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

[Phoebasss]

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).

I mean, if we float them, they literally can build that way. If they want to give their half-orc +2 Str and +1 Con, more power to em. It just shouldn't be the only option. I do disagree with you on culture, but you know that.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's non-negotiable.

You say that like we aren’t here negotiating it right now.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Incorrect. You are welcome to play a sorcerer with the lakeside dweller culture, you just don't get to do it with that +2 charisma. Why is +2 charisma a requirement to play a sorcerer?

Maybe I as a gm made that choice deliberately for plot or other reasons such as having plans involving a charismatic korth dweller. Maybe I as a GM am tired of nakedly transparent minmaxing taking advantage of plot or setting related hooks that are ignored because the minmaxing combinations don't fit in any logical manner

 

[Charlaquin]

There's no such thing as a believable world that fundamentally operates on the fact that it's just fictional world (aside from silly gimmick settings, that no serious gamer would ever want to play in).

Keep on keepin’ those gates, Hodor! If no serious gamer would want to play games that are self-aware of their fictional nature, then I’m proud not to be a “serious gamer.”

 

[Maxperson]

The game explicitly says PC classes should be rare to nonexistent among npcs.

The DMG says...

You rarely need stats for NPCs. And PCs are the stars. It says when you give an NPC stats you have three choices, one of which is class and levels. It says that when you do that, you create them like PCs.

Unless it says it somewhere other than NPC creation, it does not say that they should be rare to non-existent among NPCs.

 

[Maxperson]

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 examples given are for ability checks. I've already looked at that several times. I'm not going to argue with you further about it. It's a fine house rule and very reasonable.

 

[Maxperson]

Shouldn't a stone wall be a situation where your mundane longsword cannot succeed?

Not according to RAW. According to common sense, yep. That's why I say it's a reasonable house rule to take away that ability.

How, in fiction, does me wacking at the concrete wall break it down?

Apparently the same way whacking at a Stone or Iron Golem does.

 

[Charlaquin]

The examples given are for ability checks. I've already looked at that several times. I'm not going to argue with you further about it. It's a fine house rule and very reasonable.

If you’re not going to provide a rule citation to back up your claim that it’s a house rule, you’re just yelling at clouds.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If you want to be a sorcerer from Fishertown, and the Charisma bonus is important to your concept, then just use a different culture and tell everyone you're from Fishertown. I see this as a corner case, and therefore something you house rule with your DM. Of course, others may feel differently. That's just where I stand.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you want to be a sorcerer from Fishertown, and the Charisma bonus is important to your concept, then just use a different culture and tell everyone you're from Fishertown. I see this as a corner case, and therefore something you house rule with your DM. Of course, others may feel differently. That's just where I stand.

Would you say the same about just using the stats of a Goliath and telling everyone you’re Halfling?