What is a good/fair way to determine ability Score?

[NecroDancer]

So I'm very unlucky when it comes to rolling so I use point buy in most systems. I was wondering if there is a widely agreed on point buy system for 3.5 and if someone could explain it to me.

Thank you for the help.

[Krazzman]

So I'm very unlucky when it comes to rolling so I use point buy in most systems. I was wondering if there is a widely agreed on point buy system for 3.5 and if someone could explain it to me.

Thank you for the help.

I personally favor Point Buy... strongly.

IF, and that's a really hard IF, we have to play with rolled stats I like the matrix method best because 6 rows of stat give you 14 possible arrays for your character and since everyone uses the same matrix there are no hard feelings or cases of strong imbalance in the early levels due to stats.

[Jack_Simth]

So I'm very unlucky when it comes to rolling so I use point buy in most systems. I was wondering if there is a widely agreed on point buy system for 3.5 and if someone could explain it to me.

Thank you for the help.

Yes, there's a point buy system. DMG page 169. Specific point buy depends on the power of the campaign, but it's sufficiently standard that you can just plug numbers into an online generator (Like this one (http://www.propelled.de/extern/chargen)).

[BowStreetRunner]

Yes, there's a point buy system. DMG page 169. Specific point buy depends on the power of the campaign, but it's sufficiently standard that you can just plug numbers into an online generator (Like this one (http://www.propelled.de/extern/chargen)).

The groups I've played with tend to like the 28 point buy using the DMG system. Anything less and you tend to find it hard to qualify for many of the really creative builds. Anything more and it almost seems too easy. But by all means, adjust to your own tastes.

[Uncle Pine]

I'll echo Jack_Simth and direct you to the table in the DMG. I've personally always given 32 points to my players.

[NecroDancer]

Thanks for the suggestion (also thank you Jack Simth for the calculator).

[Matrota]

It's not standard afaik, but my group uses a pretty forgiving system for dice rolling. 4d6, reroll any 1s until you get at least a 2, and take the highest 3 dice. repeat until you got 6 scores and then assign them. You can reroll two times and take your favorite set of 6. Another DM I play with does the same thing but instead you roll for stats twice take your favorite 6 rolls from amongst the 12.

[lylsyly]

In the two groups I play/dm in we use 32 point buy when we use it at all. When we roll (most of the time) we use 10+2d4 :smallbiggrin: arranged to taste (we do not believe in penalties, it is too hard to qualify for feats/Prcs ect as is).

[sleepyphoenixx]

My group generally uses 32pb as well.
The lesser pb variants (25 and 28 are the common ones iirc) just favor casters - who only need one high stat - without doing anything to lower their power level.
Melee is doable with 28pb but a lot more comfortable with 32 and it's especially helpful for MAD classes like monks, paladins, rangers and the like who really need all the help they can get.

I've played a few campaigns with Elite Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, assigned as you want) as well. That works too, but qualifying for some feats and PrC's gets annoying sometimes.
It's better than a low point buy where every caster has 4 dump stats to get that 18 Int/Wis/Cha though.

[Elkad]

I give my players lots of points. 36-40

They are heroes.

More points closes the gap (somewhat) between lower-tier MAD characters and T1s who are satisfied with an 18 and a bunch of 8s.

And I think I'm going to implement The Wasting™ next game (an idea I kicked around in an earlier thread like this).
Magic cripples your mind and body.
Every time you gain access to a new spell level (including psionics and such), you lose stat points equal to that spell level. (theurges only pay once per new spell level, not for each list)
And then give an even higher amount of starting points. 46 probably.

So a 46pt full caster with 18/14/14/14/14/14 has 88 statpoints initially. By the time he gains access to 9th level spells, he'll have to give up 45 of those. Which would make his base stats 18/5/5/5/5/5, 18/13/3/3/3/3, or similar variations. Ultimate cosmic power has a heavy price. I'll stick some extra rules on to make sure you can't body-swap your way out of course. Possibly as a progressive thing over a few days, so the evil among us can still swap often for temporary gains.

A paladin with mere 4th level spells only has to give up 10pts over his career, not bad considering what he started with.

[Eldariel]

25pb is the baseline of the system, which was assumed to be the average of 4d6b1. Sadly they forgot the reroll rules, which actually make the average about 28pb throwing both 25pb and elite array off. 25pb basically means MAD classes (monks, paladins, rangers, bards, non-polymorphing caster/warrior hybrids) are shot to the foot while particularly full casters (Wizards, Clerics, Druids) are almost up to their full potential. 28pb doesn't fix the problem but alleviates it a little bit. However, 32pb is the lowest I enjoy playing overall since I feel I have the freedom to play what I want without being shot in the foot.

When I GM, I usually get 40+pb simply because it alleviates a lot of the basic stress the system places on multi-attribute dependent classes and helps particularly the worst off classes a lot while allowing the stronger classes to reasonably play options other than the strongest one in the books (non-polymorph gishing for example), thus aiding with balance while also increasing the options people have in character creation (there are more ways to spread 40 points than 25 points, naturally). It's still possible to make a specialist but they're really good at one-two things while generalist are actually quite good all-around.

Part of the reason I prefer high PB is that the HP/damage split in the system feels built around ~14+ Con, which is kind of an obligatory investment for all non-Undead/Construct PCs (and even Warforged, the quintessential Construct PC, has Con) cutting to other stats.


But yeah, I prefer the players being able to play the concepts they want even if they require decent scores in all 6 stats (some do), so I make it a point to make it all possible. There's very little downside; you might occasionally want to beef up enemy numbers to match (NPCs are made with elite array so if you want them to equal PCs, you should give them 15 extra points, and might want to buff standard array a bit too) and keep in mind that monsters lose some numbers comparably (buff them or use tougher monsters, either is fine), but that's all extremely minor and stuff I'd be doing anyways. So, all bonus, no penalties. Feels like an easy choice to me; that's how I like playing as well as GMing.

[Zancloufer]

32 ~ 40 PB is probably going to give you the best results. No bias towards anyone based off rolls and enough stats for most classes.

32 will give a solid 16/14/14/12/12/10 array which works for most MAD/Martial classes well enough and a 17/14/14/10/10/10 array for those more single minded classes.

Beyond that only really helps the MAD classes though past 40 gets a bit silly as things like 16/16/14/14/12/12 or 18/16/14/12/10/10 are probably the highest you want out of Gestalt/Super powered games.

[sleepyphoenixx]

But yeah, I prefer the players being able to play the concepts they want even if they require decent scores in all 6 stats (some do), so I make it a point to make it all possible. There's very little downside; you might occasionally want to beef up enemy numbers to match (NPCs are made with elite array so if you want them to equal PCs, you should give them 15 extra points, and might want to buff standard array a bit too) and keep in mind that monsters lose some numbers comparably (buff them or use tougher monsters, either is fine), but that's all extremely minor and stuff I'd be doing anyways. So, all bonus, no penalties. Feels like an easy choice to me; that's how I like playing as well as GMing.

Honestly, unless you're playing in that very narrow sweetspot of (non)optimization that monsters are (supposedly) balanced on and/or are very new to DMing you're going to customize your encounters anyway.
Just the atrocious feat selection in the default statblocks basically demands that you rework your monsters unless you're playing core-only with a very new group.
Not to mention that every example of a monster having the exact same feats would be boring as hell even if they didn't suck.
Throwing a +2 or +4 on a monsters primary ability scores in addition to that isn't exactly what i'd call a big hassle, so i don't think the "but balance" argument really works if you examine it.

[RoboEmperor]

Anyone who uses anything other than 25 point buy is cheating.

You can rationalize all you want.
"Rolling for stats and dropping the lowest one is equivalent to 38 point buy"
"Low PB only punishes mundanes and doesn't affect casters."

But the fact is WotC set 25 as the norm and balanced all encounters for 25 PB characters.

But don't let this fact stop you from "cheating" as all those rationalizations are actually correct.

Neverwinter Nights uses 30 point buy, Neverwinter Nights 2 uses 32 point buy.

[JNAProductions]

Anyone who uses anything other than 25 point buy is cheating.

You can rationalize all you want.
"Rolling for stats and dropping the lowest one is equivalent to 38 point buy"
"Low PB only punishes mundanes and doesn't affect casters."

But the fact is WotC set 25 as the norm and balanced all encounters for 25 PB characters.

But don't let this fact stop you from "cheating" as all those rationalizations are actually correct.

Neverwinter Nights uses 30 point buy, Neverwinter Nights 2 uses 32 point buy.

I was gonna sass you for that, but then read the full post.

I'll add one thing to that, though.


But the fact is WotC set 25 as the norm and tried to balance all encounters for 25 PB characters.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'd say 32 point buy is fair, and going higher is not a bad thing either. I've done 32 and 34 point buy for games I've run, I would be fine edging a bit higher, too. Like others said, above 40 it might just become a bit silly, but a wizard or sorcerer can snag an 18 in his casting stat on 25 point buy, so the higher you go, the more you're just helping the mundanes out, since they need a lot of good stats. The wizard or sorc would like a 14+ con and dex, but if they can't have it, they can get by. (Used wiz/sorc for the example, but Clerics can go full plate and ignore turning and be nearly as SAD, and Druids don't even care about 4 of their stats, so they're pretty set on 25 point buy, too).

[Zaq]

Add my voice to the chorus saying that PB is where it’s at. Usually at least 32 PB. Low PB hurts more than high PB helps, honestly.

I’ve also had decent results with a GM saying “here’s an array to distribute as you like,” which is similar enough to PB that it works well. I think the array my groups have used the most was 16/16/14/12/10/8? It’s been long enough that the details escape me.

I kind of have opinions about rolling for stats. Highly negative opinions. No single roll should have such a disproportionately large effect on what your character can do long-term, and the game’s balance is precarious enough without giving Johnny Diceloveme stats that are inherently way the hell better than Susie Dicehateme’s. This is also why I dislike rolling for HP (at least without a “minimum half” cushion). Rolled stats can be fun for characters that are expected to take minutes to make and that aren’t expected to live long, but that’s not at all how my experience with 3.X has gone.

