D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[ART!]

We played a short-run game a while back where everything in chargen was randomized: ability scores, race, subrace, class, subclass, proficiencies, and background. It was...kind of a blast! It's a fun experiment that I highly recommend.

 

[Fenris-77]

My liking for randomization in character creation has a lot to do with what game we're talking about. For a short run game, or a game that promises to have a high PC body count, as in some OSR type games, I'm fine with randomization. In other games, especially ones that have a strong genre component, I normally prefer to move from concept to character, which randomization doesn't do well.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not if you choose race and class first and then roll. The orc could roll an 18 to put into Intelligence while the gnome might only roll a 12. This is true if you think about the orc wizard and the gnome wizard as two separate characters, which they are.

If you roll 18 intelligence, a gnome will be a better choice for a wizard than an orc, due to the +2 Int binging you up to 20. If you roll a 12 intelligence, a gnome will be a better choice for a wizard than an orc, due to the +2 Intelligence bringing you up to 14. In either case, the gnome is the better choice if you play a wizard.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread you initially. Yes, it is possible for an orc wizard to end up with a higher intelligence than a gnome wizard if you choose race and class first and then roll in order (for some reason). But, gonme would still always be a better choice than orc for a wizard in that case, because the racial +2 means you will have a better chance of getting a higher total Int score as a gnome.

 

[Charlaquin]

My liking for randomization in character creation has a lot to do with what game we're talking about. For a short run game, or a game that promises to have a high PC body count, as in some OSR type games, I'm fine with randomization. In other games, especially ones that have a strong genre component, I normally prefer to move from concept to character, which randomization doesn't do well.

Same

 

[Warpiglet-7]

We played a short-run game a while back where everything in chargen was randomized: ability scores, race, subrace, class, subclass, proficiencies, and background. It was...kind of a blast! It's a fun experiment that I highly recommend.

Would love to know what kind of combinations got generated!

 

[Fenris-77]

Would love to know what kind of combinations got generated!

It's Gnome Paladins all the way down.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How do magical items play into this? As I understand the game is built so PCs dont need to acquire them as they advance to defeat higher level threats.

If you give players access to a spread off +3 armors and weapons across their 20 levels of gameplay, they will slowly but steadily wreck everything they come across within an increasing level range. A relative difference of +3 to accuracy is like the difference between a level 5 character and a level 17 character.

Bounded Accuracy isn't the only factor, though. HP bloat and the proliferation of free healing mean that it takes dozens of hits before anyone falls in combat, and the disparity of accuracy is only overwhelming over the course of several rounds.

 

[Oofta]

It's Gnome Paladins all the way down.

* Head explodes realizing how AWESOME that would be! *

 

[Charlaquin]

How do magical items play into this? As I understand the game is built so PCs dont need to acquire them as they advance to defeat higher level threats.

If you use treasure hordes as-written or parcel out magic items according to the guidelines in Xanathar’s Guide, PCs will keep pace with the expected average 65% chance to hit creatures of appropriate CR (assuming they start with a +3 in their prime stat and increase at 4th and 8th). If you hand out more or fewer magic items than this expectation, PCs might get as high as an 80% chance to hit or as low as a 50% chance to hit on average (again, assuming opponents of appropriate CR for their level.) In other words, no, PCs don’t need magic items to remain effective, but they’ll have a bit harder time of things if they don’t get at least a few. By the same token, if they get tons of magic items they’ll have an easier time, but they will never get to the point that nothing threatens them. The game expects the DM to use their own best judgment and adjust challenges to match the PCs’ capabilities.

 

[Lanefan]

Depends on the system, but probably not. I find characters who have little to no bonuses terribly boring, because they usually fail at least as often as they succeed, and that gets really grating. I deal with enough failures in my everyday life. Doesn't mean I want to have an unmitigated stream of successes when I game, but it does mean I'd rather the ratio be better than IRL.

Where to me the frustration of failing at stuff - even occasionally to the point of having to abandon the adventure and find something else - is just part of the game.

And, as stated, "adventurers" aren't sampled from all people. They're sampled from a highly divergent group that differs from the normal distribution (hah, I'm punny) in several ways.

I suppose the question becomes one of how great a divergence from the norm one is willing to accept. In my case, I'll accept 'slight' but could live with 'none'.

Why should we expect career adventurers to have a distribution of characteristics that resembles the distribution of all people? That would be like presuming that all people who make a reasonable living as performers in the entertainment industry should have characteristic distributions that resemble all people from their nation of origin. (As one simple example, left-handed individuals are over-represented in interactive sports like tennis and baseball, but have about the same representation as the overall population for non-interactive sports like swimming or pole-vaulting.)

You're off on this one: many otherwise-right-handed people bat left in baseball or shoot left in hockey. (in hockey, finding players who shoot right for certain positions can be a challenge, as most shoot left)

Alright. Let's, again, take this hypothetical all-18s character. They attempt a task which they don't have proficiency (which...should still be most things). An Easy check is DC 10, they have +4 to the roll. That means 25% of the time (a roll of 5 or lower), they will fail to do that Easy thing. That's...hardly a negligible chance of failure. I dunno what things you would consider "easy" (as opposed to "very easy"), but if you had a one-in-four chance of genuinely failing to do something, would you be all that likely to presume you can just do it no sweat?

