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

[Guest 6801328]

Virtually every game that has different species encourages certain combinations with class or career. Star Wars from Fantasy Flight is a good example for a reasonably popular game. Is this sort of thing still ok in science fiction, but no longer ok in fantasy?

I don't think it's a matter of "ok" or not, which sounds like a value judgment. It's more that the thinking about RPG design has evolved, and there's an increasing recognition that whatever the logic was for giving some race/class combinations more synergy than others, maybe it doesn't actually contribute anything to the games. Maybe it's just tradition for tradition's sake. Maybe it's enough for all those NPCs to reflect cultural tendencies, and there's no need to push the tiny handful of PCs in the same direction.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'll say that. I think the game should encourage some race/class combinations, and discourage others, in keeping with classic stories in the genre. I have no problem with a given table wanting to float ASIs instead if everyone agrees, and suggest a variant rule allowing exactly that.

Yay! Thank you!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Don't worry, I get the analogy. I've already watched the end of Evangelion, I know that limitations exist to provide meaning and context.


I get your desire to play against type, I often do so myself. I think my greater point is that type is already established, we have 40+ years of community shared tropes that establish those types. You don't need rules enforcement to know that a dwarf wizard or a halfling barbarian is unorthodox! We know that because that's an established baseline for fantasy game play.

I guess I don't see the need to keep establishing those types through a discrete ruleset.

If you like writing free verse, then:

1. You don't see the need to establish formal rules in poetry (such as the sonnet form); and

2. You don't get that frisson of playing with the form, since you're writing in free verse.

That you don't see the need, doesn't mean that others don't. Or, put another way, just because you don't find it interesting working within and against the rules (or poetry forms, or genre conventions, or what have you), doesn't mean that this is the same for every one.

I think that this thread is evidence of that. Preferences, by definition, are not universal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think it's the ideal solution, but I'd be fine with it. I'd prefer the more permissive wording that 5e backgrounds use for replacing skills and tools, though.

Yeah, that was extemporaneous. The wording would have to be massaged.

 

[Phoebasss]

That you don't see the need, doesn't mean that others don't. Or, put another way, just because you don't find it interesting working within and against the rules (or poetry forms, or genre conventions, or what have you), doesn't mean that this is the same for every one.

I think that this thread is evidence of that. Preferences, by definition, are not universal.

Can I ask, out of curiosity, what you find mechanically interesting about the choice between half-orc and high elf wizard? I just want to understand what it is that makes losing 5% efficiency at nearly everything you're supposed to do well in exchange for getting to tell your story a compelling decision?

 

[TwoSix]

If you like writing free verse, then:

1. You don't see the need to establish formal rules in poetry (such as the sonnet form); and

2. You don't get that frisson of playing with the form, since you're writing in free verse.

That you don't see the need, doesn't mean that others don't. Or, put another way, just because you don't find it interesting working within and against the rules (or poetry forms, or genre conventions, or what have you), doesn't mean that this is the same for every one.

I think that this thread is evidence of that. Preferences, by definition, are not universal.

I'm not sure why you would think I wouldn't be aware of that. Of course I'm aware that my preference isn't shared, and that other people prefer the diametrically opposed option. But it's still my preference. We aren't arguing about the validity of free verse or sonnets; we're arguing about the form that this particular book should take.

I'm aware that you see tons of validity in maintaining racial bonuses; but the values you see in it do nothing for me. And this is simply a case where one camp will get what they want, and the other will not.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm aware that you see tons of validity in maintaining racial bonuses; but the values you see in it do nothing for me. And this is simply a case where one camp will get what they want, and the other will not.

Well, in that case .... I will defer to Rawls Veil of Ignorance.

That is to say, you are viewing things through a clouded veil, and are ignorant, and therefore ... MY CAMP WINS! Ha. How you like dem apples?

Now, let's get rid of the bards.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think it's a matter of "ok" or not, which sounds like a value judgment. It's more that the thinking about RPG design has evolved, and there's an increasing recognition that whatever the logic was for giving some race/class combinations more synergy than others, maybe it doesn't actually contribute anything to the games. Maybe it's just tradition for tradition's sake. Maybe it's enough for all those NPCs to reflect cultural tendencies, and there's no need to push the tiny handful of PCs in the same direction.

I can definitely see parts of the community changing their thinking on this issue over time, but I don't like the word evolved, as it implies that a change is unequivocally positive. I don't agree that we need to remove suboptimal combinations from the game, but I can live with it in D&D if I must. I don't think it would work with stuff like Star Wars though, and I wouldn't want it to.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Can I ask, out of curiosity, what you find mechanically interesting about the choice between half-orc and high elf wizard? I just want to understand what it is that makes losing 5% efficiency at nearly everything you're supposed to do well in exchange for getting to tell your story a compelling decision?

1. Because of their ASIs, racial traits, and racial feats, it is unlikely that there are many half-orc wizards (either in the campaign setting or, for that matter, in general).

2. Trying to determine how to use Orcish Fury (feat), Relentless Endurance, Menacing, and Savage Attacks, along with the standard ASIs of the half-orc, in a wizard, is an interesting proposition to me.

(2) is far more interesting than the usual, "Ima pick a race with a +2 ASI for Int, rinse, repeat." These constraints force me to come up with interesting and creative solutions and ideas, as well as provide fodder for interesting RP characters.

Now, a person can say, the racial traits and feats are sufficient to force most players to not play a wizard. Why add the ASIs? Because I view it holistically. They are part and parcel of the differentiation of other races from humans (standard and variant).

I will add that unlike Twosix, I don't view this as warring camps that will only allow for one victor. I think it would be easy enough to make the default of having the ASIs tied to race, and a paragraph (like the variant human) that says, "By the way, you can untie ASIs from races and have a floating bonus of X."

Because I like people to be happy. Except people that play bards. They deserve no happiness.

 

[Minigiant]

I'll say that. I think the game should encourage some race/class combinations, and discourage others, in keeping with classic stories in the genre. I have no problem with a given table wanting to float ASIs instead if everyone agrees, and suggest a variant rule allowing exactly that.

I think this only works for game systems with single settings.

Since D&D is a game of multiple settings, encouragement and discouragement should not be on the base game level. That seems more like setting rules.