Can you lower your stat base in a point buy?

[Gnomes2169]

I have a DM who says that you cannot, citing that the DMG does not allow you to do so, but every point buy calculator I've found gives me the option to lower my stats from their base 8. Is there an official ruling on this somewhere or errata that I might be missing? And if so, could a link be provided?

[Siosilvar]

Your DM is correct in that it's not allowed by default. Those are usually provided for the house ruled option to do so or for calculating the point buy equivalent of rolled stats.

[JusticeZero]

It's not allowed by default. If I were to allow it, i'd make it have an abysmal rate of return; i've had lots of bad experiences with heavy disadvantage systems of all kinds.

[peacenlove]

In Pathfinder you can reduce your stats to 7
A similar approximation could be made as a houserule for 3.5.

[Slipperychicken]

Racial penalties can drop you under the base level.

[LibraryOgre]

So long as it is explicitly allowed, either by the GM or the book.

[Rhynn]

Which edition of D&D? (Also, wrong subforum, but I can't report it to have it moved unless I know which edition... but you can do that yourself!)

[Gnomes2169]

Which edition of D&D? (Also, wrong subforum, but I can't report it to have it moved unless I know which edition... but you can do that yourself!)

D&D 3.5, and I don't know who the mods are here so if you could do that it would be great >.>

[LibraryOgre]

D&D 3.5, and I don't know who the mods are here so if you could do that it would be great >.>

The Mod Wonder: You can report things yourself, using the triangular button with an exclamation point in it; I didn't move this one because it's multi-system, relevant to 3.x, 4e, Saga.

[Thinker]

It's a house rule, but in 3.5 I'd allow you to go below 8 if you only received 1 point back for every stat reduction (for example, changing from 8 to 6 would net you 1 point). I'd also make it so that reducing a score also reduces the maximum score an attribute can have on a 1 to 1 basis. So, having a base stat of 7 would mean no other attribute could be higher than 17. A base stat of 6 would mean that no other attribute could be higher than 16. And so on. I might also make it cost a character its level one feat to reduce like this since it still seems kind of strong.

[Gnomes2169]

The Mod Wonder: You can report things yourself, using the triangular button with an exclamation point in it; I didn't move this one because it's multi-system, relevant to 3.x, 4e, Saga.

Ahhh, didn't notice that before, thank you Mark!

It's a house rule, but in 3.5 I'd allow you to go below 8 if you only received 1 point back for every stat reduction (for example, changing from 8 to 6 would net you 1 point). I'd also make it so that reducing a score also reduces the maximum score an attribute can have on a 1 to 1 basis. So, having a base stat of 7 would mean no other attribute could be higher than 17. A base stat of 6 would mean that no other attribute could be higher than 16. And so on. I might also make it cost a character its level one feat to reduce like this since it still seems kind of strong.

That... seems like it would be unnecessarily harsh. The ratio of return for reduction is insignificant (1 point per 2 attributes in the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10), would mean that, under this rate, to make your 15 into 16, you would need to make your 10 a 4...), and the reduction of stat maxes is a massive blow, no matter what class you are playing. Going even further and removing the level 1 feat is just... way too high of a cost for no return. It would literally be gimping your character right from the start under that system...

I'd suggest instead that you make it 1 point per attribute point (Not attribute bonus, so a 1:1 ratio instead of 1:2), and that the stat caps be left alone, along with the level 1 feat.

[Jay R]

I have a DM who says that you cannot...

By the rules, this is your answer. The DM of this game doesn't allow it.

[Thinker]

That... seems like it would be unnecessarily harsh. The ratio of return for reduction is insignificant (1 point per 2 attributes in the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10), would mean that, under this rate, to make your 15 into 16, you would need to make your 10 a 4...), and the reduction of stat maxes is a massive blow, no matter what class you are playing. Going even further and removing the level 1 feat is just... way too high of a cost for no return. It would literally be gimping your character right from the start under that system...

