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

[DND_Reborn]

"Ah, but if those NPCs didn't have their stats generated by the same rules as the PCs, this game is broken."

LOL I certainly wouldn't say THAT! If the others are going that far, I suppose that is why I said I only lean that direction?

Though in fairness I don't remember what this post is in reference to as far as mechanics.

Yeah, I agree. At this point (20 pages into the thread) I forgot half of what I've said or other people are even talking about any more.

To try to pull it back to the OP. I already mentioned I voted the second option because of that "fairness" or link or whatever between PCs and NPCs that I believe should be consistent. If a general race is faster, stronger, taller, smarter, or whatever than another, I feel the PCs should be as well.

Here's an interesting twist I don't think has been offered yet:

What if you had a racial ASI +2 for a set ability, and a +1 floater. Now, let's say you can give up the set +2 ASI to get another +1 floater. The general "rule" is being followed: the set +2 for the general race is better. But, you now have the option, as a PC, to give up that set bonus to focus maybe in something better for your class.

Want to play a half-orc wizard? Float your +1 into INT and give up your STR +2 to float another +1 into INT. Now, you are just as good in spells as the Gnome who gets the set INT +2.

Anyone think that is a good idea??? (P.S. I'll check in the morning... I am going to bed already! )

 

[Phoebasss]

Here's an interesting twist I don't think has been offered yet:

What if you had a racial ASI +2 for a set ability, and a +1 floater. Now, let's say you can give up the set +2 ASI to get another +1 floater. The general "rule" is being followed: the set +2 for the general race is better. But, you now have the option, as a PC, to give up that set bonus to focus maybe in something better for your class.

Want to play a half-orc wizard? Float your +1 into INT and give up your STR +2 to float another +1 into INT. Now, you are just as good in spells as the Gnome who gets the set INT +2.

Anyone think that is a good idea??? (P.S. I'll check in the morning... I am going to bed already! )

I feel like the fairness angle is mostly just kinda misguided traditionalism, so I’m not gonna respond to that except to say I disagree because those +2s are an “in general” thing and shouldn’t be immutable. Especially not for PCs.

As far as this idea, it seems like it kind of epitomizes the idea that compromise ends with no one happy.

The race purists are gonna hate it because now you can make halflings as strong as orcs, and I think there’s no real reason it shouldn’t float into a +2 instead of a +1. Now, because odd numbers are meaningless in 5e except 13, it may actually solve most of my issues, except for the fact that I still think it should be up to the GM to decide that in their setting, the orcs are the smart ones, and all the high elves live in mud huts built with the mold earth cantrip they get from their racial cantrip. I think we have no reason to tie races to the most generic fantasyland imaginable just because 5e is the default game for generic fantasyland.

Good night anyhow, probably time for me to sleep also!

 

[Guest 6801328]

I’ll be the odd one out and say it doesn’t matter to me if NPCs follow the same rules as PCs. Most NPCs don’t even need ability scores at all, let alone needing to be generated the same way as PC ability scores.

Oh but that's different!

You're right, they don't need ability scores.

But if they get into a fight with PCs, and the DM doesn't rule that they simply win (gods) or lose (puppies), then they'll need AC and HP and attack modifiers, etc. And at that point I expect them to follow the same rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh but that's different!

You're right, they don't need ability scores.

But if they get into a fight with PCs, and the DM doesn't rule that they simply win (gods) or lose (puppies), then they'll need AC and HP and attack modifiers, etc. And at that point I expect them to follow the same rules.

Sure. They follow the same rules for action resolution... except when they don’t (multiattack, legendary actions, lair actions, etc.) They’re playing the same game, but it’s an asymmetrical game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the concept of symmetrical game design vs. asymmetrical game design is at the core of what we’re discussing here. The old-school approach treats NPCs as CPU players (where the DM acts as the computer) in a symmetrical game. The modern approach treats NPCs as game pieces controlled by the DM in an asymmetrical game.

Ironic, considering how player vs. DM mentality is generally seen as a hallmark of old-school play. But it makes sense if you assume, as is often the case in asymmetrical games, that the player in the role of DM has a different goal than the players in the roles of PCs do. In old-school play, the PCs and the NPCs are both playing with the same goal of defeating the other team. In modern play, the PCs play with the goal of defeating the DM’s units, while the DM uses their units to play with the goal of making the PCs heroes.

 

[Maxperson]

So, again, I just don't see PCs as better than normal people in 5E. They typically, however, represent some of the "exceptional" of normal people, if you get my meaning.

That's how they are in my game as well. PCs use 4d6-L, or my variation on it anyway. For the rest of the world, they use 3d6 straight up. That way the PCs can be the exceptional people as their stats will usually be significantly higher than the rest of their race, but still within the racial range.

 

[Charlaquin]

So far, everyone who had said “the PCs aren’t special” has described a way of generating ability scores for PCs that has a higher average than their method for ability scores for NPCs. So, I think we have a pretty definitive answer to the question: no, the PCs are not bound to average population statistics. We’re just bickering over how much deviation between the average for PCs and the average for NPCs is acceptable.

 

[Maxperson]

So far, everyone who had said “the PCs aren’t special” has described a way of generating ability scores for PCs that has a higher average than their method for ability scores for NPCs. So, I think we have a pretty definitive answer to the question: no, the PCs are not bound to average population statistics. We’re just bickering over how much deviation between the average for PCs and the average for NPCs is acceptable.

I haven't been keeping track. Who has said that the PCs aren't special?

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't been keeping track. Who has said that the PCs aren't special?

Maybe not in those exact words, but you just agreed with dnd4ver basically saying it, Lanefan and Saelorn have said something to that effect as well.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe not in those exact words, but you just agreed with dnd4ver basically saying it, Lanefan and Saelorn have said something to that effect as well.

Nope! Not even close. Saying that the PCs are exceptional members of their race, but still within the racial norms and with the same racial stat bonuses is not saying that they aren't special.

I didn't pay much attention to Saelorn's posts, but Lanefan and Dnd4vr certainly didn't say that they weren't special.