14 DEX, and 14 CON. He'll probably have the same top 3 stats in 28PB as in 32PB.

After 32 though, things get a bit sillier, but are still managable. I don't use published creatures any more than necessary, and I prefer to ouse opponents with class levels who are effectively built like the party.

[Gnaeus]

Let's take a look at some numbers. We'll pick a MAD class (the monk) and a relatively SAD one (the wizard). I'll compare a 24 point buy to 32 (25 would be more common, but it's easier with even figures).

24 point buy

Monk: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 14, Int 8, Cha 8.
Wizard: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Wis 10, Int 16, Cha 8.


Your wizard point buy is wrong.
Str 20+, Dex 20+, Con 14, Wis 10, Int 18, Cha 20+ is a 24 PB wizard Shapechanged into a big outsider using commonly available spells to avoid social interactions. They go higher when he cares enough to buff them.

It isn't about 3 points of off stat bonuses, it is about the ability to act as if your off stats were huge when they are abysmal.

[Curmudgeon]

Here's my suggestion based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0):

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
Just forget it.
This assumes you're going to start in your primary class. If you change the primary class in later levels you'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.

[weenie]

I am a Computer Programmer with a serious hobby-level interest in statistics, 4d6b3 is approximately a 38 Point Buy.

That doesn't sound right.. 38 is a LOT. Did you mean 28?

[DwarfFighter]

Breaking the mould here with 30 points. :)

-DF

[Yora]

We play PB 25, keeping things a bit mundane for our E6 game.

[Thrawn183]

I prefer lower pb 25-28 as I think it makes combat a little more reasonable, not to mention faster. When spells do damage at roughly a d6/level and your wizard only has a d4 hp/level, having the points for a high Con score (such as a 16) really changes the game.

I like when wizards have to use spells for their defense (protection from energy) instead of just casting attack spells, it helps make combat a little more sane.

[kestrel404]

Every game I've been in has been 32 point buy, except for one. In that one, we started by rolling stats. The first person to roll (3d6, straight) got an 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 4 (roughly). At that point, the DM just declared that we had 42 points for point buy.

[Il_Vec]

As a side note, I always felt that being unable, by the book, to lower stats below 8 is a bit artificial. If I feel the need to play a low-wisdom fool or a low-con frail bard, I'd have to take a different race or just roleplay it. I know it is meant to reduce min-max... But the book could at least offer an option, suggesting that it is not recommended but possible etc etc.

[Curmudgeon]

As a side note, I always felt that being unable, by the book, to lower stats below 8 is a bit artificial. If I feel the need to play a low-wisdom fool or a low-con frail bard, I'd have to take a different race or just roleplay it.
I suggest that you simply take the matter up with your DM. If you want to lower a stat below 8 without getting any extra points in the process, that's probably fine.

[Eloel]

May I be so bold to point to this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#pathetic)?

[Il_Vec]

I suggest that you simply take the matter up with your DM. If you want to lower a stat below 8 without getting any extra points in the process, that's probably fine.

I know anyone can take anything to the DM... I just wish that the book had at least a footnote on the matter.

[Saph]

Your wizard point buy is wrong.
Str 20+, Dex 20+, Con 14, Wis 10, Int 18, Cha 20+ is a 24 PB wizard Shapechanged into a big outsider using commonly available spells to avoid social interactions. They go higher when he cares enough to buff them.

Shapechange is a 9th-level spell. You will not always have access to 9th-level spells. Even if you do, Shapechange is one of the Top 10 most-banned spells in all 3.5. The fraction of 3.5 sessions which see use of Shapechange is minimal, so assuming it as a baseline makes your argument pretty weak.

At the moment it doesn't sound from your posts as though you think "I'll always have Shapechange" even is an assumption. For someone who's written a guide on "practical optimisation", you're not doing a great job of it.