I'd suggest instead that you make it 1 point per attribute point (Not attribute bonus, so a 1:1 ratio instead of 1:2), and that the stat caps be left alone, along with the level 1 feat.

Then everyone would just play fighters with 18 str, dex, and con.

[MagnusExultatio]

Then everyone would just play fighters with 18 str, dex, and con.

So why is that supposed to be a big deal? How are the fighter's other stats?

[Aedilred]

It's a house rule, but in 3.5 I'd allow you to go below 8 if you only received 1 point back for every stat reduction (for example, changing from 8 to 6 would net you 1 point). I'd also make it so that reducing a score also reduces the maximum score an attribute can have on a 1 to 1 basis. So, having a base stat of 7 would mean no other attribute could be higher than 17. A base stat of 6 would mean that no other attribute could be higher than 16. And so on. I might also make it cost a character its level one feat to reduce like this since it still seems kind of strong.

While I understand the basic principle of not allowing minmaxing by reducing some stats too far, this seems rather like heaping penalty on penalty for no particular reason. After a certain point (probably the unequal points exchange) you're no longer just stopping players from gaining a cheesy advantage, you're just punishing them further for having selected a disadvantage.

[Thinker]

So why is that supposed to be a big deal? How are the fighter's other stats?

Why does it matter what his other stats are? He only uses those ones. Every class can do this to get hyper advantages.

While I understand the basic principle of not allowing minmaxing by reducing some stats too far, this seems rather like heaping penalty on penalty for no particular reason. After a certain point (probably the unequal points exchange) you're no longer just stopping players from gaining a cheesy advantage, you're just punishing them further for having selected a disadvantage.

Good. A disadvantage should actually be a disadvantage, not the sort of bs where a player gains a feat in exchange for -2 to a skill. I think that every player choice should have an associated cost.

[TuggyNE]

Why does it matter what his other stats are? He only uses those ones.

Generally, I think this ignores the problem of ability damage/drain/penalties. If you have 1 Cha, 3 Int, and 4 Wis (necessary to get 18/18/18 with 32-point buy), you'll fail nearly all Will saves and a single spell or monster special ability hit from a variety of sources (ego whip, ray of stupidity, allip, various poisons, etc) will knock you out, no save, guaranteed. Anyone who attempts this, then, is playing with fire: they are greatly increasing their vulnerability in exchange for greater strengths. The proper response, then, is to warn them fairly, and exploit those vulnerabilities in an appropriate way until they realize their error.

Capping all ability scores simply means that there is absolutely no tradeoff possible: stat dumps become not risky, but pointless to the point of insanity. Even dropping the first-level feat is just a way of soft-banning it, not a reasonable tradeoff.

[Aedilred]

Why does it matter what his other stats are? He only uses those ones. Every class can do this to get hyper advantages.

Although I imagine a popular argument would be that the fighter needs every advantage he can get, up to and including hyper ones, in order to stay in touch with spellcasters.

Good. A disadvantage should actually be a disadvantage, not the sort of bs where a player gains a feat in exchange for -2 to a skill. I think that every player choice should have an associated cost.

Yeah, but there's a difference between making sure a disadvantage is actually a disadvantage, and making sure that a disadvantage is as punitive as possible with no appreciable trade-off. If somebody gambles away their paycheque in a game of poker, it's not necessary to steal their car as well just to make sure they notice.

[Thinker]

Generally, I think this ignores the problem of ability damage/drain/penalties. If you have 1 Cha, 3 Int, and 4 Wis (necessary to get 18/18/18 with 32-point buy), you'll fail nearly all Will saves and a single spell or monster special ability hit from a variety of sources (ego whip, ray of stupidity, allip, various poisons, etc) will knock you out, no save, guaranteed. Anyone who attempts this, then, is playing with fire: they are greatly increasing their vulnerability in exchange for greater strengths. The proper response, then, is to warn them fairly, and exploit those vulnerabilities in an appropriate way until they realize their error.

