Level Up (A5E) Do Player Characters Have Average Population Stat Distributions?

[aco175]

I agree with some of the earlier stuff saying that the average of a race is a lot less than PCs get right now. a human average is a bunch of 10s and starting PCs get 15,14,13,12,10,8 if you play that way- which is incredible compared to average. An average halfling should be weaker than the other races 8 times their size, so they get an 8 strength on average. A PC halfling can put their 15 in strength and take the -2 for a 13 which is still stronger than the average orc with its +2 strength.

Now comparing PCs which are all above average to the normal people in the world, my halfling fighter may never reach a 20 strength, or may need to wait until 18th level or such. Same as my mage orc or my other non-stereotypes. If I want to play a fighter, maybe I play something to get the +2 strength, or a human to get a feat, or a halfling to get a Dex build, or any of a bunch of builds to get something worth playing. Some may depend on how one builds a PC and if having a 20 in your main stat is important. I tend to pick class first and race second, but others may be opposite.

 

[Charlaquin]

You want to stop pretending............in an RPG?

I want to stop pretending that a character’s ability scores dictate characters’ physique in any meaningful way. A Goliath with 10 strength (or even as low as 5 strength if you roll stats!) can still be 7’10” and 440 pounds, while a 2’9”, 37 pound halfling can have 20 strength. And both characters have the same carrying capacity (300 pounds). And the halfling will deal significantly more damage with melee weapons, but the Goliath can be a significantly better archer, I guess? Ability scores have never translated into physical characteristics in a way that has made any sense, and the game has consistently improved as the attempts to pretend they do have gotten relaxed. Again I say, the sooner we can just stop pretending the stats mean anything more than what they actually do, the better.

The rules say otherwise and I'm thankful that they do. It would be a sad say when an 18 strength only meant +4.

It has only ever meant that, and the game would be better if we would stop trying to make it mean more.

 

[Campbell]

From my perspective the purpose of ancestry/race/whatever entries is to help players build their characters. It should be written and tuned to those needs.
Monster/NPC creation is a separate matter. It should be based on the needs of the game. I cannot begin to explain how little interest I have in representing standard deviations of ability scores among elven farmers.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I couldn't disagree more with the following post. In fact, none of this even makes sense to me.

If the statistical distribution of NPC stats does not conform to the rules presented for PC generation, then it creates a lot of problems. Invariably, it means that PCs don't play by the same rules as anyone else; and when the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, that basically amounts to codified meta-gaming (i.e. you succeed at the task because you're a PC; which rather cheapens any victory you might earn, when you know it's only because the rules are biased in your favor).

Here I don't even understand how you're using "statistical distribution". You seem to be conflating it with simply higher stats. But those are two different things. For example, an NPC stat block for an elf might have a dexterity that is +2 more than, say, humans. But PCs might have floating bonuses, which they would be free to put in Dex...or somewhere else. So the statistical distribution of PC stats would be different from those for NPC stats, but that says nothing about whether PCs are better or worse or about the same overall.

Even worse, unless the writers go out of their way to write up an entire separate set of rules for NPCs, it means we don't know how the rest of the world actually works. If the statistical distribution of NPC stats does not conform to the rules presented for PCs, then we have no idea what their distribution actually is. If a PC halfling is just as likely to have Strength 20 as a PC half-orc, and those rules don't apply to NPCs, then we can't extrapolate out how strong the average (or top 10%, or bottom 10%) halfling should be.

re: the bold part. Um....so? Except in the context of intellectual self-pleasuring such as this thread, I've never once worried about or even really thought about statistical distributions of stats among NPCs. And yet I've had years of quite pleasureful (but not that kind of pleasureful) gaming.

Why would we ever care "how strong the average (or top 10%, or bottom10%) halfing should be"? What does "should be" even mean? (Shades of your famous, "What would a wood elf do?" are coming back to me now.). Need a weak halfing? Give him a 7 Str. Or a 5 Str. Or a 3 Str. Who the $%@% cares what percentile bracket it's in?

What really astonishes me about this is that every time we've disagreed in the past, it's involved you being haughty about what roleplaying is and isn't. And here you are stressing out about some kind of simulationism. I really don't get it.

And to what end? To remove a couple of limitations on possible character concepts? Games are built on limitations! If you don't want limitations, then you might as well write up your level 900 god-king with all of the powers and magic items, and then never actually play them because characters without limitations are boring.

There is all the difference in the world between limitations that drive the challenge of the game, and limitations that don't actually have anything to do with challenge, and don't actually contribute anything to the game, but exist only to serve tradition.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The rules say otherwise and I'm thankful that they do. It would be a sad say when an 18 strength only meant +4.

We've gone around on this one before. In the past you have insisted that descriptive fluff, even the sort that doesn't specify any kinds of behaviors or means for resolving uncertainty, is still "rules".

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion, but at least I can bring you some joyous tidings: an 18 strength doesn't only mean +4. It also determines how much you can carry, and how far you can jump.

Dig deeper than that, though, and it's fluff all the way down.

 

[Phoebasss]

It seems silly to restrict PCs to the racial stereotype, especially if it makes playing an orc wizard or halfling barbarian a bad idea. It's more fun to play characters succeeding against the stereotypes of their race. I'm not interested in another high elf wizard or orc fighter. We've all seen hundreds of them. Sure, races have an average, but 5e is pretty explicitly heroic. The usual constraints of your race don't apply to heroes. And they shouldn't. Because its not fun.

 

[DND_Reborn]

especially if it makes playing an orc wizard or halfling barbarian a bad idea.

Why is it a bad idea? Because your total modifier will be +1 less than a race more suited to a particular class? I'm not trying to be difficult, but does that single point of modifier really prevent you from playing a sub-optimal race/class combination?

Personally, I find them more enjoyable because they are different.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'd like to see something roughly approaching average for base stats to start because it leaves more room to grow. With that said the game doesn't play too well at early levels in any version if you don't have some stat bonuses or have too many stat penalties so it seems extremely reasonable to say that PCs start with one or two +1 or +2 ability score item of their choice.

Having close to average plus a +1/2 ability score item gives "good" stats and as players start replacing those with laterally improved or even outright better versions they might start moving their discarded starting ability score items around so a single new item could result in Alice getting an upgrade & tossing her old +2 one to Bob who is upgrading his secondary +1 ability score item & giving it to Cindy that is uprading her +0 nothing off number tertiary stat with a +1 item

 

[Phoebasss]

I want to see more of them at my table. And as a DM, I've seen more than enough of Half-Orc barbarians. I want to see a half-orc wizard make use of Savage Attacks on spells. And I know from experience that I see less of them at my table because they know they're getting screwed over by the rules, and no one likes it when the rules say "this is bad" for no good reason.

 

[EscherEnigma]

I cannot begin to explain how little interest I have in representing standard deviations of ability scores among elven farmers.

This. Character creation rules are for characters. NPCs do not, in any way, shape or form, need to conform to character creation rules or be "legal characters".