And very few actual characters have all 18s, certainly none generated by point-buy methods in 5e. Most such characters have at least one 8, meaning they would fail at so-called "Easy" tasks (that they aren't proficient in) 50% of the time, and fail at even "Very Easy" (DC 5) tasks 25% of the time. Since you aren't proficient with most skills (most chars only have 4, max amount at 1st level is 9 AFAICT), a non-negligible portion of rolls may apply there--and there are further cases where only the raw ability check will be asked for. This really shouldn't be uncommon, especially if you've discussed your character concept with your DM.

What you're pointing out here is IMO a failing of how 5e handles checks - too easy for an expert to fail and also too easy for a non-expert to succeed. I far prefer the 1e roll-under mechanic, in which an all-18's character would at worst have a 10% chance of blowing it, reduced by whatever outside bonuses they can apply. Pleasant side effect: odd-numbered stats have a purpose again.

No, it can't. Would you like to know how many groups I've been in that have played more than a single campaign together before breaking?

One. Ever. And I've been gaming since 2005. It really can't "always be saved for the next character," because that presumes there is a "next character."

Yes, I always presume that...but then, I've been in more or less the same group since I started. We also turn over characters fairly quickly, particularly at low level, as our games tend to be (by modern standards) hella lethal; so there's little point in getting married to a concept* as chances are strong that it won't make it to its third adventure anyway.

I never ever EVER assume that the character I start a campaign with will be the one I finish it with.

* - exception: concepts intentinally designed as one-hit wonders or shooting stars.

Why? Why should "you literally won't get to play anything like what actually excites you" be a red flag for the player's response to the journey not being guaranteed? I'm not asking for perfect success forever. (Anyone who presumes a desire for perfection from their opponents in a debate has ceded a point to those opponents.) I'm asking for having the opportunity to see a story with a particular beginning. I want that story to diverge from my expectations. I want that beginning to be only the vaguest hint of the places I'll go and the things I'll see. And I am far from alone in this desire. That's what most fans of point-buy want: the opportunity to begin with something they can actually enjoy watching evolve, as opposed to beginning with something that bores them or stymies them at every turn.

Point-buy (or worse, locked-in array) bores me as it means I'm starting with the same chassis every time, and that chassis by design can't have any extremes on it.

And, you're on about 'watching it evolve' again, where my expectation is that - unless my luck runs consistently hot - I'm far more likely to watch it die. My main hope is that I can somehow make that death entertaining and memorable.

All of which presume I get another chance, or can "re-concept on the fly" (I'm really really bad at that--appealing ideas stick to my brain). What if I don't get another chance? I've had numerous gaming groups that didn't stick together for one reason or another (usually Life Issues intervening so that there isn't enough game time anymore). What if my character dying means I'm probably now on another six-month-plus search for a new gaming group?

If your life situation has you bouncing from one town to another every year or two, I can't offer much by way of suggestion. But if you're living somewhere long-term, I suggest finding an equally-stable group and going in for the long haul. Start (or get someone else to start) an open-ended campaign (old-school works best for this) with a projected duration limited only by the lifespans of the people at the table, and see what buy-in there is. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Though...you do realize that such rules make it so that non-special people are specifically excluded, right? Like, that's literally what the rules are designed to reduce: characters who have no particular talents (no score above 14) and who aren't overall slightly better than average (low total modifier sum).

Yes - that's the 'slight' special-ness I was referring to above.

As referenced above: I'd really like an entertainment experience that isn't isomorphic to reality, particularly on the subject of success and the role luck plays in getting to do anything you actually like doing.

Here we differ hugely, as I see the game as very luck-based and prefer if the setting tries to simulate its own reality at the very least.

How do you square this with the pretty much explicit notion that in order to be a PC at all--having class levels and such--you do have to be special? The 5e Fighter practically shouts it: "Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters." That is straight-up saying that ordinary folk AREN'T Fighter material, that you HAVE to be special, at least a little bit, in order to qualify.

Though this general idea has been present since 1e or earlier, I've never bought in.

In my view, every member of the city watch, the militia, or the queen's army is a fighter-in-training (or, put another way, is already a 0th-level Fighter) and most have the potential to become a 1st-level Fighter and go on from there. The main thing that makes an adventurer (or veteran soldier, etc.) different is that said person followed up on that potential and made it real.

Perhaps, then, the problem is that you are forcing a dichotomy where there is actually a spectrum. It's not "completely and thoroughly not at all even slightly special" vs "THE MOST DELICATE AND UNIQUE AND SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE EVER CONCEIVED." You can have someone who is a little stand-out, slightly above the norm--and, much of the time, it is the combination of unusual circumstances and being (at least) slightly abnormal that leads to greatness.

When you leave the 'slightly's in there I can get behind this. It's when adventurers are automatically assumed to be hugely above the norm I get annoyed - see for example the tremendous degree of difference between a 1st-level character and a commoner in 4e.

People are throwing these terms around as though having stats below 8 guarantees failure. It doesn't. Or that having stats above 17 guarantee success. It doesn't. If you want to roleplay being a consistent failure or consistent success, you have to either willingly "throw" your opportunities or have the DM actively working to support you. There has never been an edition of D&D where this wasn't the case--even less so for the earliest editions, where only comparatively extreme stats had any merit at all.

You're forgetting the roll-under mechanic in early editions, which made stats rather important. If by extreme stats having 'merit' you mean they had bonuses/penalties attached, those aren't everything: being a 13 in something gave you significantly greater odds of success than someone with an 8 in the same stat, even though the modifier on each was +0.