[D&D Any Edition] Pointbuy vs. Rolling

[Sir Homeslice]

Alright, this topic's pretty self-explainatory, what do you prefer between pointbuy and rolling?

I like pointbuy. Never liked rolling at all, too many bad experiences turned me off of it.

[Killer Angel]

I once was a great supporter of rolling dices, because, you know, we're not all equals.
Now, I'm all for pointbuy: a lucky serie gives too many advantages, while the group should be on par.
I'm thinking on a pointbuy system, but with different amount of points, depending on the tier of the chosen class.

[Kurald Galain]

We've used point buy as a houserule even way back in 2E. I don't mind some randomness in games, but penalizing certain characters forever because they had some unlucky rolls at character generation seems unnecessary. And yes, I've seen people roll four scores of 17+ in a row using 3d6 only. Statistically unlikely but it happens.

[Comet]

In D&D? Point buy. Because I think D&D is about being an awesome hero on grand adventures and that just doesn't work if you happen to roll a line of thirteens.

In some other games, rolling is great and makes the character creation interesting. You have to improvise your character based on the stats you get from the dice. It can be much fun.

[Samurai Jill]

The problem with rolling for stats is that it kinda neglects the fact that individuals with weak statistics are unlikely to become adventurers in the first place. On balance, it's generally more trouble than it's worth.

[Matthew]

Rolling; I enjoy the randomness, and get quickly tired of every fighter starting with an 18 strength. I am more inclined to play a paladin or ranger if I roll high, then a fighter, assuming I want to play a fighting class.

[Simba]

In my groups I like to let people roll the dice once, then take point buy if they are unhappy with the results.

I personally prefer point buy, but sometimes it itches to just try your luck.

Rolling also leads to threads where lots of people roll up a character, then leave because the scores are too low for their tastes. They simply roll in each thread that announces a new game, but only really apply when they roll well. Fun to watch!

[ken-do-nim]

I don't think this should be an any edition thread. Older editions play different, you generally play multiple characters whereas in 3.5 and 4.0 you play one character all the way through. Rolling makes sense for older, point buy for newer.

[Grumman]

I prefer point buy, at least as an option if you didn't roll well. Otherwise rolling poorly means either playing as a character that lets the team down or missing out on the campaign altogether.

[Kurald Galain]

Older editions play different, you generally play multiple characters whereas in 3.5 and 4.0 you play one character all the way through.

This strikes me as a myth propagated by detractors of 1E/2E. Sure, some people played that way, but that doesn't mean that most people did, or that the game was intended like that.

[Lioness]

Rolling to get the number of points.

Sort of

Our DM lets us roll stats, and then if we get an exceptionally bad one, we can take points off a high one to make it better. We even out odd numbers, and such.

[jmbrown]

3E ruined the aspect of rolling for ability scores by introducing a linear increase in attributes. In early editions you weren't penalized as heavily for having low scores. The only difference between a fighter with 10 strength and 14 strength was a few extra pounds of weight. Since there were fewer bonuses in general (AC and to-hit had a hard cap) actual tactics in combat like flanking and fighting from high ground counted more towards successful combat than attributes.

With that said I prefer rolling in older editions and point buy in newer editions. Two different game styles require different approaches.

[Guinea Anubis]

I am a fan of rolling dice.

[Tetsubo 57]

Point buy all the way. In 3.5 I consider a 28 pb the bare minimum and prefer a 32 pb. Screw random characteristics. People with low scores are called Commoners.

[Optimystik]

The problem with rolling for stats is that it kinda neglects the fact that individuals with weak statistics are unlikely to become adventurers in the first place. On balance, it's generally more trouble than it's worth.

Very much this. Even worse was rolling in order.

"So you want to be a Wizard? Ok, roll for INT. Ooh, 13 - guess you'll be at the back of the class in Hogwarts this session. HUFFLEPUFF!"

I'm thinking on a pointbuy system, but with different amount of points, depending on the tier of the chosen class.

Check the second post.

[LibraryOgre]

This strikes me as a myth propagated by detractors of 1E/2E. Sure, some people played that way, but that doesn't mean that most people did, or that the game was intended like that.

Ken's one of the old edition stalwarts, though. Now, mind you, I've played more characters in my year and a half of 4e than I ever did in a single 2e campaign, but that's a pure 2e game.

FWIW, I prefer rolls, though I understand (and tend to use when my players ask) PB.

[Killer Angel]

Check the second post.

Thanks... I love how you can always count on the other playgrounders.

This gives even a wider range than what I was thinking. My idea was in the order of 24 (or 28) for tiers 1-2, 28 (or 32) for tiers 3-4, 32 (or 36) for tiers 5-6.

[Artanis]

Pointbuy also has the advantage of being able to "roll" at home.

[Surrealistik]

Point buy; because the Mary and Anti-Sues that invariably result from random rolls just don't mix, not to mention no one likes to be relegated to cheerleader for those that lucked out during character creation.