[RoboEmperor]

As someone who played a lot of 25 PB because his DM is a RAW-strict DM, I gotta say, 25 PB ain't so bad.

Instead of 18 str or 18 casting stat being the norm, it's 14 str and 14 casting stat, 16 at the most. 18 is for extremists.

Fights are harder and more interesting IMO, but it does force PCs to specialize, but then again so does feats.

I've learned to adjust to having low save DC spells and being unable to melee on my cleric

[Aimeryan]

32 point buy with no stat higher than 16 is what I've found to work best.

With pure 32 point buy you can end up with stat arrays like 8, 14, 16, 18, 8, 8 which suits a Wizard absolutely fine; they got their main stat super high, their main weakness completely mitigated and still got good initiative. Even 8, 8, 18, 18, 8, 8 I've seen, where defences and initiative are supplied by spells and thus even Dex is dumped.

With 32 pb max 16, MAD classes don't feel as penalised for not being able to hit 18 while still having decent stats where else the need them; something like 15, 14, 14, 14, 14, 8 works well for a Psychic Warrior who wants to get Combat Reflexes and Combat Expertise (into Improved Trip) feats while also having the Str, Con, and Wis necessary for his class. It also means he doesn't have to play a slightly slow, slightly dumb, slightly unappealing brute like he would with even 28 pb where he maxes Str and grabs the minimal requirements for Con and Wis; 18, 8, 14, 8, 14, 8. Alright, he'll probably still be slightly unappealing, but at least he wont be slow and dumb as well! I am not even going to go into how screwed over MAD classes are by 25 pb.

Basically, 32 pb max 16 doesn't boost SAD casters much but does help the MAD gishes. The mundanes are helped too by being able to get some out-of-combat stats.

[Eldariel]

As someone who played a lot of 25 PB because his DM is a RAW-strict DM, I gotta say, 25 PB ain't so bad.

Instead of 18 str or 18 casting stat being the norm, it's 14 str and 14 casting stat, 16 at the most. 18 is for extremists.

Fights are harder and more interesting IMO, but it does force PCs to specialize, but then again so does feats.

I've learned to adjust to having low save DC spells and being unable to melee on my cleric

There's no reason fights would be harder or easier with any given point buy. If you adjust PCs, you adjust monsters (e.g. +2 to main attribute) and NPCs (elite array NPCs should use PC equivalent stats unless PCs are superelite, but other superelites should also exist). The effect really comes down to what you mentioned, polarisation. Certainly, 17-18 casting stat is easy even with 25pb (the usual 8/11/14/18/8/8 or 8/14/14/17/8/8). I've played plenty of 25pb and it just means full casters are even more dominant over everyone else - not that pb is really a primary balancing tool. But higher PB allows things like switch-hitters (melee/range), gishes, jacks-of-all-trades, etc. while 25pb basically forces you to either suck or play something already on the top of the power pole.

It forces PCs to specialize to the point that non-polymorph dual tasking is basically not possible; thus it nukes some already suboptimal options while encouraging the optimal ones. Druids are still Druids (with Wildshape completely negating the low PB), Wizards are still Wizards, Clerics are still Clerics, but Fighters have trouble getting Int for Combat Expertise and Dex for Combat Reflexes without giving up their bare essential stats. Meanwhile, 32pb is about as powerful on the high end or somewhat more powerful and much more varied on the lower end. What the extra pb provides is roundedness; no need to specialise that heavily, characters can afford some points in irrelevant stats (I like having some Cha on my Barbarians even if the stat doesn't do a whole lot for me; minor boost to Intimidating Rage/Instantaneous Rage that's ridiculously easy to jack to "You lose"-levels anyways; well, it becomes relevant if going for Imperious Command). This goes for NPCs too. More rounded, more options, but peak power doesn't really change. Or rather, the versatile types don't have to give up on so much of their peak power. There's no question that Gray Elf Wizard with like 7/14/10/20/8/8 is more powerful than one with 12/14/12/16/13/13 in spite of the latter being a much higher pb (36 vs. 25 to be precise), but the latter is actually not horribly shot in the foot, unlike the classic 10/14/10/15/12/12. It's otherwise the same as the former except one less spell per day and -3 save DCs and far worse skills and so on (but better with a Longbow and slight Charm Person advantages!).

[RoboEmperor]

-snip-

1. Some (lazy) DMs don't like adjusting encounters. In a 25 PB world you don't need to adjust :P, or at least don't need to adjust as much as higher PB games.

2. 25 PB doesn't punish WIZARDS. It punishes all other casters. At least in the games I play in 14 CON and INT is pretty much mandatory for the health and skill points so it forces sorcerers, clerics, druids, any non-int caster from going 18 in their casting stat for CON and INT. We play with encumbrance so the low STR also penalizes casters for dumping STR by lowering their speed to 20ft.

3. Versatility is power too. PCs who can switch between melee and range should not be stronger than one who specializes in one. With high point buy everyone uses a composite bow and dishes out the damage.

4. Specialization promotes teamwork :P

It all depends on personal preference and optimization level of the table. I know some people who want to do everything and there's nothing wrong with that. I am guilty of that as well.

I'm not saying 25 PB is the superior way to play, I'm saying it's not as bad as some people claim. It just makes the game a slower pace.

It's like tables that give max hp per level v.s. tables that give average hp per level v.s. tables that make you roll for hp. It's all just personal taste.

And you're right in that with enough optimization, casters can completely negate all downsides of the lower PB and leave mundanes in the dust, but higher PB doesn't really change that either.

[Uncle Pine]

But the fact is WotC set 25 as the norm and balanced all encounters for 25 PB characters.

I've admittedly never known this and played almost entirely by-the-book without adjusting encounters for giving my players 32pb. Since they've been experiencing what I consider the vanilla amount of lethality for years (meaning that on average at least one character bites the dust every 1-2 months of playing on a weekly basis), I'm curious about reading more about what WotC considered the "norm". Since I know about that session log with the balor in which the Wizard spent the fight firing with a bow, does anyone have a page number, or a link to an article or interview about the point-buy system?

[Fizban]

I dunno about articles or interviews, but the fact that the DMG's NPC building section uses the elite array for PC classed NPCs, and the Monster Manual says the elite array is most appropriate for monsters with levels in PC classes, and the statblocks at the end of Enemies and Allies (purported to be the 3.0 playtesting sheets) built with the elite array, and PHB2's use of the elite array for quick PC/NPC creation, and all the NPC statblocks in dozens of books that use the elite array. . . seems pretty obvious the elite array is the standard (it's also about the most cost-efficient result of 25 points).

Funny thing about all those massive point buys. They're supposed to support non-casters because non-casters need more ability scores. But you know who needs more abilities than non-casters? Casters who are also stealing the spotlight from non-casters by pretending they're melee or skillmonkey or both on the side.

Some people like to say anything less than 14 con on anything is unsurvivable garbage, and similarly a lot of people think anything less than a starting 18 is unplayable garbage. With 25 point buy if you put say, an 18 in one stat and a 14 in con, that leaves you with a 10-11, and then three scores of 8-9 each. Lets see you do everything all at once with a -1 modifier on three ability scores. Drop that 18 to a 16 and you get 6 points back, enough to. . . negate those penalties with an array of 16/14/11/10/10/10, making you good at a grand total of two stats. Everything else is at +0, raw class/rank/etc bonuses only. And having that +2 and +3 makes you tower above the non-elite array shmucks that are lucky to have a pair of +1s across from their pair of -1's.

Yeah, perfect beings with 18s in their primary stat and 14s in everything else they want aren't possible with 25 point buy, which is why people don't like it. You can get a secondary 14 easy, but starting with even a 16 means that your other stats aren't going to have bonuses unless you accept penalties. Drop it to a 15, leave a dump stat at 8, and you've basically hit the elite array.

And that all is pretty important for balance (actual balance, as in how strong the party is). The game expects you to start with a range from +2 down to -1, at most a pile of +2s or a single +4, not a +4 and a pile of +2's. Starting with a 16 means you're +1 higher than expected on your high stuff, with 18 you're at +2 higher, with a bunch of spare 14's you'll be at +2 on all those other stats you're not supposed to be affording. Having +2 on a bunch of rolls and extra hp puts people in a higher bracket of power, its literally the same thing as being buffed at all times with untyped stacking effects*. The higher point buys are labeled as higher power for a reason, but I generally see people slinging them out as a matter of course, sometimes justifying it by saying that 25pb isn't actually the statistical average- but the actual average doesn't matter. What math there is, is predicated on the elite array, not elite array++.


As for rolling, rolling is always unfair. Someone has to have the low roll, someone has the high roll. Even if you have everyone use the same roll, it's gonna work better for some classes than others. A lot of people think rolling is good- but they also tend to use super high powered rolling methods, or they roll "standard" but everyone just so happens to roll extremely well and anyone who doesn't gets to reroll because reasons. The PHB's rolling method only gives rerolls if your total stat mods are +0, or you don't have at least one 14. There's a loooot of room for garbage rolls in there that with standard rolling you're just stuck with, but do those show up? Not in the places where people bash 25pb methinks.

*And that's not counting skill points, which is one of the big reasons people say more stats are required. They want everyone to have lots of skills at max ranks and high bonuses, and higher point buys mean everyone can have another skill or two at max ranks and higher bonuses all around. I say this is because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the skill system- the fact that no skills other than anti-trap stuff are ever required but people want "non-combat encounters" so they make encounters that require more skills than the game actually gives out, and often make certain skills just auto-win certain situations (or allow them to be optimized into it). Forcing skill based encounters when many classes are deliberately low-skill has obvious results.

[Aimeryan]

If you only desire pure combat encounter games then 25pb works out for casters fine, while mundanes can deal damage fine if nothing else. If you want your character to not be a stereotype of extremes, with mundanes absolutely sucking outside of combat (and being boring in combat), then don't go for 25pb - that simple really.