Capping all ability scores simply means that there is absolutely no tradeoff possible: stat dumps become not risky, but pointless to the point of insanity. Even dropping the first-level feat is just a way of soft-banning it, not a reasonable tradeoff.

Maybe people want to play for flavor, rather than power. If someone wants to play a maimed person, an idiot, or the like, I shouldn't stop him. Why shouldn't other crippling facets of a character actually hurt them?

Although I imagine a popular argument would be that the fighter needs every advantage he can get, up to and including hyper ones, in order to stay in touch with spellcasters.

It applies for every class.

Yeah, but there's a difference between making sure a disadvantage is actually a disadvantage, and making sure that a disadvantage is as punitive as possible with no appreciable trade-off. If somebody gambles away their paycheque in a game of poker, it's not necessary to steal their car as well just to make sure they notice.

Everything should be as punitive as possible or else the players will have it too easy. The game is easy enough already without many meaningful choices.

[Pex]

Everything should be as punitive as possible or else the players will have it too easy. The game is easy enough already without many meaningful choices.

I sure do dislike DMs who hate their players.

[Aedilred]

Maybe people want to play for flavor, rather than power. If someone wants to play a maimed person, an idiot, or the like, I shouldn't stop him. Why shouldn't other crippling facets of a character actually hurt them?

Well, that's fair enough. But in that case, why not just say "you can lower attributes below the minimum if you like, but there's no trade-off", or even just "no lowering attributes below the minimum"? Your proposal gives them not only a substandard trade-off, but an attribute cap to boot, which apparently you consider "still kind of strong", although I'm not sure how, so there's a further penalty just for giggles.

That's not encouraging people to play for flavour over power. It's encouraging people to make the most of the RAW because apparently if they want to try anything outside it you'll come down on their character like a ton of bricks.

[TuggyNE]

Maybe people want to play for flavor, rather than power. If someone wants to play a maimed person, an idiot, or the like, I shouldn't stop him. Why shouldn't other crippling facets of a character actually hurt them?

If there were actually any sort of meaningful connection between lowering a dump stat below 8 and the two penalties listed, this might almost be reasonable. But there isn't. It's a pair of strictly arbitrary metagame restrictions that have no inherent connection and are not proportional.

In general, deliberately designing a potential choice of flavor to be as terribad as humanly possible is poor game design. Rather, choices that are pure flavor should have meaningful mechanics, but be as close to reasonably balanced as possible, so that a good range of concepts is possible without having to choose whether to value power or flavor more. Deliberately setting up that choice to be harsher than normal is pretty weird.

Everything should be as punitive as possible or else the players will have it too easy. The game is easy enough already without many meaningful choices.

I think we're done here.

[da_chicken]

If there were actually any sort of meaningful connection between lowering a dump stat below 8 and the two penalties listed, this might almost be reasonable. But there isn't. It's a pair of strictly arbitrary metagame restrictions that have no inherent connection and are not proportional.

In general, deliberately designing a potential choice of flavor to be as terribad as humanly possible is poor game design.

In a general case, I'd agree with that, but there's a lot more going on than just that.

People keep talking about meaningful choices, but there's no (or almost no) meaningful difference between a Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Monk or Sorcerer having an Int of 9 vs an Int of 3. Is it a meaningful choice then to allow a player to choose a 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? Just force them to start at 8 or your parties will consist of horribly deformed and severely mentally impaired individuals.

The idea of point buy is to make a distribution based on a fixed pool so that dice rolls don't benefit one player over another. If I elect to play a class with a larger number of attributes that don't affect play much, then I can choose to focus my points on a smaller number of attributes. That's already an advantage single attribute classes have with point buy. If I have a larger number of dump stats and can really dump them, then I can afford to completely burn them for even more points in my pool for useful attributes. Other classes with more attribute dependencies cannot do that. Since we already know that classes with multiple attributes are already hampered, giving single attribute classes even more advantage merely serves to further imbalance the power disparity of the party at the time of character creation. You're un-leveling an already rough playing field.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not on the Frank Castle train. But I do think that giving a player a benefit that is very likely to benefit him at the cost of a penalty which is trivial to ignore is not particularly meaningful, nor particularly interesting, nor particularly balanced, nor particularly fun. I mean, why not just play with Unearthed Arcana flaws then? Then every Fighter can be Inattentive, every Wizard a Feeble or Noncombatant, and every Cleric can be Shaky or Unreactive.