[Susano-wo]

Yep, under your point buy the Wizard gets no offensive advantage by going from 24 to 32. On the other hand, he gets significant defensive and utility bonuses: +2 to AC, Reflex, Initiative, Will, and Perception. While the monk gets +1 to his attacks and +1 to some of his defences, more or less.

Again, I don't think there's much in it.


I think you kind of disprove your point. At least if we are accepting that Wizards greatest strength is in their casting, whjich gives them offence, and can easily give them defense as well.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for the wizard to sacrifice a 4th level spell (actually a 1st and 5th level spell by 8th, or by 1st in PF), as well as +1 on save DC's just to gain defenses. Once you have that 18 INT secured, you can freely start looking at your other stats, and there is definitely merit in gaining defense.

Whereas more points continually grant MAD charactes better scores in their abilities since they can't afford to max anything, at least not at lower point costs. And +1 attack is vital if your main method of being effective is overcoming AC. The damage? maybe not so much, but +1 onto sevral attacks doies start to add up. And the wisdom on a monk adds to save DC's on his abilites as well as +1 AC and will. And Con, as you point out, increases durability

[Saph]

I think you kind of disprove your point. At least if we are accepting that Wizards greatest strength is in their casting, whjich gives them offence, and can easily give them defense as well.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for the wizard to sacrifice a 4th level spell (actually a 1st and 5th level spell by 8th, or by 1st in PF), as well as +1 on save DC's just to gain defenses.

The Wizard won't be sacrificing a 4th-level spell. Level 7 WBL is 19,000 gp; the Wizard is pretty much guaranteed to have a +2 Headband of Intellect by then. So by level 7 he'll have an effective Int of 19, and he'll get his bonus 4th-level spell. What about 5th-level spells by level 9? Well, by then he'll have gained another +1 Int from his 8th level stat bump. What about 6th-level spells by level 11? Level 11 WBL is enough to . . . and so on. The argument that the Wizard is seriously penalising their casting with a 16 rather than an 18 Int just doesn't get off the ground once you take into account equipment and level boosts.

[Tyndmyr]

It has been done many times before and that's simply not the case; you might want to review your code.

It comes out to 29-30 PB (note: not 28 as some other posters claimed), depending on how you cost the scores that can't be achieved with pointbuy. Perhaps you meant to say 28 instead?

That doesn't sound too far off - perhaps you just forgot to exclude those results that qualify for a re-roll.

Results that qualify for a re-roll are the poorest ones. Therefore, excluding them would make the average PB lower, not higher.

I did the math once, and came out higher than most people estimate as the median point buy. The reason why is that most people consider the average results from 4d6b3, then figure out what that would cost to buy in points. A much more tedious, but more accurate method is to calculate the different point buys possible, the odds of each, and the statistically average point buy possible as a result. Since rolling above average results in a point buy far higher than rolling below the average does costs points, it pulls the average up significantly.

Still don't think it hit 38, though.


As for the monk vs wizard thing, it depends. At low point buys, increases help they both equally. At high point buys, the MAD character benefits more. Once the wizard can afford an 18 int, and a bit each in con and dex, he's set. All he has available is to further increase con and dex, practically. The monk is likely still benefitting from bonuses all round.

I should note that even at extremely high point buys, where the monk benefits proportionately most from this, the wizard is still objectively better than the monk. Great stats on a monk help, but they're not nearly enough to overcome the tier gap there.

[Aotrs Commander]

The Wizard won't be sacrificing a 4th-level spell. Level 7 WBL is 19,000 gp; the Wizard is pretty much guaranteed to have a +2 Headband of Intellect by then. So by level 7 he'll have an effective Int of 19, and he'll get his bonus 4th-level spell. What about 5th-level spells by level 9? Well, by then he'll have gained another +1 Int from his 8th level stat bump. What about 6th-level spells by level 11? Level 11 WBL is enough to . . . and so on. The argument that the Wizard is seriously penalising their casting with a 16 rather than an 18 Int just doesn't get off the ground once you take into account equipment and level boosts.