I agree that higher pbs can result in pretty much just as extreme characters - usually just Con or Dex gets higher and that is the only real change for non-gishes. That is why I prefer to cap the max at 16; it results in much broader characters who are often not even as powerful as even the 25pb extremes were - Eldariel has some good stat array examples of this in his post.

The other option is to just give a stat array that they can apply to which stats as they like; something like 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. This makes sure that MAD characters are not punished and SAD characters are not boosted, but it also takes a little of the fun away in my opinion.


The problem with what Fizban is saying, i.e., that stats should not be higher than 14 anyway, is that even 25pb does nothing for this: 8, 11, 14, 18, 8, 8 is a perfectly usable stat array (in that order) for a Wizard, while 18, 11, 14, 8, 8, 8 results in "I attack" Fighters because they can't do anything else. Now the Fighter could choose to use stats capping at 14 such as 14, 14, 14, 14, 9, 8 so that now he can do some other stuff (in and out of combat), but the Fighter has to be no where as good at his shtick to do this - meanwhile, a Wizard does this with spells and still ends up with high stats where he wants them, and then more due to Polymorph. Same with Druid. Same with Cleric. Same with Sorcerer.

[Eldariel]

1. Some (lazy) DMs don't like adjusting encounters. In a 25 PB world you don't need to adjust :P, or at least don't need to adjust as much as higher PB games.

Well, even with zero customization you can just add .5 CR to each encounter and call it a day. Same difference.


2. 25 PB doesn't punish WIZARDS. It punishes all other casters. At least in the games I play in 14 CON and INT is pretty much mandatory for the health and skill points so it forces sorcerers, clerics, druids, any non-int caster from going 18 in their casting stat for CON and INT. We play with encumbrance so the low STR also penalizes casters for dumping STR by lowering their speed to 20ft.

Druids don't suffer at all. Wildshape, armor, etc. ensure they can afford to dump the auxiliary stats. Same with Clerics. Sorcs do suffer a bit but you can still run 14 Dex, 14 Con, 17 Cha which is almost as good. And low Str score is really quite irrelevant for casters past the point where you can afford Handy Haversack. Even without that, as you don't use armor or weapons, you tend to have carrying capacity to spare. I've played my share of 6-7 Str characters in games with carrying capacity and while you lose out on the option of carrying some mundane items, your spells and scrolls (which weight nothing) more than make up for that.


3. Versatility is power too. PCs who can switch between melee and range should not be stronger than one who specializes in one. With high point buy everyone uses a composite bow and dishes out the damage.

That's just the thing though, it isn't that it's stronger. By default specialisation is rewarded by feats anyways; switch-hitters require very high stats and giving up on both fronts to be passable at either and they tend to still fall far behind the specialists. Low PB just exacerbates the issue to the point that specialisation is mandatory.


4. Specialization promotes teamwork :P

Different teamwork for different teams; Cleric switching to melee and Wizard offering buffs instead of using BFC due to favourable positioning is something that might happen in higher PB games but not so much in the lower PB ones :smallwink:


It all depends on personal preference and optimization level of the table. I know some people who want to do everything and there's nothing wrong with that. I am guilty of that as well.

I'm not saying 25 PB is the superior way to play, I'm saying it's not as bad as some people claim. It just makes the game a slower pace.

It's like tables that give max hp per level v.s. tables that give average hp per level v.s. tables that make you roll for hp. It's all just personal taste.

And you're right in that with enough optimization, casters can completely negate all downsides of the lower PB and leave mundanes in the dust, but higher PB doesn't really change that either.

Well, higher PBs make mundane a bit more closer to par. Not as strong as casters, but with low PBs mundanes tend to struggle with the basics. With higher PBs you can make things like intimidator Fighter or tripper Paladin (or Paladin in general) without necessarily becoming entirely unworkable. But yeah, certainly, preference plays a part. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a game with just tier 1 characters optimised up to their teeth. Just, I personally find that the primary strength of 3.5 is the amount of options it offers (even after working out a power level with the group and building towards the appropriate one) and I find low pb tramples all over that while high pb promotes that. Thus, I find high pb suits 3.5 better than low pb, though low pb can be fun in limited doses when wanting to play caster parties or sufficiently linear non-casters. Variety is certainly the spice of life but for the average circumstances I'd definitely prefer high pb and mid tier characters (or cut loose with the high tier, but you can do that anyways).


I dunno about articles or interviews, but the fact that the DMG's NPC building section uses the elite array for PC classed NPCs, and the Monster Manual says the elite array is most appropriate for monsters with levels in PC classes, and the statblocks at the end of Enemies and Allies (purported to be the 3.0 playtesting sheets) built with the elite array, and PHB2's use of the elite array for quick PC/NPC creation, and all the NPC statblocks in dozens of books that use the elite array. . . seems pretty obvious the elite array is the standard (it's also about the most cost-efficient result of 25 points).

Funny thing about all those massive point buys. They're supposed to support non-casters because non-casters need more ability scores. But you know who needs more abilities than non-casters? Casters who are also stealing the spotlight from non-casters by pretending they're melee or skillmonkey or both on the side.

Some people like to say anything less than 14 con on anything is unsurvivable garbage, and similarly a lot of people think anything less than a starting 18 is unplayable garbage. With 25 point buy if you put say, an 18 in one stat and a 14 in con, that leaves you with a 10-11, and then three scores of 8-9 each. Lets see you do everything all at once with a -1 modifier on three ability scores. Drop that 18 to a 16 and you get 6 points back, enough to. . . negate those penalties with an array of 16/14/11/10/10/10, making you good at a grand total of two stats. Everything else is at +0, raw class/rank/etc bonuses only. And having that +2 and +3 makes you tower above the non-elite array shmucks that are lucky to have a pair of +1s across from their pair of -1's.

Yeah, perfect beings with 18s in their primary stat and 14s in everything else they want aren't possible with 25 point buy, which is why people don't like it. You can get a secondary 14 easy, but starting with even a 16 means that your other stats aren't going to have bonuses unless you accept penalties. Drop it to a 15, leave a dump stat at 8, and you've basically hit the elite array.

And that all is pretty important for balance (actual balance, as in how strong the party is). The game expects you to start with a range from +2 down to -1, at most a pile of +2s or a single +4, not a +4 and a pile of +2's. Starting with a 16 means you're +1 higher than expected on your high stuff, with 18 you're at +2 higher, with a bunch of spare 14's you'll be at +2 on all those other stats you're not supposed to be affording. Having +2 on a bunch of rolls and extra hp puts people in a higher bracket of power, its literally the same thing as being buffed at all times with untyped stacking effects*. The higher point buys are labeled as higher power for a reason, but I generally see people slinging them out as a matter of course, sometimes justifying it by saying that 25pb isn't actually the statistical average- but the actual average doesn't matter. What math there is, is predicated on the elite array, not elite array++.

Well, 18/14/14/14/14/14 is a bit extreme (46pb). But see, for spellcasters you don't actually need stats to do everything. You have spells for proxies and spells to do things like charm things or relay messages or steal objects or destroy things or whatever. The ones who need stats are particularly the skill users (the mundanes), while casters can just summon the melee (summons, animal companions, conjuration, etc. get better the worse the point buys are) or turn into the melee (Polymorph doesn't care about your stats). Spells negate the need for things you use your stats for while non-casters lack the option of doing so (barring UMD and using scrolls/wands instead).

And inherent math/balance as a reason to pick 25pb/elite array would assume the inherent is anything worth writing home about. It's down to the DM anyways so the math becomes whatever you want; the 25pb math isn't particularly worthwhile or usable straight out of the gate because the system is not designed in a very cohesive or systematic manner and the math doesn't add up.

[Zancloufer]

A big note about the whole "WoTC balanced for 25 PB".

Ignoring the whole "WoTC is bad at balance" the entire argument that pre-made NPCs/Monsters are balanced around 25 PB characters go out the window the minute you as a DM start making and or tweaking every monster or NPC the PCs encounter.

I as a DM almost always spring for 30~40 PB or some really good rolls/matixs that result in high 30+ PB characters. I also usually make the rules for max HP/HD or us weighted rolling for HD (IE 3-4 only on d4, 4-6 only on d6, 9-12 only on d12 etc). On the flip side I always give Monsters Max or Max -1/2 HP to compensate. I make NEW Monster/NPC stat arrays that reflect the "inflated" stats/HPs of the party.

In other words: 32-40PB helps mundanes/MAD classes without making characters that are TOO stupid and you can just buff the enemies to compensate.

[Fizban]

A perfect illustration of my point: not having 18 str means a fighter is "no where near as good", even though the game does not expect a fighter to have base 18 str, even though the abilities lost for that 18 are apparently valued. 25pb creates extremes? No, people who demand 18s create extremes, I should think that would be obvious.

And the Fighter of all classes being less sucky out of combat because of higher point buy? Since when has anyone considered the Fighter's skill list significant? Depending on who you're arguing with even the Rogue doesn't have enough skill points to "compete" with magic. If you have a problem with lack of skill points, you're going to keep having that problem until you just give everyone as many skills as they want. If you have a problem with spells making non-casters look bad, you'll have that problem all the way up to the point that your non-casters become gishes. Meanwhile Mr max int/con wizard is eating speed penalties unless someone carries their bag for them and has terrible reflex and will saves. As always, their supremacy is predicated on a bunch of specific magic items, piles of spell slots, lack of adversity, and a solid backbone of the entire rest of the party to cover their butts.

I had quite a bit more post, but I'm tired of arguing with people who grossly misrepresent my statements and/or don't respect the game they're arguing about, so consider that my rebuttal.

