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

[Maxperson]

It still didn’t make sense in 3e. A half-orc with 5 strength could still be 6’10” and 438 pounds while a 2’8” 27 pound halfling could have a strength of 23.

Never heard of big, fat, weak men before? I have.

Strength means no more and no less than it’s mechanical effects (which, granted, were different in 3e than they are in 5e).

Then so do racial mechanics and other mechanics. You speed 30 up to AC 17, Damage threshold 20. Two AC 14, HP 17 are speed 30ing along the top. The rest isn't relevant, being fluff.

Fluff matters tremendously, including stat fluff.

 

[Charlaquin]

If we're using the standard set of scores I'm guessing I most often have the top score in the most important place, but the second might not go in the next most important one if it doesn't fit the picture of the character I have in my head. For point buy systems I don't think I've ever ended up close to a (15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8) to stack up the three most important ones. And I don't think I ever bought a starting 17 or 18 in Pathfinder with it's point buy system. Having a bunch of dump stats just seems bleh.

I’m not sure what gave you the idea that I go for a bunch of dump stats in point buy systems. I don’t know how Pathfinder’s point buy system works, but if going for a starting 17 or 18 in it is highly inefficient, I probably wouldn’t do that either. I’m still going to prioritize my class’s primary score. Secondary and tertiary scores are still worth paying attention to, obviously, they’re just a lower priority.

I don't think I usually go out of my way to pick the optimum race for a particular class though. I'll play any race of Cleric

It’s very rare that I will play a race that doesn’t at least get a +1 to my class’s primary ability. Starting without a 16 in your primary ability is rough, and the other racial features very rarely make up for it.

You noted elsewhere a die-roll set-up that gave a 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 standard array. If that was used with the current bonuses, would human never be chosen for anything (since it only gets a 17 and not 18)?

Well, that suggestion was meant to be in place of racial ability bonuses, so you’d pick Human for the Feat and Skill. A very solid option for any class. Hypothetically though, if that were the starting array and races still have their standard ASIs, I think Human would still be a very popular choice. A feat at 1st level can be extremely valuable, potentially worth the -1 to your primary ability. And also, you could totally get an 18 by putting the one of the human ASIs into it and taking a “half-feat” that boosts it.

Unless you meant non-variant human? I think I’ve seen that played exactly once, in a game where we rolled 3d6 in order for abilities, and the player got all or almost all odd rolls (can’t remember exactly, it was shortly after the release of 5e.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Never heard of big, fat, weak men before? I have.

I’ve never heard of a 400-pound, low muscle mass person who can perform half the feats D&D adventures do on a daily basis, even without a single strength check.

You’ve also conveniently ignored the 27 pound halfling with 23 strength. That’s barely over a pound per point of strength!

Then so do racial mechanics and other mechanics. You speed 30 up to AC 17, Damage threshold 20. Two AC 14, HP 17 are speed 30ing along the top. The rest isn't relevant, being fluff.

Fluff matters tremendously, including stat fluff.

“Fluff doesn’t matter” is not my claim. My claim is that ability scores do not translate directly to physical characteristics in a way that makes sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

But beyond that, if the race stats don’t represent the race...throw them out, they are worse than useless.

I’d love to, but that wouldn’t be backwards compatible with 5e.

 

[Giauz]

Perhaps for A5E:AFARPG (yeah I'm self-promoting that title) we could have slightly bigger numbers for more granularity that incorporates size and weight as hard "world-physical" limits for how fast and strong stuff can be since we are talking about different species akin to macaques compared to gorillas as a really stark real-world comparison of species. I don't know, maybe it would scratch a simulationist itch while making problem-solving more interesting.

 

[tetrasodium]

There is literally no point, IMO, to even having the races/peoples/species if we accept the proposition.

Not everyone even plays in a game where the PCs are assumed to be particularly exceptional, especially at level 1.

But beyond that, if the race stats don’t represent the race...throw them out, they are worse than useless.

Sure there is, you give them featlike things that fit with the race so that and elf gnome & human wizard all feel viscerally different at the table. Instead of subraces that give a different set of stats & maybe very minor feature differences you have subraces that are quite different & don't need a bunch of racially restricted feats trying to mechanically represent fluff that didn't fit in the race itself

 

[Cadence]

I’m not sure what have you the idea that I go for a bunch of dump stats in point buy systems.

Nothing, sorry about the way that sounded! I was trying to respond, think through related issues, and work on syllabi, way past my bed time, and it didn't work well. Thank you again for always taking the time to answer.

 

[Giauz]

@Charlaquin : I'm sorry. I was just trying to think outside the box. D&D just has some really interesting creatures, and I thought maybe there's a sensible way to embrace them having different stat when healthy and (starting out) off center of average. What could work and what doesn't?

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin : I'm sorry. I was just trying to think outside the box. D&D just has some really interesting creatures, and I thought maybe there's a sensible way to embrace them having different stat when healthy and (starting out) off center of average. What could work and what doesn't?

Oh, no worries I just generally don’t like game mechanics trying to function like the physics of the fictional world, which sounded like what you were suggesting. But, I didn’t feel like I had much to contribute beyond “I don’t like that idea,” so I just used the sad reaction.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

Is an orc stronger because of biology, or because their culture promotes fighting and raiding? Are halflings weaker because they lead placid, pastoral lives? Do high elves have bigger brains or do their cultures promote education and study more than others?

You could lower small creatures lifting and dragging weights to represent the difference that size makes despite having the same score, reverse of the goliath (who was going to win the bench pressing competition regardless of strength score).

If you want your orc-Hercules to be stronger than human-Hercules, increase the cap for orcs to 22. Maybe different species have the capability to reach higher limits, rather than all starting higher at the beginning of their careers.

Is prefer to see the difference between races represented by the other special abilities. What would the difference be between orcs, mountain dwarves and goliaths if they are all +2 str/con? Orcs are ferociously tough, dwarves resistant to poison and goliaths resistant to weapon damage, much more interesting differences.