You've lost me with your logic, now, Saph! Let me get this straight; Your position is that higher point-buys do make everyone equally stronger but that the "stronger" is actually a fairly trivial increase?

If that's not what you're getting at, could you please clarify things a bit?

If so, then I do have to ask the question: if 16 is not really any worse than 18, then why worry about what points-buy you use if it cosmically doesn't matter?


As for the monk vs wizard thing, it depends. At low point buys, increases help they both equally. At high point buys, the MAD character benefits more. Once the wizard can afford an 18 int, and a bit each in con and dex, he's set. All he has available is to further increase con and dex, practically. The monk is likely still benefitting from bonuses all round.

I should note that even at extremely high point buys, where the monk benefits proportionately most from this, the wizard is still objectively better than the monk. Great stats on a monk help, but they're not nearly enough to overcome the tier gap there.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figure.

[Susano-wo]

The Wizard won't be sacrificing a 4th-level spell. Level 7 WBL is 19,000 gp; the Wizard is pretty much guaranteed to have a +2 Headband of Intellect by then. So by level 7 he'll have an effective Int of 19, and he'll get his bonus 4th-level spell. What about 5th-level spells by level 9? Well, by then he'll have gained another +1 Int from his 8th level stat bump. What about 6th-level spells by level 11? Level 11 WBL is enough to . . . and so on. The argument that the Wizard is seriously penalising their casting with a 16 rather than an 18 Int just doesn't get off the ground once you take into account equipment and level boosts.

:smallconfused:
Um, the 18INT wizard can just as easily do that. Meaning that the 18INT wizard will still be up 2 spells compared to the 16INT wizard. The comparison is meaningless if they are not both focusing on raising INT.
:smallsigh: Oh, I just got it. you will still always have the bonus spell for your highest slot if you are purchasing +INT items, so all you are losing is a spell slot 4lvls down and a 5%DC...I'd still say that's worth it, but not quite as "why would you do anything else" as when not taking that into account


And I'm not saying wizards need more stat points, or that its bad doing lower stat points. Just that it seems obvious that MAD characters benefit more from higher point buy. The wizard doesn't significantly increase his ability to be good at what he does with higher PB, but the monk does. [of course there are the class imbalances...but that's waaaaay too off topic :smallbiggrin:]
I actually like lower stats, since I think the game is balanced more for them. (now I think this at least--in my younger years I loved the thrill of a lot of big scores :smallamused: Ok I still do, but I acknowledge the superiority of lower overall stats)I would probably rather just throw Monks and Paladin's a bone in the form of better stats, since they need more of them to function

[Saph]

You've lost me with your logic, now, Saph! Let me get this straight; Your position is that higher point-buys do make everyone equally stronger but that the "stronger" is actually a fairly trivial increase?

If that's not what you're getting at, could you please clarify things a bit?

My argument is that higher point buys do not significantly increase the relative power of MAD classes. If you're unhappy because your class is getting overshadowed with 24 points, I think you're going to be just as overshadowed and just as unhappy at 32 points.


If so, then I do have to ask the question: if 16 is not really any worse than 18, then why worry about what points-buy you use if it cosmically doesn't matter?

Because, by exactly the same logic, if 16 is not really that much worse than 18, why not go with the book values and stick with the 16? It's less work.


And I'm not saying wizards need more stat points, or that its bad doing lower stat points. Just that it seems obvious that MAD characters benefit more from higher point buy.

I know, a lot of people think so. I just don't think the numbers bear it out - or, even if the MAD classes do benefit more, it's such a tiny relative increase that it gets lost in all the other factors.

[Aotrs Commander]

My argument is that higher point buys do not significantly increase the relative power of MAD classes. If you're unhappy because your class is getting overshadowed with 24 points, I think you're going to be just as overshadowed and just as unhappy at 32 points.

So you're saying that basically, stats don't matter because Wizard?

(No, I did not miss any words out of that last sentence...!)