No, the idea of choice in game design doesn't just mean that the choice must be meaningful, it means the choice must not have a clear answer or it's not a choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 6 Cha, there is no way in hell I'm not adding to my hit point rolls and fort saves. I've already decided I'm not going to be making Diplomacy checks by not increasing my Cha. I've already made that choice, and an extra -1 to die rolls I already decided to fail isn't an interesting choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 4 Cha... well, that's a lot more severe. Cha 4 is a significantly lowered stat, even for a dump stat. You might run into a Ghost or get poisoned and get taken out. The fact that you *might* decide that it is still worth it or you might not means that it's interesting again.

Also, on this:

If there were actually any sort of meaningful connection between lowering a dump stat below 8 and the two penalties listed, this might almost be reasonable. But there isn't. It's a pair of strictly arbitrary metagame restrictions that have no inherent connection and are not proportional.

Character generation is already massively arbitrary, and point buy is already entirely a metagame restriction.

[TuggyNE]

At this point I think it's reasonable to mention my preferred solution for dump stats and point buy arbitrariness in one neat package, which as it happens is homebrew. (Shameless plug, but hey.)

[Pex]

No, the idea of choice in game design doesn't just mean that the choice must be meaningful, it means the choice must not have a clear answer or it's not a choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 6 Cha, there is no way in hell I'm not adding to my hit point rolls and fort saves. I've already decided I'm not going to be making Diplomacy checks by not increasing my Cha. I've already made that choice, and an extra -1 to die rolls I already decided to fail isn't an interesting choice. If my choice is between 12 Con 8 Cha and 14 Con 4 Cha... well, that's a lot more severe. Cha 4 is a significantly lowered stat, even for a dump stat. You might run into a Ghost or get poisoned and get taken out. The fact that you *might* decide that it is still worth it or you might not means that it's interesting again.

Also, on this:

Point. It would be fair to require a minimum score. In Pathfinder that's 7 to get points. In D&D that's 8 by not putting points into it. The question is then how many points a player has to spend. Personal opinion 25 is needed for Pathfinder, 32 for 3E, for MAD classes to have a (subjective) decent array, though monk is still troubled but I'll concede that's a problem with monk not point buy. 20 is doable in Pathfinder precisely because you start at 10 with 0 points for a score and get more with an 8 or 7 and friendly racial bonuses. The "recommended" point buy for 4E, unlike the others', actually works given the 4E framework of all classes being DAD and better of two scores for saving throw defense modifiers.

What is not fair is to heap on extra negative stuff just because a player chose to have that 8 or 7 for extra points so that the player doesn't get away with something and have it "too easy".

[Slipperychicken]

People keep talking about meaningful choices, but there's no (or almost no) meaningful difference between a Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Monk or Sorcerer having an Int of 9 vs an Int of 3. Is it a meaningful choice then to allow a player to choose a 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9? Just force them to start at 8 or your parties will consist of horribly deformed and severely mentally impaired individuals.

You say that as if it isn't already the case.

Also, people will gladly use Int 8 as an excuse to roleplay a gibbering idiot who can't dress himself in the morning.

[Gnomes2169]

You say that as if it isn't already the case.

Also, people will gladly use Int 8 as an excuse to roleplay a gibbering idiot who can't dress himself in the morning.