[StreamOfTheSky]

While I sometimes buff monster stats, usually they don't need it just b/c I'm allowing 32 point buy. The casters are the ones who'll trivialize an encounter, and they have an 18 no matter what if point buy of any amount is allowed. And especially beyond the first few levels, WotC generally already made ground-pounding melee brutes very low CR for their stats (since they're so easy for a caster to trivialize at mid and late game), such that....their strength and grapple mod still dwarfs any melee PC's w/ 32 point buy anyway.
When I do buff monsters, it's usually improving their AC (especially touch AC) and saves. Offensively, they're typically just fine as is.

I really feel the need to re-iterate for those saying WotC "balanced around 25 point buy": higher point buy does not help the caster end the encounter any faster. All it does is let the mundanes perform a bit better. I'm not even sure increasing the CR by +0.5 as mentioned is warranted. Someone else mentioned +2 to all stats...that's a minimum +12 point buy for the monster, quite likely more than that if he had more than 10's and 11's for a base to begin with, for a change of 7 points from 25 to 32... Even among the defenders of high point buy, I think they're grossly overstating how much more powerful it makes the party. It makes MAD classes playable....that's about the extent of noticeable differences.

[Eldariel]

Meanwhile Mr max int/con wizard is eating speed penalties unless someone carries their bag for them and has terrible reflex and will saves. As always, their supremacy is predicated on a bunch of specific magic items, piles of spell slots, lack of adversity, and a solid backbone of the entire rest of the party to cover their butts.

I'm sorry but have you actually played a 25pb Wizard from ground up in basic 3.5? 'cause these problems aren't nearly the problems you're making them out to be. These are pretty much fabricated paper problems; pragmatically they just mean you invest a gold or two into solving the thing. Your will is fine, since it's a good save in spite of your Wis being low, and your Reflex is your second highish stat anyways, but of course making saves is a last recourse anyways. And carrying your bag, again, Haversack weighs 5lb which is easily within your light load. You can carry a Haversack with 7 Str just fine and everything you might need fits in there. Until you get your haversack...what do you exactly need? Light? You have a cantrip for that (or like a 7 gp scroll, which weights nothing). Ratios and your off-time weapon are about the only things you might want to bother with and those don't break your weight limit. You don't use armor so movement is not slowed. You'll probably have a donkey or whatever in the party to carry loot before you can afford extradimensional spaces anyways.

As for wanting other party members, well yeah, you generally have multiple characters in a party. But even if they're all Wizards, they'll be just fine; you can just buy riding dogs or warrior 1s or whatever as frontliners. You don't need to waste valuable character slots on that role even early on. Hell, on 1st level Wild Cohort exists as does Riding Dog For Low Levels ACF (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#sorcererWizard). So you don't even need to pay for your bruisers...and compared to an elite array Whatever Martial PC 1, Riding Dog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dogRiding.htm) with a Studded Leather Barding matches up more than fine.

[RoboEmperor]

Yeah at our table most of us play casters because spellcasting and gishing is much more fun than mundanes, and the newer players in our group play a simple fighter or barbarian ubercharger, and they seem happy despite being unable to do anything other than bash stuff.

TBH I have no experience with Druids because no one at our table (including me) wants to roleplay hippies. Or rogues because everyone wants to be a killer not a skill monkey, and divine insight and summon elemental reserve feat renders all skill monkeys obsolete. But I can tell you Clerics suffer badly from low PB because they all want STR for weight + melee damage, Dex for mithral fullplate +3 ac, or uncapped Greater Luminous Armor AC, Con for Hp, Int for skill points, WIS for spellcasting, and CHA for controlling undead, and giving clerics high PB will make them significantly stronger to the point they can completely replace mundanes even at level 1 while maintaining full spellcasting.

Our gishes have 14 in everything except WIS and CHA, and they do fine until dispel magic shows up, which is the point I was trying to make. 14/14/14/14/9/8 is good enough for normal un-adjusted d&d, there are plenty of other optimization stuff you can do to make your ability scores a nonfactor.

I don't have any experience with the fancy mundane builds that require high dex and the like so i can't comment on that.

If your concern is the disparity between mundanes and spellcasters, I honestly never understood that. Smart people always triumph over brutes, and smart bruisers like gishes should beat raw brutes easily so I don't get why people get mad spellcasters beat mundanes. If swinging the sword is all that matters then learn how to gish.

So yeah a 14/18 caster is gonna outshine 14/14/14/14/9/8 mundanes, but that doesn't mean the mundane won't be doing useful stuff.

But I will concede that if you want to do more than 1 thing in the game regardless of optimization level, or something fancy and unconventional yet not powerful, higher pb is mandatory. Ludicrously high PB was the only way I got my arcane full plate heavy repeating crossbow gish wizard to work XD

[Elder_Basilisk]

I'm a fan of 28 point buy for 3.5 and 20 point buy under the Pathfinder pointbuy system (which would also work fine for 3.5--the big difference between the two systems is that the Pathfinder system increases the cost at even stat points rather than odd numbers. Under the 3.5 system, poinbuy is 1:1 until 14 then 15 costs 2:1 and 17 3:1 etc. Pathfinder is 1:1 until 13 and 2:1 at 14, etc. I like the Pathfinder system better but ymmv.

Another system you might consider is 4d6 drop lowest in order. Doing it that way is fair in the sense that everyone is likely to be screwed somehow and tends to make characters less cookie cutter because you're likely to end up with either a weakness or a strength you wouldn't have chosen--or both.

As for using higher point buys, I'm not a fan. When I tried running a 36 point buy game back in 3.0 days, I found that especially at the low levels but extending to mid levels, the higher point buy made the game more swingy compared to typical 28 point buy living Greyhawk games. The character's ended up packing more offensive firepower but the extra points did not make as much difference for defense so when I used tougher monsters to challenge my 36 point players, the game became too much like rocket tag for my liking.

[Crake]

I generated my point buy score by rolling 4d6 drop lowest, making an array, adding up the point buy, and then giving that to my players.

I ended up on 35 point buy, and I'll be honest, I don't think anyone's ever actually put an 18 into anything. Even on full casters, 17 is usually the highest they'll go to (basically a 32 point buy array, but bump a 16 to 17, give themselves something to look forward to at level 4). Additionally, any time the game calls for the elite array I instead treat it as "give the creature the same ability score generation method as the players". 17 16 14 12 10 8 is basically what I use for my "elite" array.

[Cosi]

Another system you might consider is 4d6 drop lowest in order. Doing it that way is fair in the sense that everyone is likely to be screwed somehow and tends to make characters less cookie cutter because you're likely to end up with either a weakness or a strength you wouldn't have chosen--or both.

Never do this. "Roll your stats in order" is one of the stupidest ideas in gaming, and someone suggesting you do that is a massive red flag. Getting told that you can't play the character you want (or can't effectively play the character you want) is bad, and the game should cause that to happen as little as possible. This does the opposite.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Never do this. "Roll your stats in order" is one of the stupidest ideas in gaming, and someone suggesting you do that is a massive red flag. Getting told that you can't play the character you want (or can't effectively play the character you want) is bad, and the game should cause that to happen as little as possible. This does the opposite.

Nevertheless, in order is how D&D started out and it worked for lots of people until they decided that they had to play "the character they wanted" at which point, those self-same people immediately started complaining about dump stats, min-maxing, cookie cutter builds and characters with no weaknesses.

It is true that rolling in order limits the characters you can play effectively, however it also solves the cookie cutter problem and the problem of predictable strengths and weaknesses. If you and your group are not fixated on playing a particular character, it can be a fun change of pace in a world of bland point buy characters and re-ordered rolls that generally end up looking like point buy characters just less efficient. Personally, when creating a character, I don't think, "I have to play a god wizard or I'm picking up my dice and going home," so if the dice work out for a casting focused cleric, a battle cleric, an Archer ranger, a fighter or a sorcerer instead of that god wizard, I'm fine with that. I can have fun playing more than one thing. I think the real red flag is the guy who has to play a particular character in order to have fun.

There are a lot of positive dynamics that emerge from old school mechanics (such as "in order") which are not properly understood by promoters of modern game design philosophies. However people frequently notice their absence.

It's not for everyone or all the time, but it's an option that's worth thinking about.

[Cosi]

Nevertheless, in order is how D&D started out and it worked for lots of people

Literally every single product, procedure, or any other thing that has ever been replace "worked" for lots of people until they replaced it. You should consider not making arguments that apply equally to THAC0, dying of polio, or monarchy.


until they decided that they had to play "the character they wanted"

You mean "until people playing a game decided that the point of the game is to do things that are fun and not do things that are random"? Do you also want people to roll for their race? Their spell selection? Where exactly should we stop in our quest to prevent people from playing the characters they want to play?


dump stats

Which has nothing to do with how you assign stats. STR isn't a dump stat for Wizards because they get to choose to have the ability that allows them to do things and use their class features be higher than the one that does not allow them to do things and use their class features. STR is a dump stat for Wizards because it does not do anything for Wizards. If you want to fix that, make STR do things for Wizards. Don't tell Wizards "lol nope you can't actually cast spells because it's more important to me that you have a different high stat than you want than that you actually get to use the spells that are literally the entire point of your class".

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your list, because it's painful obvious that you don't understand where any of those problems come from if you think things like "min-maxing" are somehow causally linked to "not rolling for ability scores in order".


it also solves the cookie cutter problem and the problem of predictable strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, it solves the "problem" that you can predict that when you take Sorcerer levels they will make you good at solving problems with magic instead of making you good at solving problems with physical violence. Oh no, how were we ever going to survive having characters that did the things we expected them to do!


Personally, when creating a character, I don't think, "I have to play a god wizard or I'm picking up my dice and going home,"

Cool. So you personally can randomly decide what character to play. I personally don't play half-orcs. You know what I also don't do? Tell everyone that playing half-orcs is wrong.


I think the real red flag is the guy who has to play a particular character in order to have fun.