Because, by exactly the same logic, if 16 is not really that much worse than 18, why not go with the book values and stick with the 16? It's less work.


I know, a lot of people think so. I just don't think the numbers bear it out - or, even if the MAD classes do benefit more, it's such a tiny relative increase that it gets lost in all the other factors.

Y'see, this is what is confusing me. You're saying "higher stats are more powerful no they're not." Either it makes a noticable difference or it doesn't, in which case, what the hell?



Right.

Okay, let me propose an experiment, then.

For Science! Mwahahaha!

Assign a stat array for, let's say, a wizard, a cleric, a warblade and/or a monk (a fair brendth of SAD, not quite as SAD and MADer and MAD) using 8 points plus 24 points, point-for-point (and/or a standard 25 point buy) and the same characters with 36 point-for-point (and/or 48 point buy) and let's see the differences. (Between D&D's and my system and the points buys themselves).

(I'm choosing these figures which is a fairly big increase because on D&D's standard, 25 to 32 isn't really much of an increase with their numbers, so I'm not surprised you'd see a lot of increase. I'm not going to do it myself to start with, since I what to see what results people other than me will come up with. Unbiased results and whatnot...)

[Saph]

Y'see, this is what is confusing me. You're saying "higher stats are more powerful no they're not." Either it makes a noticable difference or it doesn't, in which case, what the hell?

I think you're getting mixed up between two different arguments. The quote you cited in post #56 was a discussion between me Susano-wo about how to build a Wizard with Point Buy. The discussion I was having with you was about the relative benefit to SAD/MAD classes from higher or lower point buys.

When I said "if the MAD classes do benefit more, it's such a tiny relative increase that it gets lost in all the other factors," I was referring to the relative benefit MAD classes gain from higher PBs, not to the power difference between high and low PBs.

Or to use a metaphor: Trying to improve the balance of 3.5 classes by boosting point buys is like trying to improve your city's standard of living by handing out coins to pedestrians. There's no guarantee that you're sending the money to the right place and even if you were, you're not giving enough to make a difference.

[Amphetryon]

Or to use a metaphor: Trying to improve the balance of 3.5 classes by boosting point buys is like trying to improve your city's standard of living by handing out coins to pedestrians. There's no guarantee that you're sending the money to the right place and even if you were, you're not giving enough to make a differenceThe beggars that get those coins almost certainly need them more than the rich folk that do, wouldn't you say? I mean, regardless of whether the handout gets invested or squandered, the poor folk (Monks, Paladins, other MAD classes) are in more immediate need of the handful of coins (points) you're offering than the rich folk (Druid, Wizard, SAD casters).

[Gnaeus]

Shapechange is a 9th-level spell. You will not always have access to 9th-level spells. Even if you do, Shapechange is one of the Top 10 most-banned spells in all 3.5. The fraction of 3.5 sessions which see use of Shapechange is minimal, so assuming it as a baseline makes your argument pretty weak.

At the moment it doesn't sound from your posts as though you think "I'll always have Shapechange" even is an assumption. For someone who's written a guide on "practical optimisation", you're not doing a great job of it.

I'll have access to shapechange is the RULES. You can houserule SAD classes to make them less SAD. When you play with the game as written, Wildshape, Polymorph and Shapechange are available. The wizard just takes it as a pick when he gets to that level, and the druid gets it automatically. Sure, Saph, if you houserule that wizards have their maximum spell level set by their Int, their save DCs set by their Dex and their bonus spells set by their strength, then as a result they are hurt the same as a monk by a low PB. And thats fine if thats the game you want. But it isn't what the PHB says.

It doesn't have to be Shapechange though. PAO does just as well. Polymorph does almost as well. Some of the polymorph school spells (like the one that turns you into a centaur) will also work to let you ignore your physical stats. If it is enough to just raise physical stats to a decent level when you need them, that is even easier.

