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

[Maxperson]

Or they would, if WOTC had actually done that when writing supplemental material. Which they didn’t, at least not for halfling luck, which has been given to none of the 3 generic halfling enemies. This indicates there are exceptions to the idea that all members of a race get all of the racials.

If future(to the PHB) materials have gotten it wrong, then mistakes were made by WotC or else they are being inconsistent, a hallmark of WotC. Regardless, RAW is that all NPCs have these abilities as set forth in the PHB. You can point to specific mistakes/inconsistencies until you are blue in the face. That won't change RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

Can we not express that in a way that doesn’t suppress build diversity?

You keep saying that, and yet no builds have been suppressed. Voluntarily refusing to build perfectly viable characters just because there is no stat bonus to the main stat is on you, not the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think I'm being converted to getting rid of ASIs for making PCs. I'm wondering if something giving a usual range of scores for each race, or something saying a given race is known for a certain stat would do what I want. (eg. Halflings are typically physically much weaker than the larger races but often show surprising quickness and unsuspected reserves of willpower).

NPC stat blocks, perhaps? If a human commoner has 10s across the board, a halfling commoner could have 8 strength, 12 Dex, and 11 Constitution or Charisma (or whatever stat adjustments you prefer, point is, those adjustments should apply to NPCs, which are typical examples of their race, whereas PCs are exceptional examples).

 

[Phoebasss]

You keep saying that, and yet no builds have been suppressed. Voluntarily refusing to build perfectly viable characters just because there is no stat bonus to the main stat is on you, not the game.

The math on how often certain race/class combos are picked disagrees with you there. And the distribution says the largest factor in deciding on a race is that tempting +2 mod. So by removing it, we open up new possibilities to players who are unwilling to be worse at everything they want to do in order to be interesting. Your position seems to be that those people are invalid or minmaxing or whatever, but does that really matter? If it makes them happier and means I get to see them playing the character they actually wanted to play, thats better for everyone.

 

[Charlaquin]

If future(to the PHB) materials have gotten it wrong, then mistakes were made by WotC or else they are being inconsistent, a hallmark of WotC. Regardless, RAW is that all NPCs have these abilities as set forth in the PHB. You can point to specific mistakes/inconsistencies until you are blue in the face. That won't change RAW.

You claim a lot of things are RAW without ever citing your sources. Where exactly does it say that all abilities listed for a PC race are also applied to the stat blocks of NPCs of that race?

Spoilers: it doesn’t say that anywhere, and there are countless examples of NPC stat blocks that do not have all of the features their race grants to a PC.

 

[Lanefan]

So, here's a question. Do you play 5E? Because NPCs don't follow PC rules in 5E (or in any version of the game since 3.5 in 2003, 17 years ago). And this subforum is about a version of 5E. I'm just curious where you're coming from here. It sounds like you want an entirely different game, but 5E or a variation isn't going to be that game. I mean, if you think we're remaking 3E in this forum, we're not - I'm sorry!

I realize you're remaking 5e and am simply giving some input (here and elsewhere) as to directions I think it should go, given that the 5e chassis seems to be more than flexible enough to handle such.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This sums it up quite well, actually.

The last sentence, while very likely accurate these days, makes me kinda sad. It's not (and shouldn't be) either the DM's job or goal to make the PCs into heroes, it's the players' job. The DM's job is to neutrally provide a setting and some halfway-fair obstacles and then play those obstacles hard, with the goal being to provide an engaging and exciting game.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

There's a big - enormous - difference between the PCs being special among the population and the PCs (or NPCs) being impossible among the population.

As I've said upthread, I don't mind special as long as that specialness is possible. You just rolled 6 18's - cool! There's probably about 4 other people in the whole game world like you, but what you just did is mathematically possible for PC and NPC alike: within that setting such a person can exist.

Contrast this with the notion that NPC members of a given species can only go to 16 in a stat (let's say, Hobbit strength) yet PC members of the same race can start with 18 (no racial penalties and I just rolled 6 18s). If it's not possible for an NPC then - barring oddball stuff e.g. the PCs are aliens from another world - it shouldn't be possible for a PC either. This is where it breaks for me.

Same goes the other way: if an NPC can do it, all other things being equal a PC ought to be able to do it. For example, if the BBEG Human Wizard in her tower gets a Lair Action while there then I-as-Human-PC-Wizard of the same level should be able to get a Lair Action when I'm on my home turf...right? If yes, good. If no, then Lair Actions either have to be added to PCs or taken away from NPCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Was the symmetry in PC-NPC a big 3/3.5/PF thing? IIrc, both 1e and 2e only have the DM do as little as needed for the NPCs, 1e had different ability score recommendations, and both had 0-level humans.

0-level characters should ideally be a thing in all versions of the game.

Is there anything in the 1e, 2e, B/X rules that sets it up as a competition between the PCs and NPCs (or DM and players) in a way that's different than what 5e has? Moldvay notes that "The DM is there to see that the adventure is interesting and that everyone enjoys the game. D&D is not a contest between the DM and the players!" And I think there are admonitions in 1e about not making things too difficult for the players.

Gygax also goes to significant trouble to tell the DM not to go too easy on the characters (and thus by extension the players).

It feels to me like the goal was always to get players to get characters to become the big heroes. (Either that or the amount of focus on getting followers and land and castles seems a bit misplaced in the books).

I'm not quite so sure - I always got the sense from 1e that the DM's goal was to present a setting and maybe a story and then leave it to the players, as their characters, to make what they could of it.

I think it is true that not nearly as many PCs made it from 1st to high levels back then.

Worth noting that the definition of "high level" has changed over time. 9th level might not sound like much in a 3e-4e-5e context but it was pretty damn high in 1e.

But. is someone really a hero if they're never endangered by what they're trying? Is a group of people actually endangered by what they're trying if almost none of them ever die?

Exactly!

How would a group of 3rd level 1e characters fare against 1st level 5e characters?.

Interesting question at the last, here. Might be worth running sometime, using as similar of party makeups for each group as possible.

I know for sure that 3rd-level 1e characters would have their donkeys kicked all round the room by an equivalent party of 1st-level 4e characters if only because the 4e lot would all have, by 1e standards, stupendous numbers of hit points for their level. 5e dialled that back a bit but I'm not sure how far.

 

[Lanefan]

I think I'm being converted to getting rid of ASIs for making PCs. I'm wondering if something giving a usual range of scores for each race, or something saying a given race is known for a certain stat would do what I want. (eg. Halflings are typically physically much weaker than the larger races but often show surprising quickness and unsuspected reserves of willpower).

It's a bit more complicated until you get used to doing it, but what we did was put each stat for each race on its own bell curve and then when you're rolling up a non-Human you use a table to convert each stat to the same relative place on that race's bell curve.

So, for example, while Humans have a 3-18 range in everything Hobbit strength only goes from 3-16. So, if you roll a 7 in strength it stays a 7, if you roll an 11 it becomes a 10, and if you roll a 16 it becomes 14.

Another example: Elf Dexterity goes from 6-18. So, roll a 3 and it becomes a 6. Roll an 8 and it'll jump to 10. A rolled 13 goes to 14 but a rolled 17 stays at 17.

If the bell curve for a particular stat happens to be 3-18 (e.g. Hobbit charisma) then whatever you roll stays as it is.