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

[Maxperson]

Suppression isn't necessarily intentional nor coercive.

You seem to be saying that since people still can choose sub-optimal combinations, it's not suppression. If that's your point, you are wrong. The data shows you are wrong.

Please stop playing silly word games.

And you please stop pretending that suboptimal is somehow bad or wrong, or even suppression. In 5e "optimal" isn't necessary and probably hinders enjoyment of the game by making it too easy.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If all you care about is pure optimization, then it necessarily follows that you will keep coming up with the same synergistic combinations to benefit your character from a DPR/ASI perspective.

I almost hate to use the word "strawman" because a certain poster uses it so often that it is becoming a cliché here, but...strawman.

Sure, if "all you care about is pure optimization" then we can follow that line of reasoning. But how many people really do?

The reality...the reality we are talking about...is that legions of players care about both optimization and character. They want a character that's strong mechanically and they want an interesting and colorful character.

How many times do we have to make this point? We'll never have perfectly balanced choices, but we can certainly offer choices that have less class bias than +2 to your primary stat, and the more successfully we accomplish that, the less pressure players will feel to make "optimal" choices.

 

[Maxperson]

More complete and total wrongness.

Rainfall suppresses the spread of wildfires. Where's the intentionality?

From the Cambridge dictionary

suppress
verb [ T ]
suppress verb [T] (END BY FORCE)

to end something by force:

Or...

to prevent something from being seen or expressed or from operating:

At no point is anyone forced to avoid playing Orc Wizards or prevented from playing an Orc Wizard and doing quite well at being a Wizard when doing so. It's completely voluntary. Suppression is the wrong word for it.

 

[Maxperson]

I almost hate to use the word "strawman" because a certain poster uses it so often that it is becoming a cliché here, but...strawman.

If certain people stopped twisting my arguments and then responding to their new creations...

 

[Guest 6801328]

And you please stop pretending that suboptimal is somehow bad or wrong, or even suppression. In 5e "optimal" isn't necessary and probably hinders enjoyment of the game by making it too easy.

Where am I saying suboptimal is bad or wrong? Here's what I'm saying, as succinctly and clearly as possible:

• Evidence strongly suggests that racial ASIs suppress race/class choices.
• My opinion is that this is poor game design.* Not morally wrong, just bad game design.

*I have also said many times that this is my opinion, and that the opposite opinion...that the game should encourage certain combinations...is totally valid, and that it surprises me that more people don't make this argument.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I don't know of any other tabletop game in which the fanbase is so embracing of the idea of player characters starting out on objectively unequal footing, and resistant to the idea of "hey, maybe people don't like their character concept being suboptimal right out of the gate, let's change that". Well, other than games that use completely random chargen and expect you to go through 10 different characters in the course of a campaign. But putting meatgrinder style OSRs aside, I can't think of any games other than D&D and D&D adjacent trad games where this is an issue.

Is this just a D&D thing?

 

[Guest 6801328]

From the Cambridge dictionary

suppress
verb [ T ]
suppress verb [T] (END BY FORCE)

to end something by force:

Or...

to prevent something from being seen or expressed or from operating:

At no point is anyone forced to avoid playing Orc Wizards or prevented from playing an Orc Wizard and doing quite well at being a Wizard when doing so. It's completely voluntary. Suppression is the wrong word for it.

So when somebody doesn't want to pay a poll tax because it's a lot of money for them, but they could if they really wanted to, that's not voter suppression?

 

[TwoSix]

If all you care about is pure optimization, then it necessarily follows that you will keep coming up with the same synergistic combinations to benefit your character from a DPR/ASI perspective. As such, you will always pick the same race/class combination (or within a limited amount) and the same backgrounds (or just choose the "custom" background), and the same feats, and so on.

Sure, but you're ignoring a pretty large middle portion of the spectrum, here. Very, very few people are pure optimizers. I have a strong powergaming/optimization streak, but I don't play a Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter Fighter or an Oath of Vengeance Paladin or a Hexblade Sorlock as my characters.

But I also don't play gnome bards, or half-orc wizards, or a bunch of other interesting concepts precisely because they're suboptimal. And I (personally) know a bunch of other players who make that same calculation, whether consciously or subconsciously. To me, playing a character with a starting 14 or 15 is as grating as driving with the parking brake on; every time I roll an attack or damage I notice that my bonus isn't what it could be, and it makes the game less fun.

So, speaking as someone who has personally made these calculations, I know for a fact that removing racial bonuses in favor of a racial ability would give me more options.

But let's be clear; this idea of the "true optimizer" who will always choose the strongest choice no matter what isn't a relevant consideration for D&D. Computer games, yes, but not D&D.

 

[Phoebasss]

But that's the thing (from my perspective).

If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, right? We all are familiar with that saying.

If all you care about is pure optimization, then it necessarily follows that you will keep coming up with the same synergistic combinations to benefit your character from a DPR/ASI perspective. As such, you will always pick the same race/class combination (or within a limited amount) and the same backgrounds (or just choose the "custom" background), and the same feats, and so on.

Just do the +2, +1 of your own choice and be done with it. There, you can have your half-orc wizard with relentless endurance.

But that won't STOP the problem, will it? That doesn't end it. Instead, the true optimizer will then have to squeak out whatever they can from what is left. What racial abilities best synergize with the class? For that matter, what racial feats do?

On the other hand, if you aren't as concerned about optimization (and 5e is very forgiving) you can enjoy the fact that you are playing against type. But you can't play against type- you can't be formally creative if there is no type to play against.

Personally, I don't care if Phoebasss has a table with the same bonuses for all races, but that wouldn't be my table. In my opinion, it would be the worst of both worlds, both less fun for the optimizers trying to gain every little bonus, and less fun for people playing into (and against) formal type and constraint. But I also recognize that I am not Phoebasss, and something appeals to them, in the same way that the flavor of rosewater appeals to some people (but not me).

The closer the choices are to each other in quality, the more interesting the choice. People are willing to take lots of small hits to play the combo of their choice. They have shown over and over that they won’t take not getting a 16. The data shows it. I personally know someone you would probably describe as a “true optimizer”, but if gnome were given the ability to chooses its racial +2, he would be playing a gnome at most tables. He has more fun roleplaying a gnome. He likes their other racial abilities and is happy to give up lots of minor powers for them, but he isn’t willing to give up +1 and lose an ASI or feat selection in future for it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If certain people stopped twisting my arguments and then responding to their new creations...

I dunno, let's look up "twisting" in the dictionary and see if requires intentional force. 'Cause maybe people just can't make sense of your arguments, as opposed to intentionally distorting them.