I haven't actually met any of these people... You must introduce me sometime XD

More seriously, the majority of players don't want to play the super naive/ weak willed character (Wis 3-6), the pathetic twig who can hardly stand (str 3-6), the guy who trips over his own feet (dex 3-6), the bumbling idiot (int 3-6) or the guy that everyone will hate because he can't words/ is ugly as sin (cha 3-6). And absolutely no one wants to play the guy made out of flash paper (con 3-6 oh my god you would die so fast). In a game where role playing is actually a factor, these scores would be terrible to have, and most people would not have fun playing them. However, I will admit that there are a few games where there isn't any roleplay (casters vs. everything being a really rather good example of that) or games where the numbers matter more than character personalty. Fine. Lowering stats should not be allowed in these games... But in a game where this isn't a factor, letting people choose these personalities/ flaws/ weaknesses shouldn't be discouraged either.

However, there should still be a limit to how many points you can take out of your stats... for example, let's say that you can subtract up to 3 points from any number of stats (just enough to get that pesky 15 up to a 16 in 3.5, but not enough to get a nat 19 in any score for a min-maxer), meaning that you can have 3 7's, or a 7 and a 6, or one 5. These aren't the worst penalties you could have to your stats, but they are penalties that will affect how your character acts, interacts or approaches a situation (Unless they're a wizard, then lolnope, just keep on keeping on you smug prick). Will players use it to their advantage? Yes. Is it necessarily a bad thing? No, not really (Unless you're talking late-mid to just late, llate (epic level) game, where that con/ primary casting attribute are just so very, very juicy and helpful...). Heck, I'd argue that in the early game, you pretty much need every advantage you can get! A barbarian or warblade can get 1-shot by an orc fighter with a greatsword at level 1 relatively easily (especially if the orc crits), And the rest of the party is just not going to stand up much better... But of course, this is just my opinion/ perspective.

Though I will add that I just wanted to ask a simple question... and suddenly, drama. The internet had not failed me.

[da_chicken]

You say that as if it isn't already the case.

Also, people will gladly use Int 8 as an excuse to roleplay a gibbering idiot who can't dress himself in the morning.

Which is perfectly fine if that's what the character concept is. If I were a DM and a player wanted to lower an ability score for no benefit then I'd certainly be alright with it, and I've done it before as a player, too. At that point you're choosing to have a low score, not trying to get stats beyond the normal budget. By the RAW, there's no other way to play a particularly stupid character under point buy without racial help.

I have a Warforged Barbarian in a campaign that got starting stats of Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16 (+2 to 18), Int 8, Wis 8 (-2 to 6), Cha 8 (-2 to 6). I play the character such that he misinterprets the meaning of phrases, makes poor decisions, fails to understand the limitations of humanoids, and suffers from terrible tunnel vision. During the last session, an NPC was discussing how he survived in a dungeon before we rescued him and said "I survived with naught but my razor wit!" I interrupted and said, "Why is your razor named Wit?" Later in the dungeon, we opened the door and found an empty room with a large urn in the middle. He walked right into the room and opened the jar. It was trapped by energy drain. Fortunately, Warforged are immune to energy drain. So now my character is carrying around a 250 lb metal urn that has a 9th level spell trap on it that doesn't affect him. Of course I don't think the character has made a single Will save yet. Amusingly, I don't think I've rolled over a natural 5 on any of them. I tanked my Will saves intentionally because my DM allowed me to take Lion Totem (pounce) and Whirling Frenzy... which is as disgusting as you think it is. Fortunately, he'll have Warforged Juggernaut 3 soon, but until then the DM has had great fun making me fail will saves. If the party's casters would read the spell description for protection from evil, they'd take less damage because of it. By the time I can get immunity to mind-affecting I'll need it since I won't be the combat monster anymore. And he is fully capable of dressing himself. His armor plating has the glamered property. He's attended multiple formal occasions looking like a gold statue.

[Mastikator]

Not to be like that but if the DM says you can't, and the DMG, WOTC, The God-Emperor of Mankind and the ghost of Gary Gygax says you can. Then you can't.

[Slipperychicken]

Not to be like that but if the DM says you can't, and the DMG, WOTC, The God-Emperor of Mankind and the ghost of Gary Gygax says you can. Then you can't.

Wait.. they're different people? That sounds a bit heretical