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

[Guest 6801328]

Humans are the default race. The Standard array is the default stat array. A standard array with human +1s gives you one +3, which if you're paying attention to making a character, you will put in your main stat. +3 is therefore the expected value.

I have to admit I was wondering where you came up with the "expected value" thing. I mean, 99% of the characters I see (made by people intending to play them) have had at least one 16. But, still, "expected value"?

But, yeah, you're right. They didn't call it "Standard Array" for nothing.

 

[Maxperson]

Humans are the default race. The Standard array is the default stat array. A standard array with human +1s gives you one +3, which if you're paying attention to making a character, you will put in your main stat. +3 is therefore the expected value.

If you go with variant human, though, a 16 is not guaranteed. I've seen many more variant humans in my games than default humans. People like feats. Also, not everyone should be forced to put their highest stat in their main stat. If +2 is baseline, then a 14/15 and perhaps the 16 goes into con. A lot of people like hit points for survivability. Giving humans a +3 could also be a bonus for humans, since other races aren't guaranteed one.

It seems like you're assuming the +3, which is a reasonable assumption. I'm just not sure it's correct. 5e is easy enough that +2 could be the baseline and +3 just makes things a bit easier.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah and what I am trying to understand is why people are so attached to racial ASIs. Here's what I've seen so far:

1. Tradition.
2. They are necessary to maintain racial differentiation because without racial ASIs the various races are just "humans with masks" and non-ASI differentiators (Fey Ancestry, Halfling Luck, etc. etc. etc.) are insufficient to achieve differentiation.
3. That people who want to get rid of racial ASIs are just minmaxing, non-roleplaying scum and their opinions are invalid.
4. The suppression of funky archetypes (e.g. Dwarf bards and Halforc wizards) is a good thing.
5. At least one person, recently summarily tossed onto the virtual sidewalk outside of Enworld, seemed to think he was the lone defender of the last bridge in a real life culture war. Or something to that effect.

Any I missed?

I literally gave an example of how linking them to culture/background as seems likely allows the gm to leverage them to enhance the PC link to the world that included one culture for each attrib & someone flew off the handle about how they were prevented from playing a sorcerer from one of those cultures, not thinking much of it I gave some reasons why & someone else suggested a nonlocal culture +working out something with the gm but the protest about how unfair this is. There aren't many other conclusions to jump to in this case.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes. The opposite of number 4, really.

6. Without set racial bonuses, you can't go outside the box. Dwarf bards and Half-Orc wizards aren't bucking the trend, which is often fun to play.

Ok. I find that a really odd reason. But...sure. If you want some things to be unpopular so that when you choose that it will be an outlier, then a good way to do that is to design the game such that some combinations are mechanically suboptimal and unpopular.

(Another example where I wish I could look at your character history to see if you actually do this.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you go with variant human, though, a 16 is not guaranteed. I've seen many more variant humans in my games than default humans. People like feats. Also, not everyone should be forced to put their highest stat in their main stat. If +2 is baseline, then a 14/15 and perhaps the 16 goes into con. A lot of people like hit points for survivability.

It seems like you're assuming the +3, which is a reasonable assumption. I'm just not sure it's correct. 5e is easy enough that +2 could be the baseline and +3 just makes things a bit easier.

And, again, I wish I could see your character history.

 

[Phoebasss]

I gave a lot of reasons why the GM might have chosen lakedweller culture for +2cha & felt like I made it clear that I literally just made them up on the spot as fast as I could type. At what point in all of that were you somehow prevented you from saying "hey $gm you said these cultures are local but I really want to be from korth & want that +2 can we work something out" & Maybe the gm says "sure", maybe "no but after a bit of back & forth it sounds like you want korth because $reason, that reason fits $OtherCity great so that works for +2 cha"... maybe the gm says "sure if you take one of these backgrounds instead of that one"

The point is I shouldn't have to argue my way into having an interesting character who fits the setting in a slightly different way than you intended. The system should bias in favor of making interesting characters. Not in favor of stereotype characters.

I also quite literally can't recall any example of a reason you gave which I think should affect the player's choice of ASI.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I literally gave an example of how linking them to culture/background as seems likely allows the gm to leverage them to enhance the PC link to the world that included one culture for each attrib & someone flew off the handle about how they were prevented from playing a sorcerer from one of those cultures, not thinking much of it I gave some reasons why & someone else suggested a nonlocal culture +working out something with the gm but the protest about how unfair this is. There aren't many other conclusions to jump to in this case.

Ok but isn't this a subcategory of #2? Culture differentiation instead of racial differentiation, but same argument, right? Or am I missing something?

 

[Maxperson]

Ok. I find that a really odd reason. But...sure. If you want some things to be unpopular so that when you choose that it will be an outlier, then a good way to do that is to design the game such that some combinations are mechanically suboptimal and unpopular.

Any group that would shun a player for making that sort of decision isn't worth playing with. They're fairly crappy people. Especially in 5e where the game is so easy that it doesn't really matter anyway. People should be able to play the character they want, without others giving a rats behind about it.

(Another example where I wish I could look at your character history to see if you actually do this.)

I do it occasionally. In the last game I ran we had a Half-Orc multiclass Barbarian/Bard. Everyone at my table thought that was cool. No shunning involved.

 

[Phoebasss]

If you go with variant human, though, a 16 is not guaranteed. I've seen many more variant humans in my games than default humans. People like feats. Also, not everyone should be forced to put their highest stat in their main stat. If +2 is baseline, then a 14/15 and perhaps the 16 goes into con. A lot of people like hit points for survivability. Giving humans a +3 could also be a bonus for humans, since other races aren't guaranteed one.

It seems like you're assuming the +3, which is a reasonable assumption. I'm just not sure it's correct. 5e is easy enough that +2 could be the baseline and +3 just makes things a bit easier.

Let me put it this way. I haven't seen a non-MAD character in years without a 16+ at level one.

 

[Phoebasss]

I literally gave an example of how linking them to culture/background as seems likely allows the gm to leverage them to enhance the PC link to the world that included one culture for each attrib & someone flew off the handle about how they were prevented from playing a sorcerer from one of those cultures, not thinking much of it I gave some reasons why & someone else suggested a nonlocal culture +working out something with the gm but the protest about how unfair this is. There aren't many other conclusions to jump to in this case.

It doesn't give the GM any leverage. It just means that if your players want a better experience they're going to pick that culture regardless of anything else about it. As opposed to the thing we actually want, which is the players interacting in good faith with the world. I don't want players saying "x culture is more interesting, but I want to play a bard, so I either need to go argue with the GM to get the correct modifiers, or pick a culture I find less interesting and so am less likely to engage with."