Practical optimization has to do with what tricks you CHOOSE to use within a particular game. It has NO bearing on which classes are more powerful than others based on the rules. A wizard benefits more from a low PB than a monk. He can CHOOSE not to take advantage of his class features that let him do this in order to not make the monk look like a chump. Just like he can choose not to use his spells that let him win social encounters in order to let the party face get some game time. But he can always change his mind with 24 hours notice and ignore his low stats if he wants to (like if the party makeup changes, or he is in a solo adventure).

[Greenish]

I'll have access to shapechange is the RULES.By the RULES, you roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, I seem to recall.

[Gnaeus]

By the RULES, you roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, I seem to recall.

Using an optional rule in the DMG is hardly the same thing as handwaving entire categories of spells out of existance.

[randomhero00]

I say 38. It lets people play with builds more and doesn't punish melee or MAD classes as much. Whereas SAD classes are still capped.

[Saph]

I'll have access to shapechange is the RULES.

Good grief. You can't even grasp that some games might not give you access to Shapechange? Like, say, games that run from levels 1 to 5?

We're done here, Gnaeus. Go find someone else to argue with.

[Gnaeus]

Good grief. You can't even grasp that some games might not give you access to Shapechange? Like, say, games that run from levels 1 to 5?

We're done here, Gnaeus. Go find someone else to argue with.

Wildshape is at 5. Aspect of the Wolf (rewriting your druid's 6 str and 8 dex) is available at level 1. So is Charm person, which lets your 8 cha wizard win social encounters. So yes, your bad argument is done.

[Susano-wo]

Or to use a metaphor: Trying to improve the balance of 3.5 classes by boosting point buys is like trying to improve your city's standard of living by handing out coins to pedestrians. There's no guarantee that you're sending the money to the right place and even if you were, you're not giving enough to make a difference.

Yeah, I'm not even trying to say a monk with a higher point buy solves all the problems, though it might bump it a tier? it still has the "mobility theme but not set up to be truly mobile" problem, but it least it can invest enough stat points to make him viable amongst fighters, etc? (not certain about this one, or the numbers behind it >.>...just wondering, really)

[Saph]

Yeah, I'm not even trying to say a monk with a higher point buy solves all the problems, though it might bump it a tier? it still has the "mobility theme but not set up to be truly mobile" problem, but it least it can invest enough stat points to make him viable amongst fighters, etc? (not certain about this one, or the numbers behind it >.>...just wondering, really)

There's also the approach which Curmudgeon was referring to earlier on; you give higher PBs to weaker classes and lower PBs to stronger ones. So a monk would get something like a 40 PB compared to a wizard's 15 or so, which really does make a difference. If you want to get serious about balancing the classes, I think this is a much better way to start.

[Curmudgeon]

I know anyone can take anything to the DM... I just wish that the book had at least a footnote on the matter.
That would be inconsistent with the whole general thrust of D&D, which is a game tailored to heroic over-achiever characters. Notes on making characters weaker than the rules permit? I just don't see that coming out of WotC.

[Susano-wo]

There's also the approach which Curmudgeon was referring to earlier on; you give higher PBs to weaker classes and lower PBs to stronger ones. So a monk would get something like a 40 PB compared to a wizard's 15 or so, which really does make a difference. If you want to get serious about balancing the classes, I think this is a much better way to start.

Yeah, barring reworking/adding abilities, that does sound like a good foundation:smallwink:

[Kylarra]

Yeah, barring reworking/adding abilities, that does sound like a good foundation:smallwink:Presumably in the context of "variable pointbuy" being better for alleviating the MAD/SAD issue than just arbitrarily jacking up the pointbuy and claiming it would help MAD classes. :smallwink:

[Lord Bingo]

It seems I have gotten to the party a bit late but I'd like to add my two cents:

In my group we used to go with the more or less standard 4d6b3 method of character generation. When we recently switched to Pathfinder we all agreed to start using the point buy system instead both to make character generation easier but also to avoid what we all thought was a little sad: that at some point we all started expecting that we could max our primary stats which meant that perfectly playable roll-ups were discarded if you could not get at least two 18's and a 16 out of it before racial adjustment because it did not feel heroic enough. This was MAD! -pardon the pun.
Characters in the game are heroic individuals. This of course start with above average stats. Average stats = 10.

