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

[Phoebasss]

You know, it's not like one culture in the world is where the charisma bonus comes from. Multiple culture can provide similar bonuses, like two that provide the same +2, but different +1s. And of course the other stuff in the cultures would be different too. It's a little reductive to assume one culture per class.

Ok, then I can put it this way. Why are no sorcerers from Fishertown? And more importantly, why can't a PC be a sorcerer from Fishertown? Even if sorcerers from fishertown aren't the norm, the PCs shouldn't have to be the norm just because the stats are pigeonholing them into it. If culture is where our ASIs are coming from, it still has the same issues as putting ASIs on race mechanically speaking.

I just still don't see an upside to not floating the scores.

 

[Kinematics]

I gotta say, the arguments in defense of racial ASIs are so slippery and abstract that it feels to me like it's more of a knee-jerk reaction to change (in some cases motivated by a suspicion that it's a change driven by political correctness) than anything well-reasoned.

I would put it as a knee-jerk reaction to your arguments. I don't even care about racial ASIs, but when reading your arguments, I want to defend them just out of spite.

You come off as the equivalent of a philosophy major who is dancing around trying to convince everyone that the world is all an illusion in their own minds, and nothing is real. And because philosophy being what it is, it's entirely possible to make such arguments. However it's pointless sophistry to someone who just wants to sit down and deal with reality.

If the argument was just, "I think we should drop racial ASIs and replace them with more useful, differentiating traits", I'd be like, sure, fine, sounds great. What ideas do you have? But if all you're doing is promoting arguments about the philosophy of the existence of racial ASIs, it just sounds like you're full of ****.

 

[aco175]

Does anyone roll stats for NPC (point buy, standard array, etc..). I cannot remember the last time I did. I just give them what I want to make them what I want since they are NPCs and not PCs.

 

[TheSword]

If you are using point buy, or a standard array, the above is incorrect.

Can I ask how is it incorrect. What is the average Strength stat for a PC Orc Ranger under the points buy or standard array for instance?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would like a system that allows my veteran players to make characters the way they've always made them if they want (ASIs and all), while also providing options that allow you to build with more flexibility. I also believe that the culture one was raised in should effect your base stats. That's why I support splitting ancestry and culture, a la the Drivethru supplement of the same name (which still seems to be pretty popular out there). The more this talk goes on, the louder become the "get rid of ASIs" voices. I hope it doesn't break that way. I feel it would be jarring to a lot of gamers that don't frequent this site (and several who do).

 

[Maxperson]

It seems like you're kinda just saying that RAW literally doesn't cover a situation where an attack cannot succeed. Which seems like a failure on the part of RAW more than anything else.

Or they just roll and miss. In any case, a wall is not a situation where the attack cannot succeed, unless the DM house rules it to be an auto failure situation.

 

[Campbell]

I think overgeneralizing based on rules designed with a limited scope in mind often results in an absurd setting. These are abstractions that are useful to play a game. Representations, Not Reality.

 

[Maxperson]

In addition to RAW and RAI I’m going to propose a 3rd category: RAIIBM. “Rules As Imaginatively Interpreted By Max”

I'll be sure to let you know if I ever do that.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are misapplying that section. That section on narration does not include in it the ability to just say no.

Look again.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

So, in cases where resolving a task is not easy, the DM decides what happens. Often (but not always) the DM will rely on the roll of a die to determine the results. It is entirely within the DM’s power to decide what happens without relying on the roll of a die. If the DM determines that a roll is necessary, the rules provide instruction as to how to resolve that roll.

The DMG provides examples of different approaches as to when to call for a die roll: “roll with it” where the DM always relies on a roll, “ignoring the dice” where the DM relies on a roll as rarely as possible, and “the middle path” where the DM balances between the two former approaches. Nothing in this section indicates that it refers only to when to call for skill checks. It is a discussion of when to use dice, not when to call for ability checks.

Again, if you want to refute me, cite me a source.

 

[Phoebasss]

Or they just roll and miss. In any case, a wall is not a situation where the attack cannot succeed, unless the DM house rules it to be an auto failure situation.

Shouldn't a stone wall be a situation where your mundane longsword cannot succeed? How, in fiction, does me wacking at the concrete wall break it down?