[Meek]

Point Buy, because I can have fair stats without visiting the DM's home and rolling my character in his face. And I can tailor my stats to what I actually want to play, rather than what the RNG gave me.

[Aron Times]

In a 4e game I recently joined, I rolled the equivalent of 54 point buy (normal 4e is 22 point buy).

And the DM says it's okay...

[Weezer]

I prefer rolling, it creates an element of randomness that I enjoy. It doesnt hurt that I'm unglodly lucky when it comes to dice so I usually end up with a pretty good statline.

[Sinfire Titan]

I once was a great supporter of rolling dices, because, you know, we're not all equals.
Now, I'm all for pointbuy: a lucky serie gives too many advantages, while the group should be on par.
I'm thinking on a pointbuy system, but with different amount of points, depending on the tier of the chosen class.

Did that myself once. Tier 1's got 25, Tier 2's got 28, Tier 3's+4's got 32, and everyone under Tier 4 got 43.


I dislike PB because it is a slight headache to work with unless you have a hardcopy DMG or memorized the costs for points (which I don't do because I don't make characters enough to warrant it). I like rolling, but recognize it's weaknesses. My RL players refuse to use PB for various reasons.

[Frozen_Feet]

I like rolling, I even liked rolling in order back when we played 1st edition D&D. However, me and my group had different stance to roleplaying back then. We didn't think out concepts and then try to reflect them within the game - we rolled statistics and came up with a concept based on that. The challenge it provided was part of the fun. After I began thinking my characters trough first, I pretty much abandoned strict rule systems like D&D and switched to more narrative or freeform ones.

[AshDesert]

I vastly prefer point buy to rolling, mostly because you can fully build your characters at home, and all the characters will be on a similar footing.

However, for one-offs, rolling in order can be very fun (Barbarian with a 15 Intelligence is fun to RP).

[Aldizog]

What I get tired of under point-buy is that everything is so optimized. Rolling gave you the unexpected, which added a touch of realism. A particular wizard might happen to be rather strong. Not because his build calls for him to get Power Attack at some point, but just because he's a strong and smart guy that decided to become a wizard. A fighter might be more charismatic than average, or a cleric might be quicker than you'd expect. Not because it's optimal for him, but because that's just what his abilities happen to be. Makes the PCs feel a little more real to me.

I'm not sure if there's a better system... maybe roll 4d4 in order for "starting stat", and then apply 25 PB on top of that? With maybe 0.5 points required to raise an attribute that is below 7? 4d4 should give a small enough variation that you can make it up with PB and not have huge power gaps among the PCs.

[Crow]

I offer my players a variety of rolling options to choose from, and if they don't like the results, 25-point buy.

I think the obsession that many people have with high stats is what makes a lot of people prefer point buy. Over the course of a character's career, low stats really doesn't have that huge of an impact on the game. Having a single 14 can be enough if you're not playing a MAD class. We've played games where some people got lucky on their rolls, and others did not. It's really not as big a deal as people say it is. Generally, unless you have two people in a group trying to fill the same role, the idea that one person's high stats ruin the game for others is a myth. It's a team game, not a contest.

Hell, some people say that 25 point buy isn't even enough. Trust me, you can make perfectly playable characters with 25 point buy. Leave your number-envy at the door, it's just a game for heaven's sake.

[deuxhero]

I like 32 point buy. Consistent and feels more like the characters are exceptional characters compared to lower point buys.

[ericgrau]

Rolling. Pointbuy causes too many even numbers 95% of the time and 18's for SAD classes.

Most complaints I hear about rolling low comes from rolling a 13-15 for your high stat, which is actually only a hair below average. Your chance of actually rolling low without being granted a reroll is extremely low. Commoners are all 10's, or at best 13 high with other low stats to compensate. If you want a higher power game, bump up player level or lower CR (possibly w/o lowering xp), rather than adding imbalance. Or making you boost monster stats to match, making it exactly the same as if no one was boosted. If you "need" an 18, why don't you "need" a 20? The need for even higher stats than normal rules to be "better" or "enough" is 110% arbitrary.

[Kieran Cage]

The group I have been playing with most recently has an interesting compromise for rolling vs. point buy:

All players roll up starting stats the traditional way (4d6, drop the low die, reroll 1's).

Then the players decide which set of numbers that all characters will use, with ties broken by (what else?) a die roll.

This is often necessary when players cannot agree on the set with nothing above 15, but also nothing below a 12, or the set that has an 8, but also two 18's and a 17.

When the particular set is decided, that is the set that all characters use. Scores are then applied to stats at the player's discretion (ie: the fighter would most likely put the high number in STR/CON, the sorcerer in CHA, etc.) Finally, racial bonuses/penalties are applied.

This allows us to keep the aspect of random rolls, but doesn't create an imbalance of ability scores among players. Plus, the players who are traditionally unlucky die rollers get to use numbers rolled up by a more dice-friendly player.

It's worked quite well for us.