I recently built an excellent human Paladin out of a 20 point buy (I am not sure what a 20 point buy in Pathfinder is the D&D3.5 equivalent of) which got me a perfectly playable character at STR 16, DEX 12, CON 12, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 14 after racial adjustment (in Pathfinder humans get +2 to a stat of their choice and the ability cap after racial adjustment is 20)

As they are not all powerful they require more careful conceptualizing as you will have to plan for feats, etc. much more carefully and equipment choice seems to matter more. All in all I find that along with the reduction in power level we are having much more fun with the game and we are more invested in our characters.

[Greenish]

I recently built an excellent human Paladin out of a 20 point buy (I am not sure what a 20 point buy in Pathfinder is the D&D3.5 equivalent of) which got me a perfectly playable character at STR 16, DEX 12, CON 12, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 14 after racial adjustment (in Pathfinder humans get +2 to a stat of their choice and the ability cap after racial adjustment is 20)That setup would be 32 pb in 3.5, without a racial adjustment. Assuming you put the +2 to Strength, it would equal 28 pb.

Though if this calculator (http://tools.digitalightbulb.com/pbcalc.html) is correct, you PF pb was only 19 points.

[Lord Bingo]

Though if this calculator (http://tools.digitalightbulb.com/pbcalc.html) is correct, you PF pb was only 19 points.

Eek! -Right you are:smalleek: How come I never noticed that?

I'll have to talk to my DM to get that last point squeezed in somewhere. It will be largely inconsequential, though, as there is no net gain. I'll stick it in CON or DEX.

[Susano-wo]

Presumably in the context of "variable pointbuy" being better for alleviating the MAD/SAD issue than just arbitrarily jacking up the pointbuy and claiming it would help MAD classes. :smallwink:

Well, I still think that helps MAD, but there's no reason not to simply do lower pointbuy with additional points granted to MAD chars. (or a flat stat bonus. or whatever):smallbiggrin:

[Kylarra]

Well, I still think that helps MAD, but there's no reason not to simply do lower pointbuy with additional points granted to MAD chars. (or a flat stat bonus. or whatever):smallbiggrin:I don't think it significantly helps MAD more than SAD characters until the overflow point.

[Scow2]

When forced to use Point Buy, I like 25 for "Heroic" campaigns, 32 for Awesome Power campaigns.

3d6 averages as 15 PB when rerolls aren't excluded.

4d6b3 averages between 25 and 27.

According to my DMG, 28 PB is considered 'High Powered" campaigns.

The Standard Array can be used to function well for everyone except the Monk.

I always start my games at low levels, so SAD classes that neglect defence find themselves rather dead.

Usually, though, I request people roll for stats, and consider MAD classes a reward for those who roll well.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think it significantly helps MAD more than SAD characters until the overflow point.

Then you would also be incorrect. Opinion doesn't enter into it. When one class actually needs to use all of its stats and another one can rewrite or ignore them at will, the class that actually needs multiple stats will suffer unless they can get good numbers across the board. I can make a playable druid on a 6 point buy. Can you make a monk with 6 who can meaningfully do ANYTHING?

[Kylarra]

Then you would also be incorrect. Opinion doesn't enter into it. When one class actually needs to use all of its stats and another one can rewrite or ignore them at will, the class that actually needs multiple stats will suffer unless they can get good numbers across the board. I can make a playable druid on a 6 point buy. Can you make a monk with 6 who can meaningfully do ANYTHING?It's not significantly helping the MAD class though. On a 6 or on a 30 or on a 40, he's not bringing more to the table than your druid. Ergo the bonus is negligible overall compared to initial class pick. Druid is probably the worst comparison you could pick for the monk since even without spells he already does everything the monk can do after level 5. That is, of course, probably why you chose it, but it reinforces my point as well. Arbitrarily jacking up the pointbuy doesn't noticeably close the gap between SAD and MAD classes, since your SAD classes will just increase secondary and tertiary stats as well, and even if they don't "need" them, they can still make good use of another pair of 18s.