Yeah, I just hate it when people show up to a game with an idea of what they want to be doing. Like, wanting to play a Wizard because you've been reading Harry Dresden and think magic is cool? Get out of here with your "genre influence" and your "developed concept". You have a specific progression in mind that actualizes the concept you want? No, what you really want is to be told what kind of character you want by a weighted random number generator. Real Roleplayers generate their characters by taking the cross-product of an array of tables and an array of random numbers. None of this "concept" or "inspiration" or "personal interest" crap.


There are a lot of positive dynamics that emerge from old school mechanics

>positive dynamics
>old school mechanics

Pick one.

(I'm exaggerating a little. Older editions do have good ideas. But those ideas are never the things people who advocate for returning to old school mechanics ask for. The mechanics that get asked for are inevitably the ones that make it harder for people to play the characters they want.)

[Hecuba]

Never do this. "Roll your stats in order" is one of the stupidest ideas in gaming, and someone suggesting you do that is a massive red flag. Getting told that you can't play the character you want (or can't effectively play the character you want) is bad, and the game should cause that to happen as little as possible. This does the opposite.

Hi. I like playing with that generation method from time to time and dislike being told I'm playing the game stupidly. I don't try to force the idea on tables that don't want it, nor do I doing it on tables I DM for without warning: I am well aware that it is fairly far from standard at this point.

But there is something to be said for coming to the campaign and, rather than having a character plotted out ahead of time whose story you want to tell, having an unknown character handed to you by random chance and discovering through the game who they are and how they will be special.

It's much like going to the restaurant and ordering the seasonal special when it's something you've never tried before. No, you won't get your favorite food - but you might discover something new and tasty. And at minimum, you'll have a novel dining experience.

(But yeah, sometimes you're in the mood to order something specific, and that's fine too.)

[BassoonHero]

Nevertheless, in order is how D&D started out and it worked for lots of people until they decided that they had to play "the character they wanted" at which point…

…at which point Dungeons and Dragons became a role-playing game rather than a supplement for a tabletop war game.

[Cosi]

Hi. I like playing with that generation method from time to time and dislike being told I'm playing the game stupidly.

You can feel free to randomly assign your stats. Nothing is stopping you from taking your pile of points and randomly determining where each one goes, or taking your rolled stats in the order you happened to roll them. If that inspires you, feel free to follow that inspiration.

But don't tell other people they have to get their inspiration from the same place. If you want to play a Barbarian because you rolled good STR and CON, that is fine. Telling the guy who wants to play a Wizard because he just finished Malazan and thought Quick Ben was the best character that he has to play a Ranger because he rolled good DEX and crap INT is stupid. He's not telling you that you have to play a Rogue because you really like the Batman movie you just watched.

[Crake]

I think it's worth noting there's a significant factor which dictates whether something might or might not be acceptable to different people: Game length. If you're playing a comical one-shot, where you've done little to no character preparation, playing a character generated by rolling stats in order might be fun, although johnny all-18s over there might steal the show, but eh, for a one shot where you're all just having a good laugh it's all fine.

On the other hand, when you're playing a long, serious game, and maybe you want to make urthurk the barbarian, half-orc lumberjack... well, it just kinda sucks if you roll an 8 for strength now doesn't it. I find it amusing that people immediately jump to the conclusion of god wizards and mailmen sorcerers, when rolling stats in order prevents you from necessarily making ANY character concept you might want, even if it's a half orc barbarian. You basically get shoehorned into whatever the array has for you, and god forbid you roll a 7 in your con, good luck making it to second level. If you're playing a long-running game, and you're going to roll, at LEAST let the numbers be assigned as the player chooses.

[Telok]

I don't recall where I got it from but I've kept a stat generation method in the back of my mind for a while now. Someday I'll use it in a game I run.

Roll 3d6 three times.
Subtract one of those three number from 27.
Subtract one of the remaining two numbers form 25.
Subtract the last number from 23.
Anything over 18 becomes 18.
Arrange to taste.

The result is 3 even numbers and 3 odd numbers. If someone rolled three 18s they have three low stats as well. If someone rolled three 5s they also have three 18s. Possibly the worst thing that could happen is rolling three 14s, which can have two 16s after racial adjustments.

[Mordaedil]

Anyone who uses anything other than 25 point buy is cheating.

You can rationalize all you want.
"Rolling for stats and dropping the lowest one is equivalent to 38 point buy"
"Low PB only punishes mundanes and doesn't affect casters."

But the fact is WotC set 25 as the norm and balanced all encounters for 25 PB characters.

But don't let this fact stop you from "cheating" as all those rationalizations are actually correct.

Neverwinter Nights uses 30 point buy, Neverwinter Nights 2 uses 32 point buy.

Technically, anything besides 3d6 in order is cheating. Stop telling people how they play is badwrong, it reflects poorly on you.

Our group always roll for stats, but we allow everyone to roll two blocks and pick the block they like better. Our current DM also allows a buy in where you can get an automatic 18, but you must also accept an 8. The rest are rolled. Everyone but me picked the buy in.

I've considered 6 + 2d6 as a basis for rolling stats though, since I think anything below 8 can be a bit too crippling.

[Eldariel]

Technically, anything besides 3d6 in order is cheating. Stop telling people how they play is badwrong, it reflects poorly on you.

Our group always roll for stats, but we allow everyone to roll two blocks and pick the block they like better. Our current DM also allows a buy in where you can get an automatic 18, but you must also accept an 8. The rest are rolled. Everyone but me picked the buy in.

I've considered 6 + 2d6 as a basis for rolling stats though, since I think anything below 8 can be a bit too crippling.

Eh, very few characters can't afford one 6 or 4 without it influencing their core functionality. Some auxiliaries might suffer but those you can invest in (skillwise) to overcome the deficit or roll with. Stat damage is of course extra dangerous, but that's something you can defend against through other means.

Sometimes playing a character with a major weak spot is a lot of fun (we had a blind character in one of our games), though annoyingly often it might lead to players just taking the social backseat and dumping Cha (and not playing Cha casters).

Very low Str, Wis, Int and even Dex are quite workable provided you didn't make one of those your primary stat (Dex 5- is a bit iffy but not necessarily fatal in a party). Clear drawbacks but generally you'll have strengths in a stat more useful to the character overall to compensate. Thus you suffer in certain cases but mostly are fine.

The only exception I find is Con. Unless you take a Con - template, something like 7- Con tends to just make a character so brittle that barring heavy duty optimisation, they will end up in the morgue repeatedly from random AOE, no-roll effects, 20s from enemy martials, etc.

[RoboEmperor]

Stop telling people how they play is badwrong, it reflects poorly on you.

I didn't say they were playing badwrong?

[Fizban]

I'm sorry but have you actually played a 25pb Wizard from ground up in basic 3.5?
Have you?

Saves are a later problem. When people will go on about how saves are super important, I don't see how having a will save 2 or 3 points lower than mr 14+ could be interpreted as anything but worse. Arcanists actually tend to have amusingly low will saves thanks to reliance on their "high" base, which means that (if) you optimize DCs against them, they fail just as hard as anyone but the cleric, and reflex saves are lower. There's a reason Resist Energy is considered standard, because if you don't have it then 3/4 of the party is usually screwed by any AoE damage. +2 hp/level and +2 reflex saves shockingly make those less lethal, but with 25 points you only get one of those, and picking hp means you also have less AC, and ranged attack, and initiative.

Oh but the wizard is never in range, never gets hit when they are in range, and never loses initiative, because "making saves is a last recourse." Except when people want to complain about monsters with save based abilities, or how monsters can just go around the meatshield, in which case the whole party had to save or die immediately and your dog/mercenary/AC/everything was useless. Its almost like there's some back and forth, potential for failure, and differing initial conditions.

A Handy Haversack is 2,000gp, which is more than 50% of your WBL until 4th, and there is no guarantee you get one even then. Yay, your haversack weighs 5 lbs, now what about literally everything else you've got? Traveler's outfit 5lbs, haversack 5lbs, component pouch 3lbs, dagger 1 lb, that's 14 lbs of your 26lb light load. Oh, you wanted a crossbow? That's another +9 to 23. Sure, once you get the magic item, and if you put pretty much everything in there, you can get it down pretty low. If your DM lets you get exactly the item you want as early as possible and you don't need to carry anything else and anything you drop is safe after you move away.

Donkey? Didn't we just have a thread about a party that was having trouble transporting things because their pack animals got dragged off every time they went in the dungeon? Sure, you can just use pack animals, if the DM lets you just park and forget.

Fighting dogs? Yeah, the Handle Animal skill actually has rules see. It takes a move action to give an order. It takes a DC 10 check (with your -1 from 8 cha) to make that order stick, and the DC goes up by 2 once they're injured. No ability to use complex tactics. Set them to Defend and forget? Hopefully your idea of defend matches the DM's or you otherwise find it useful. Also not actually available at 1st level based on starting gold, while dragging in a feat for mimicking a major class feature of another class only makes it more obvious that the 25pb wizard actually needs help if they want 18/14. Oh, and those hounds gotta eat, which means more provisions, which means pack animals- unless you think you can just strap the food to the dog's backs and have that work out well? So yeah, once you can get them, if they work the way you want, if nothing else causes a problem, just doggo through it.

Mercenaries? I don't think I've ever heard of a DM seriously letting their low-level party just "mercenary" their way through the game. Availability is even more subject to DM interpretation, but if your DM lets you mercenary your way through the game, then sure.

I'm not seeing how these arguments differ from any of the other wizard supremacy arguments: full DM allowance, no unexpected adversity, just a clean ride from 1st to whatever the desired power level is at some specific level- on paper, things are easy. If you have wizard and everything goes right then nothing else matters, and of course everything always goes right because anything less would be infringing on wizard superiority. That's probably a pretty large trend actually: 1st level games that are just easy mode prologue into the actual game that starts at a later power level. It's how I'd run it myself actually, if I was aiming for something later, but I also admit my desired power level is above standard and actually bother keeping wizards in line rather than giving them free reign.

Would I run 25pb? Depends on what the players are playing, and indeed, some builds could get differing point buys if necessary.

