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

[Guest 6801328]

"Make way for the Fellowship of the Statistically Probable!"

My fan fiction rewrite of Lord of the Rings was very short because the ringwraiths caught them on the road, about a mile from Hobbiton. I decided that was the most probable outcome.

 

[Maxperson]

It's alright, I play games with actual social mechanics, and a playable exploration system when I want those things. 5e doesn't have those, and that's fine. It's trying to be a particular type of game. Socializing is a very small part of 5e's mechanical weight, and that's fine.

I think 5e's social system is just fine. We have charisma and social skills, people to use them to interact with and a DM to narrate the results. That's all you really need to have meaningful social interaction. The social and exploration pillars don't need to be anywhere near as fleshed out as the combat pillar does.

I will say just generally in my games, most players try to leave interacting with the world in certain ways to the player that's best at it. That's how the concept of the party face happened in the first place. Is that a good thing? I dunno, but that's a bigger discussion that would involve reworking the 6-stat system entirely. As 5e is currently written and, largely, played, the Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock is going to be the one most often interacting mechanically with the social pillar.

I don't think it need a reworking of the stat system. The concept of the party face is highly unrealistic. Look at the group interactions you've had. How often in a group discussion do you choose the most charismatic person and have him speak for you? Not often I wager. Now how often to people without high charisma and/or great social skills open their mouths during an important time? Quite often.

The person being talked to is also going to want to interact with the group and not just the party face. The King is going to ask the Barbarian and Cleric questions and expect answers from them, not the Bard.

If the DM and group set things up so that you end up with a party face, it becomes a potential issue, depending on if you are okay with that sort of thing or not. If you guys don't set things up so that you end up with a party face that does all the talking, then everyone gets to interact and have fun during the social interaction, and without changing the 6 stat system. 5e does a great job of making things easy enough that even someone with a few +s or even no +s at all can still interact in the exploration and social pillars in a meaningful way.

 

[TwoSix]

My fan fiction rewrite of Lord of the Rings was very short because the ringwraiths caught them on the road, about a mile from Hobbiton. I decided that was the most probable outcome.

What rational adventurer would take 4 level 1 halfling commoners on a dangerous quest?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is just the absolutism about "minmaxers" again. The only thing that seems to consistently skew race choice among most players is the ASIs. I and many of my players would be happy with having different mechanical benefits based on race. But losing the ASIs just for roleplay reasons just isn't an option for many people. Say what you want about those reasons, but you'll see more diversity if you float the ASIs. And that's the long and short of it. I want to see more diversity in race/class combos at my tables.

Then I would suggest you remove the ASIs and grant more points and a higher max buy rather than floating them. That way you're still allowing people to start with a 16, but you're also rewarding people who go for more rounded characters rather than just maxing out their primary stat.

If you aren't interested in that as a goal, fine. But let's not have any pretensions that 5e is perfectly open to all race/class combos,

5e does not prevent any race/class combinations.
If you regard "perfectly open" as meaning all performing equally, then no it is not. But removing racial ASIs is not going to change that.
If you regard "perfectly open" as meaning all are viable and available to select, then it is.

and its all in my head. If it were all in my head my players wouldn't feel the same way.\

Its not just all in your head.
Wizards have been talked about a lot, but what races do people tend to select for Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerors?

EDIT: 5e forces you to pick either the story you want to tell, or a character with a 16. Whether you call that the baseline or not, that's the choice.

Those are not your only two choices.

I disagree with that; there is absolutely a difference in degree between a racial bonus and a racial feature. That's not to say that a racial feature can't be overly strong and cause distortion, but strong racial bonuses are inherently distorting.

Why do you think that people regard High Elves as the most common wizards?

Do people play non-changeling bards and sorcerors?

 

[Guest 6801328]

What rational adventurer would take 4 level 1 halfling commoners on a dangerous quest?

Notice that Gandalf stayed way the $%@^ out of town for that part. He's experienced enough to recognize an incoming TPK.

 

[Maxperson]

Couple of points:
Don't High Elves only get a +1 to Int? Same as Humans and Tielflings.
The reason that they are regarded as the better wizards is that they get an extra cantrip, keyed off Int. Not the stat bonus.

Hah! You are correct. That was the result of trying to post while also keeping my 6 year old on task during his first day of Zoom classes.

As for the extra cantrip, I'm currently playing a High Elf wizard for thematic reasons(playing a Bladesinger), and I could do without it. Most cantrips are just damage variations and you don't need a lot of those. I'd much rather have Relentless Endurance, Lucky or a bonus feat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you regard "perfectly open" as meaning all performing equally, then no it is not. But removing racial ASIs is not going to change that.

That's the absolutism red herring once again.

No, removing racial ASIs will not make all combinations equal. Nobody is claiming that. But it takes away the most overt, heavy-handed difference. It would allow for the one bit of optimization (a starting 16 in your primary stat) that the vast majority of players seem to want.

 

[Phoebasss]

Those are not your only two choices.

Explain how I’m going to get a half-orc wizard with a 16 at level 1.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think Elfcrusher said it best upthread, to paraphrase: "If there's only going to be one orc wizard in the world, I want it to be a PC."

Ugh. I hate that phrasing.

"On occasion one player or another will evidence a strong desire to operate as a monster, conceiving a playable character as a strong demon, a devil, a dragon, or one of the most powerful sort of undead creatures. This is done principally because the player sees the desired monster character as superior to his or her peers and likely to provide a dominant role for him or her in the campaign."

That's from the first DMG. I am always wary of that impulse.

You can't make your PC awesome by making your PC unique, or Drizzt, or a Gold Dragon; the best PCs are the ones that are played well- its the play that makes them special, not the creation. Anyone can craft a story of Fetch, the coolest ever orc wizard, and the only one in all of Oerth, who is just so awesome.

To which I would always reply, "Chad- stop trying to make Fetch happen."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But I want to see an Orc Wizard who puts high elf society to shame. Whose knowledge and magic powers are on par with the greatest elves. That's a better story to me than an Orc who became a mediocre wizard, but still definitely worse than an elf who tried to be a wizard. That's just not as interesting a story of defying expectations.

And I don't disagree with you on that. The thing is, if orcs don't start out at a relative penalty to their wizarding stat, then you can't possibly have a story about defying the expectation that orcs are bad wizards. If orcs are objectively just as good at wizardry as anyone else, then that expectation wouldn't exist.

Honestly, though, this is already a narrative that 5E is designed to encourage. That's why stat caps exist. Regardless of any disadvantage you start with, every wizard ends up with Intelligence 20 in the end.