[Curmudgeon]

It's not significantly helping the MAD class though. On a 6 or on a 30 or on a 40, he's not bringing more to the table than your druid.
Hold on there. You're mixing up MAD (dependency on multiple attributes) with other class weaknesses. So let's compare a Druid (SAD: dependent on WIS only) and Favored Soul (MAD: dependent on both CHA and WIS for spellcasting). Give the Favored Soul enough extra points so they'll match the Druid and you've evened out the two classes substantially.

[Kylarra]

Hold on there. You're mixing up MAD (dependency on multiple attributes) with other class weaknesses. So let's compare a Druid (SAD: dependent on WIS only) and Favored Soul (MAD: dependent on both CHA and WIS for spellcasting). Give the Favored Soul enough extra points so they'll match the Druid and you've evened out the two classes substantially.I will concede that in the case of the favored soul where the only difference between them and the rest of the tier 2 casters is their MADness, increasing the pointbuy will put them actually closer to their counterparts. This proves the "all generalizations are false" standard, which I'm happy to abide by.

However, generally speaking, when people talk about high pointbuy decreasing the gap between MAD and SAD, it's not the favored soul they're talking about, but more things around the potential of the monk or similar non-casters that need all their physical stats and thus I still stand by my statement that until a certain point, you're not going to be noticeably fixing any imbalances by arbitrarily jacking up pointbuy.

[Gnaeus]

It's not significantly helping the MAD class though. On a 6 or on a 30 or on a 40, he's not bringing more to the table than your druid. Ergo the bonus is negligible overall compared to initial class pick. Druid is probably the worst comparison you could pick for the monk since even without spells he already does everything the monk can do after level 5. That is, of course, probably why you chose it, but it reinforces my point as well. Arbitrarily jacking up the pointbuy doesn't noticeably close the gap between SAD and MAD classes, since your SAD classes will just increase secondary and tertiary stats as well, and even if they don't "need" them, they can still make good use of another pair of 18s.

Yes, the monk will never "catch up to" the druid. The druid is always better. But at a low point buy the monk is unplayable. He can't do anything useful. The 40 PB monk is likely to be able to actually melee, or skillmonkey. The druid has most of the same tricks available at a 6 point buy that he gets at 40 (the difference being 2 points to Save DCs and some extra hit points). To simplify it:
6 >>>>>40
Druid: Really useful>>>>Really useful
Monk: Entirely useless>>>>>Not as good as a druid.

High point buy doesn't fix the imbalances. But low point buy certainly makes them worse.

[Susano-wo]

Yeah, I'm not saying its going to put the monk up to druid level, just that it will help him to compete with his fellows, the fighter, rogue, etc. And do what it is he is supposed to do [not touching the caster/melee thing here, since there are plenty of threads about that] :P

[ericgrau]

4d6 drop lowest works out to about 25 point buy. Technically it's 28 if you count odd numbers, but if you look at most point buy stats odd numbers are rare for a reason. And that doesn't even count the greater flexibility that point buy gives you. That said, many groups like higher power stats than 4d6 drop lowest and you're free to do so using the other point buys already mentioned.

I'm in favor of lower point buys (and rolls) because they force you to choose a disadvantage and make sure not every character has an 18 in his high stat. That's bland IMO. There's something you can't do now? Good. Don't get me wrong, if someone's stats are way too low compared to the party they should get a reroll. But a high stat near the typical average of 15-16 is nothing to whine about. I think class discrepancy is another issue that stats don't affect much.