------------------------
Incidentally, the 18/14/14/14/14/14 for +2 on everything is a bit of a straw- but 18/14/14/14/14/8. . . that's only 40 points. And there are a number of 38 and 40 point suggestions above. When you have +4 on your main and +2 on everything but your dump stat, you have +2 to everything compared to the game's expected +2 to main and acceptance of +0 on everything else. And its always remarkable how people try to say that free power doesn't matter because it's not. . . what? Not what? Free power is free power, weather its from free LA or high point buy or high rolling methods or free magic items.

Arguing about how free power benefits non-casters more than casters. . . what? Free power is free power. If you have a problem with skills, spells, or ability points with this or that class or whatever, then fix that problem, but if you just give everyone more points then don't pretend like you somehow aren't making the caster you're complaining about more powerful at the same time. You just gave them free power.


Technically, anything besides 3d6 in order is cheating. Stop telling people how they play is badwrong, it reflects poorly on you.
Yeah that's just factually incorrect. The 3.5 PHB supplies the RAW default rolling method. 25pb is allowed at the DM's option, the elite array is the standard for the rest of the game, and both are superior in fairness, but that claim on 3d6 in order? That's a pile of straw.

[Eldariel]

Have you?

That's why I'm listing these things; they're things I've done.


Saves are a later problem. When people will go on about how saves are super important, I don't see how having a will save 2 or 3 points lower than mr 14+ could be interpreted as anything but worse. Arcanists actually tend to have amusingly low will saves thanks to reliance on their "high" base, which means that (if) you optimize DCs against them, they fail just as hard as anyone but the cleric, and reflex saves are lower. There's a reason Resist Energy is considered standard, because if you don't have it then 3/4 of the party is usually screwed by any AoE damage. +2 hp/level and +2 reflex saves shockingly make those less lethal, but with 25 points you only get one of those, and picking hp means you also have less AC, and ranged attack, and initiative.

Saves are cool but definitely a luxury stat. Yeah, you might get minor improvements with a higher pb but that has never made or broken a character, certainly not one with the ability to act at a range and put enemies down in one action. Saves are more important for the ones who do stuff by getting up close to enemies and of course, Wizard has 2/3 of the save-granting stats as their useful secondary stats anyways so it's not like their saves are particularly bad.


Oh but the wizard is never in range, never gets hit when they are in range, and never loses initiative, because "making saves is a last recourse." Except when people want to complain about monsters with save based abilities, or how monsters can just go around the meatshield, in which case the whole party had to save or die immediately and your dog/mercenary/AC/everything was useless. Its almost like there's some back and forth, potential for failure, and differing initial conditions.

Of course they matter, but again, the best you can do is strategise around it to minimise the occurrences. Good scouting, strong offense, operating at range and through disposable proxies are all good ways of going about that.


A Handy Haversack is 2,000gp, which is more than 50% of your WBL until 4th, and there is no guarantee you get one even then. Yay, your haversack weighs 5 lbs, now what about literally everything else you've got? Traveler's outfit 5lbs, haversack 5lbs, component pouch 3lbs, dagger 1 lb, that's 14 lbs of your 26lb light load. Oh, you wanted a crossbow? That's another +9 to 23. Sure, once you get the magic item, and if you put pretty much everything in there, you can get it down pretty low. If your DM lets you get exactly the item you want as early as possible and you don't need to carry anything else and anything you drop is safe after you move away.

"Different characters may want different outfits for various occasions. A beginning character is assumed to have an artisan’s, entertainer’s, explorer’s, monk’s, peasant’s, scholar’s, or traveler’s outfit. This first outfit is free and does not count against the amount of weight a character can carry."

PHB 131. You have weight to spare. This is what I mean by people not having actually played this in practice...


Donkey? Didn't we just have a thread about a party that was having trouble transporting things because their pack animals got dragged off every time they went in the dungeon? Sure, you can just use pack animals, if the DM lets you just park and forget.

Or if you have a 1sp animal handler bringing them behind you in the dungeon or hell, 1sp hirelings carrying stuff for you or whatever. And not all adventures occur in dungeons, certainly not ones impassable for pack animals. Not that it matters, there are a billion ways around this particular hurdle so just pick one.


Fighting dogs? Yeah, the Handle Animal skill actually has rules see. It takes a move action to give an order. It takes a DC 10 check (with your -1 from 8 cha) to make that order stick, and the DC goes up by 2 once they're injured. No ability to use complex tactics. Set them to Defend and forget? Hopefully your idea of defend matches the DM's or you otherwise find it useful. Also not actually available at 1st level based on starting gold, while dragging in a feat for mimicking a major class feature of another class only makes it more obvious that the 25pb wizard actually needs help if they want 18/14. Oh, and those hounds gotta eat, which means more provisions, which means pack animals- unless you think you can just strap the food to the dog's backs and have that work out well? So yeah, once you can get them, if they work the way you want, if nothing else causes a problem, just doggo through it.

Guard is pretty clear and that's what you use. It just lets it be a meatshield, all you need. You have enough gp among the party to get a couple. Wizard being a 1-man party "needs help" in the sense that they can't solo everything any more than any other class. Being the most powerful doesn't mean omnipotence. However, that doesn't change the fact that 25pb Wizard is much stronger compared to a 25pb Fighter than a 40pb Wizard compared to a 40pb Fighter particularly on low levels.


Mercenaries? I don't think I've ever heard of a DM seriously letting their low-level party just "mercenary" their way through the game. Availability is even more subject to DM interpretation, but if your DM lets you mercenary your way through the game, then sure.

Every single OD&D party did basically just that. But not that it matters, you have plenty of options.


I'm not seeing how these arguments differ from any of the other wizard supremacy arguments: full DM allowance, no unexpected adversity, just a clean ride from 1st to whatever the desired power level is at some specific level- on paper, things are easy. If you have wizard and everything goes right then nothing else matters, and of course everything always goes right because anything less would be infringing on wizard superiority. That's probably a pretty large trend actually: 1st level games that are just easy mode prologue into the actual game that starts at a later power level. It's how I'd run it myself actually, if I was aiming for something later, but I also admit my desired power level is above standard and actually bother keeping wizards in line rather than giving them free reign

All I see is you just coming up with excuses and "but DM might not allow that" complete with zero practical experience of the matter. DM might not allow X but there's so many options that the number of games where DM doesn't allow any of those is probably extremely minor.

[Fizban]

"Different characters may want different outfits for various occasions. A beginning character is assumed to have an artisan’s, entertainer’s, explorer’s, monk’s, peasant’s, scholar’s, or traveler’s outfit. This first outfit is free and does not count against the amount of weight a character can carry."

PHB 131. You have weight to spare. This is what I mean by people not having actually played this in practice...
My hat is off to you for actually knowing that one- I find most people don't, and ignore it for consistency myself.

Guard is pretty clear and that's what you use. It just lets it be a meatshield, all you need. You have enough gp among the party to get a couple. Wizard being a 1-man party "needs help" in the sense that they can't solo everything any more than any other class. Being the most powerful doesn't mean omnipotence.
Guard specifies an area, that means an action, and a check, which you have less than 50% accuracy on. Or maybe 55% if you cross-classed Handle Animal. Now what happens if you lose initiative, or botch the check, or both checks, or all three?

Every single OD&D party did basically just that.
Yup, now what about 3.5?

All I see is you just coming up with excuses and "but DM might not allow that" complete with zero practical experience of the matter. DM might not allow X but there's so many options that the number of games where DM doesn't allow any of those is probably extremely minor.
And all I see is wizard adherents coming up with excuses why nothing can touch their power, with zero practical experience of the matter. A common refrain goes on about how many DMs can't challenge optimized parties, and it rings true: if the DM isn't good enough or doesn't apply their skill towards keeping the game and party balanced, then wizards can run roughshod over it, no surprise.

Shockingly enough, if you put a wizard optimizer in front of a new DM who doesn't know how, or even know that they might need, to actually use all these fiddly little bits, or one who simply refuses to enforce them and instead allows anything the players want, then they don't matter. Has anyone I've played under enforced encumbrance properly? No- but I followed it myself and have considered the ramifications of gasp, not having a Handy Haversack. Has anyone I've played under denied us mercenaries or gangs of dogs? No- we never needed a DM to tell us the game was about our party and not paying someone else to do the fighting. Has anyone I've played under run anything but magic-item mart? No- but then we also steamrolled just about everything thanks in no small part to perfect items. Has anyone I've played under used 25pb? No- but it's not hard to see how much weaker those characters would quite obviously be with normal stats. Has anyone I've played alongside ever had a non-perfect wizard- yes, very much so.

You don't seem to have a counter for why free power wouldn't be free power. As much as I like (or dislike?) arguing about caster supremacy, that's the main thing I want you to admit. It doesn't matter how strong you think a wizard is because XYZ or how much of that I think is bogus: higher point buy on the wizard means more power for the wizard, period.

[Hecuba]

You can feel free to randomly assign your stats. Nothing is stopping you from taking your pile of points and randomly determining where each one goes, or taking your rolled stats in the order you happened to roll them. If that inspires you, feel free to follow that inspiration.

But don't tell other people they have to get their inspiration from the same place. If you want to play a Barbarian because you rolled good STR and CON, that is fine. Telling the guy who wants to play a Wizard because he just finished Malazan and thought Quick Ben was the best character that he has to play a Ranger because he rolled good DEX and crap INT is stupid. He's not telling you that you have to play a Rogue because you really like the Batman movie you just watched.

I never force a table to adopt a mode of play that others at the table object to. But that doesn't mean we don't take turns suggesting different mechanical options. "How does everyone feel about 3d6 in order/floating reroll for next month's campaign?" does not strike as particularly different from "How does everyone feel about running an X-men-esque Psionics only setup for next month's campaign?", and far less of a change than "How does everyone feel about running Shadowrun instead next month?"

If the answer is "I'd prefer not to - I've got a character I've been itching to build using X/Y/Z", then the response is will be "Ok. Another time then."

[Eldariel]

Guard specifies an area, that means an action, and a check, which you have less than 50% accuracy on. Or maybe 55% if you cross-classed Handle Animal. Now what happens if you lose initiative, or botch the check, or both checks, or all three?

*shrug* Then a check is botched and stuff happens. Defend is a fine default to keep up. It does something. It's not like you rely on the dogs to do much; CR 1-4 encounters are pretty easy with a full array of 1st level spells with whatever acting as meatshields. The game is chockful of whatevers.


Yup, now what about 3.5?

All the same features exit in 3.5 in this regard. For appropriate campaigns, it works.


And all I see is wizard adherents coming up with excuses why nothing can touch their power, with zero practical experience of the matter. A common refrain goes on about how many DMs can't challenge optimized parties, and it rings true: if the DM isn't good enough or doesn't apply their skill towards keeping the game and party balanced, then wizards can run roughshod over it, no surprise.

That's all bull**** and a major misunderstanding of what's being said at least everywhere I look. Anything can be challenged; that's beyond obvious. DM is omnipotent. The point is in intraparty balance and maximising that. To ensure that everybody has close to equal opportunities to contribute without having to rewrite the system ground-up, and to enable the DM to challenge the whole party instead of needing to simultaneously lowball and highball for the weak and the strong characters. To that end keeping everyone within the same tier or giving boons to the weaker classes is a good idea. The default case is what's being described in forum discussions in RAW 3.5 since table-specific solutions are always table specific and thus a poor grounds for discussion.


Shockingly enough, if you put a wizard optimizer in front of a new DM who doesn't know how, or even know that they might need, to actually use all these fiddly little bits, or one who simply refuses to enforce them and instead allows anything the players want, then they don't matter. Has anyone I've played under enforced encumbrance properly? No- but I followed it myself and have considered the ramifications of gasp, not having a Handy Haversack. Has anyone I've played under denied us mercenaries or gangs of dogs? No- we never needed a DM to tell us the game was about our party and not paying someone else to do the fighting. Has anyone I've played under run anything but magic-item mart? No- but then we also steamrolled just about everything thanks in no small part to perfect items. Has anyone I've played under used 25pb? No- but it's not hard to see how much weaker those characters would quite obviously be with normal stats. Has anyone I've played alongside ever had a non-perfect wizard- yes, very much so.

You don't seem to have a counter for why free power wouldn't be free power. As much as I like (or dislike?) arguing about caster supremacy, that's the main thing I want you to admit. It doesn't matter how strong you think a wizard is because XYZ or how much of that I think is bogus: higher point buy on the wizard means more power for the wizard, period.

I'm not saying a Wizard with all 18s isn't stronger than a 25pb Wizard; just that it isn't really that meaningful. It might matter in a percentage of the fights and certainly in the case of saves, but ultimately your major contribution are your spells and those remain basically the same regardless of your non-casting stats. Dex and Con are great and the rest...Cha is cool, Wis is occasionally useful and Str gives you whatever.

And yeah, it seems obvious to me that you have a clear image of a single way of playing D&D and you completely scoff at everything else. How is it not about your party if your party hires hirelings? It's still your characters doing the deeds, being present, etc. Just because they are smart and use the resources in the world instead of putting themselves in the harm's way, doesn't mean that they aren't there as the moving force. That's at least as valid a way of playing D&D as walking into a dungeon as a 4-man group and taking on all comers. Gauntlets are fine but definitely not the only way to play and they don't do a good job of representing the world at large since it takes a certain amount of intentional stupidity on the part of all characters to make it come to be in the first place. D&D grows into a game where the characters are world movers; they don't need to do everything personally.

If your experience is a game of steamrolling everything, I question how much that practically contributes to the whole. It sounds like the DM wasn't doing a terribly good job of challenging you. Then again, maybe it was a sandbox but then it sounds highly unlikely that you never ran into anything way more powerful than you.

[Elder_Basilisk]

We'll, if you want to look at how increased stats impact casters it's worth looking at some actual examples.

If you assume that the caster wants: A. Casting stat, B. Dex, C. Con and that regardless of point buy, the caster will buy an 18 (or 20 with racial bonus) casting stat, then the array looks like:
25 point buy. 18, 13, 12, 8, 8, 8
28 point buy. 18, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8
32 point buy. 18, 16, 14, 8, 8, 8
36 point buy. 18, 16, 16, 8, 8, 8
40 point buy. 18, 16, 16, 12, 8, 8

Of course that depends upon dumping the non Dex/con/casting stats hard and won't work for (for example) a cleric who wants to be able to fight in melee and cast spells without persistent spell shenanigans. However, it does show a noticeable improvement from 25 to 32 and even 25 to 28 points. 25 to 28 points buys Mr. minmaximus an additional +1 Dex bonus and +1 con bonus. More importantly, 28 points gets Mr. Minmaximus out of the marginal (<14 ) range in those stats.

If players opt for a more well rounded build at the expense of a lower primary stat, then the increases will be seen in primary stats instead. My impression is that Mr. Minmaximus starts seeing significant diminishing returns after 32 points but prior to that, increases in point buy do increase his power--especially the increase from 25 to 28 points.

--edit--
It occurred to me that one of the reasons 14 con is a breakpoint that results in a noticeably stronger character than 12 con is that 14 con results in sor/wiz base hit points averaging more that 1d6/level. 12 con with d4 hit points results in hp very similar to 1d6 per level. In short, 14 con means a wizard is likely to survive failing a save vs fireball from a similarly leveled foe. 12 con is only about 50/50 to still be standing.

I haven't done much analysis for Dex yet but my impression is that 14 Dex plus improved initiative is enough to have an initiative advantage over most foes while 12 or 13 Dex provides an advantage against noticeably fewer foes. But that's more research than I have time for at the moment so Dex remains mostly a guestimate.

[Marlowe]

Anyone who uses anything other than 25 point buy is cheating.



Technically, anything besides 3d6 in order is cheating. Stop telling people how they play is badwrong, it reflects poorly on you.


The only stat generation method in the PHB is 4d6b3 allocated at will. Technically, anything but THAT is "cheating"; or, more politely, "DM fiat."

[Aimeryan]

We'll, if you want to look at how increased stats impact casters it's worth looking at some actual examples.

If you assume that the caster wants: A. Casting stat, B. Dex, C. Con and that regardless of point buy, the caster will buy an 18 (or 20 with racial bonus) casting stat, then the array looks like:
25 point buy. 18, 13, 12, 8, 8, 8
28 point buy. 18, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8
32 point buy. 18, 16, 14, 8, 8, 8
36 point buy. 18, 16, 16, 8, 8, 8
40 point buy. 18, 16, 16, 12, 8, 8

Of course that depends upon dumping the non Dex/con/casting stats hard and won't work for (for example) a cleric who wants to be able to fight in melee and cast spells without persistent spell shenanigans. However, it does show a noticeable improvement from 25 to 32 and even 25 to 28 points. 25 to 28 points buys Mr. minmaximus an additional +1 Dex bonus and +1 con bonus. More importantly, 28 points gets Mr. Minmaximus out of the marginal (<14 ) range in those stats.

If players opt for a more well rounded build at the expense of a lower primary stat, then the increases will be seen in primary stats instead. My impression is that Mr. Minmaximus starts seeing significant diminishing returns after 32 points but prior to that, increases in point buy do increase his power--especially the increase from 25 to 28 points.

25 pb is usually 18, 14, 11, 8, 8, 8, or as applied for a Wizard 8, 11, 14, 18, 8, 8

The 14 is put into Con and is usually enough to ensure they don't have problems before they can spell their way to it all being pointless. That said, you have a point, but the difference is fairly marginal for the caster, while pretty noticeable indeed for a mundane, and a lot more so for the MAD.

As I mentioned, a cap a 16 does a lot to solve the (already minor) issue:

25 pb max 18: 8, 11, 14, 18, 8, 8. - for contrast
25 pb max 16: 8, 13, 16, 16, 8, 8.
28 pb max 16: 8, 15, 16, 16, 8, 8.
32 pb max 16: 8, 16, 16, 16, 10, 8.

The 32 pb max 16 array here would be considered weaker for a Wizard than the 25 pb max 18 array they could have had - what they gain doesn't make up for the loss of Intellect.

Lets take a look at what it might be like for a MAD class, such as a Psychic Warrior:

25 pb max 18: 18, 8, 12, 8, 13, 8.
25 pb max 16: 16, 9, 14, 8, 15, 8.
28 pb max 16: 16, 10, 14, 8, 16, 8.
32 pb max 16: 15, 14, 14, 14, 14, 8.
32 pb max 16: 16, 10, 14, 14, 15, 8. - alternate

The 25 pb max 18 is effective at hitting stuff and nothing else - even his power options will be limited. He'll probably also die.

25 pb max 16 is less effective as hitting stuff but still not bad. He has some more options via extra power points and a potentially higher power level - might make up for the loss in Strength. He is less likely to die at least.

The 28 pb max 16 is not too much different to 25 pb max 16 - but then it is only 3 extra points. Not quite as slow of the mark, more power points. The main issue here is that he can't quite grab the Dex and Int options for fighting without giving up too much Str, Con, and/or Wis.

The 32 pb max 16 now allows for taking the Dex and Int required to grab the interesting martial feats, with only some diminishing else where. It is just about high enough in point buy to allow the character to be versatile.

The 32 pb max 16 alternative trades not getting the Dex feat(s) for more effectiveness at his other roles. Slightly less versatile than the other 32 pb max 16 but still a lot more versatile than 25 pb or even 28 pb.


What I am getting at here is that the lower pb hurts MADs, and even mundanes, far more than the higher pb helps casters. If you go for max 16 the help the casters get diminishes while the MAD are hardly affected (and might even be better for them).

[Zanos]

The only stat generation method in the PHB is 4d6b3 allocated at will.
And rerolling until your array has at least 1 score higher than 13 and the sum of your ability modifiers is +0 or higher.

We just use 32 PB. The problems we've had with 3.5 balance haven't derived from characters having moderately more optimized base stats.

[Caelestion]

My current game I'm GMing I started by mandating a stat line of 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10 (arrange to taste), with two abilities each going up by one at 4th-level.

[Holcane]

I wonder if different point buy makes sense for different classes: Monks/Paladins getting the most, wizards getting the least. etc.

[BowStreetRunner]

I wonder if different point buy makes sense for different classes: Monks/Paladins getting the most, wizards getting the least. etc.

Every character begins with a 10 in every ability score and 6 points to spend on raising those scores, plus they can lower ability scores to earn additional points. Character may be built with classes from any tier. They can acquire additional points by giving up the ability to select classes in a higher tier. For each tier they give up, starting with Tier 1 and working down, they receive an additional 6 points for their character build. (So a Tier 5 character would get a total of 30 points, while a Tier 1 character would only receive 6). :smalltongue:

[Cosi]

I wonder if different point buy makes sense for different classes: Monks/Paladins getting the most, wizards getting the least. etc.

Unless you set the relative point buys so far apart that Wizards are struggling to be able to both cast spells and carry clothing and Monks are walking around with all 18s (and, honestly, even then), that's not going to achieve balance in any situation that wouldn't already be balanced.

Also, it creates massive incentives towards builds like Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer or Beguiler/Rainbow Servant or Warlock/Ur Priest/Eldritch Disciple or Paladin/Sorcerer/Abjurant Champion that have 90% (or more) of the power of a full caster but start off with a level of a low tier class to get better attributes. If you made the swing big enough to actually achieve what you want, you would just see every build start out with a level of Commoner for maxed stats.

The imbalance scales with level, so any solution to it has to scale with level as well. You can give people custom PrCs, or new class features, or custom Legacy Weapons. All of those work. Just giving Fighters a power buff at 1st isn't going to do it.

[JNAProductions]

Unless you set the relative point buys so far apart that Wizards are struggling to be able to both cast spells and carry clothing and Monks are walking around with all 18s (and, honestly, even then), that's not going to achieve balance in any situation that wouldn't already be balanced.

Also, it creates massive incentives towards builds like Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer or Beguiler/Rainbow Servant or Warlock/Ur Priest/Eldritch Disciple or Paladin/Sorcerer/Abjurant Champion that have 90% (or more) of the power of a full caster but start off with a level of a low tier class to get better attributes. If you made the swing big enough to actually achieve what you want, you would just see every build start out with a level of Commoner for maxed stats.

The imbalance scales with level, so any solution to it has to scale with level as well. You can give people custom PrCs, or new class features, or custom Legacy Weapons. All of those work. Just giving Fighters a power buff at 1st isn't going to do it.

Well, the idea is, you get point buy based on your TOTAL plans, not just what you do at level 1.

And yes, players can lie and say "No, I'm totally going straight Rogue!" and then dip Wizard/Unseer Seer... But then they're lying to you, and you should probably not play with them.

[exelsisxax]

Unless you set the relative point buys so far apart that Wizards are struggling to be able to both cast spells and carry clothing and Monks are walking around with all 18s (and, honestly, even then), that's not going to achieve balance in any situation that wouldn't already be balanced.

Also, it creates massive incentives towards builds like Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer or Beguiler/Rainbow Servant or Warlock/Ur Priest/Eldritch Disciple or Paladin/Sorcerer/Abjurant Champion that have 90% (or more) of the power of a full caster but start off with a level of a low tier class to get better attributes. If you made the swing big enough to actually achieve what you want, you would just see every build start out with a level of Commoner for maxed stats.

The imbalance scales with level, so any solution to it has to scale with level as well. You can give people custom PrCs, or new class features, or custom Legacy Weapons. All of those work. Just giving Fighters a power buff at 1st isn't going to do it.

I always feel like people have a brain fart when trying to communicate the asymmetric point buy idea. There is a very simple and relatively elegant solution to the scaling problem that always seems to be stopped short of.

Attribute increases or added point-buy every level you take in a class. Can't really abuse that much.

[Cosi]

Well, the idea is, you get point buy based on your TOTAL plans, not just what you do at level 1.

So we're now requiring that you present a 1 - 20 build from 1st level? What if the player finds an item or meets a NPC or has some other experience that pushes them down a different path than they planned?


And yes, players can lie and say "No, I'm totally going straight Rogue!" and then dip Wizard/Unseer Seer... But then they're lying to you, and you should probably not play with them.

No. If you make a rule, and that rule has a hole in it, and your response to players walking through that hole is to insult them, you are a bad person.

Also, it's not like these are terribly weird builds. People play Fighter/Wizard/Swiftblades in games without any weird point buy rules. Saying somone is "lying to you" when they play a reasonable build that happens to be better in your game than normally is really unfair. If I was on the edge between playing a Rogue and a Cleric, and the fact that we were doing an Undead campaign pushed me over to the Cleric side, that doesn't somehow make me a bad person. Similarly, if I'm on the edge between Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order and Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer, picking the second build because my stats will be (under BSR's proposal*) a total of 18 points higher doesn't make me a bad person.

If you make the rules, it is your responsibility to make them promote the behavior you want. If you want a specific behavior, ask for it directly. Don't blame me when your rules promote different behavior from what you wanted.

*: Technically under BSR's exact plan it would have to be something like Beguiler/Rainbow Servant where you never Wizard levels, but the point still holds.


I always feel like people have a brain fart when trying to communicate the asymmetric point buy idea. There is a very simple and relatively elegant solution to the scaling problem that always seems to be stopped short of.

Attribute increases or added point-buy every level you take in a class. Can't really abuse that much.

Sure, that avoids (most) of the abuse involved. But it has other problems. You have to work out kinks like "how do PrCs work". But even if you have it proofed against all contingencies, just "more numbers" isn't really a great solution. It's boring, and it doesn't solve a lot of the problems with low-power classes like Fighters and Barbarians. The Fighter has issues with not having good enough numbers, yes, but the fundamental problem is that he doesn't really do anything outside combat at high levels.

[JNAProductions]

I don't expect a complete 1-20 build, but I do expect a general idea of how they want to progress. Straight Rogue is pretty clear, as is Rogue/Wizard into Unseer Seer. I don't need to know what feats you want to pick, or what items you want, or what spells you'll pick, or even what exact levels you're going to multiclass (though that might help), but I do need to know the general build outline. If they do find something that pushes them down a different path (difficult to do in 3E, since there are so many fiddly requirements and whatnot, but possible) then we'll talk it out like adults then.

And if someone says "My plan for this character is straight Rogue," and then proceeds to announce at the first level up they're taking a level in Wizard, they lied. Plain and simple. (Okay, it is possible they simply changed their mind, but in that case, they should've announced that they had, since that affects character creation.)

[Cosi]

And if someone says "My plan for this character is straight Rogue," and then proceeds to announce at the first level up they're taking a level in Wizard, they lied. Plain and simple. (Okay, it is possible they simply changed their mind, but in that case, they should've announced that they had, since that affects character creation.)

Yeah, and if someone says "you get more stats if your first level is Rogue" and then I don't get those stats when I play a Rogue/Wizard they lied. The suggested rule was "you get more points for playing a weaker class." If the rule was "you get more points for playing a weaker class the whole game", you should have announced that.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, and if someone says "you get more stats if your first level is Rogue" and then I don't get those stats when I play a Rogue/Wizard they lied. The suggested rule was "you get more points for playing a weaker class." If the rule was "you get more points for playing a weaker class the whole game", you should have announced that.

Okay, that's fair. The rule should be "Point buy is based on what your character is and plans on being, so I'd like a general build outline till level X," where X is whatever level you think the campaign will go till.

However, I think you're being a little obtuse here. It seems like you're intentionally trying to misunderstand the rule and be abusive with it. I don't know what sort of player you are, but if you tried pulling this at my table, you'd get a stern look and a reminder that we're here to have fun TOGETHER, and to leave TO to theory, not the table.

[Cosi]

However, I think you're being a little obtuse here. It seems like you're intentionally trying to misunderstand the rule and be abusive with it. I don't know what sort of player you are, but if you tried pulling this at my table, you'd get a stern look and a reminder that we're here to have fun TOGETHER, and to leave TO to theory, not the table.

I want rules that do not have holes in them. The way that happens is that when people propose rules with holes in them, you point out those holes, and when people insist on playing with those rules anyway you use those holes to make characters that are inconsistent with what people wanted the rules to do. If you say "I want you to make a character at X balance point", I am happy to do that. If you instead say "create a character following these rules", I will create a character that follows exactly those rules and is at whatever balance point I happen to be interested in. Because if you don't have enough respect for me to actually tell me what you want, why should I bother to guess?

[JNAProductions]

I want rules that do not have holes in them. The way that happens is that when people propose rules with holes in them, you point out those holes, and when people insist on playing with those rules anyway you use those holes to make characters that are inconsistent with what people wanted the rules to do. If you say "I want you to make a character at X balance point", I am happy to do that. If you instead say "create a character following these rules", I will create a character that follows exactly those rules and is at whatever balance point I happen to be interested in. Because if you don't have enough respect for me to actually tell me what you want, why should I bother to guess?

A few things.

1) You can ask "Hey, what's the point of this rule?" Similarly, while someone might modify the rules, such as by altering point buy based on tier, chances are, the rest of the party will be available to talk to about what balance point you should achieve. If you choose to not talk to the rest of the party and show up with Pun-Pun when everyone else consists of a Monk, Rogue, and Fighter, that's on you for not communicating. That's not on them.

2) What holes are there in the rule I presented? I'm sure there are some, but then again, I don't run 3.5. I don't really care if it's airtight.

3) Why in the name of all the is holy do you play 3.5 if you want rules without holes in them? There are, what, eight dysfunction threads? Seriously, this game makes 40k look airtight!