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

[TheSword]

Ah. No, I meant in general. You're asking about the average of one particular stat of one particular kind of character, which is a different question, and not what I saw you asking above.

For what I was talking about - if you are using a standard array, finding the average stat is, in fact, trivial. 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 - averages to 12. Typical ability score adjustment is +3, which means 0.5 per stat - average is 12.5.

The average stat generated by 4d6 drop lowest is, iirc, 12.24, for comparison.

For point-buy, you can do the same analysis across the unique stat combinations that the system can generate.

For what you want, you probably want to go and very politely request the folks at D&D Beyond to make the data available, because they have it.

Ah, good, I should have explained what I meant better in my original post. I was referring to the average of the choice made not the average of any given die roll or array.

I was questioning the validity of the phrases like ‘stronger than average’ where we can’t know what the average of non orcs let alone be bound to make our orcs stronger, because this is a function of Player choice not dice roll.

I will bet all the money in my pockets that the d&d beyond data would show orc characters will be stronger on average than non Orc PCs. Because of class choice and the benefit gained by the +2 strength, even on classes that don’t make use of it.

However the suggestion that any PC is bound to follow those choices is incorrect but the spirit of the question is should PC orcs tend to be stronger than PC humans and my answer to this is overwhelmingly yes.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There's a big - enormous - difference between the PCs being special among the population and the PCs (or NPCs) being impossible among the population.
...
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 one halfling has an 18 strength and all other halflings have no higher than 16, then 18 strength isn't impossible, merely very unusual. The very existence of the 18 strength halfling demonstrates that this can happen within the game world. Its inhabitants might have, wrongly as it turns out, believed that this was impossible.

Impossible according to the rules for NPC generation isn't the same thing as impossible within the game world. Unless the stats for every single halfling in the world have already been generated by the GM, then there's always room for the hitherto unknown.

 

[FireLance]

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.

I'm actually starting to think that having classes which need only one ability score is a mistake. If every ability score is equally useful for every class, then it wouldn't matter as much where your ability score bonus goes. For example, if Strength sets the DCs for your spells that target Constitution saves, Charisma sets the DCs for your spells that target Wisdom saves, Dexterity affects your ranged spell attack modifier, and Intelligence affects the number of spells you can prepare, an orc wizard, a tiefling wizard, an elf wizard and a gnome wizard would have the incentive to be more different from each other instead of having the same 16 Intelligence and identical spell lists.

Yes, it would make all the classes more MAD, but we would be all MAD together.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Which DMs are you talking about? Yourself? The DMs for games in which you participate? Or all DMs?

 

[Minigiant]

LeBron James is a normal person.

Lebron James is also taller, stronger, and faster than the average human. He has higher ability score.

They aren’t average, but “above average” and “freakishly above average” are completely different ideas. A level 1 PC is only truly exceptional by virtue of the fact that they will quickly reach level 3, which is close to the top of what any roughly normal person achieves in most D&D worlds, and will soon afte that su

I never stated how much a PC is different. I never mentioned how much above average. I just stated that PCs are unusual within their race.

------------

I think there are two things being put together that shouldn't be.

Being a Player Character and Being built wwith Player Character are two different things.

When my human fighter dies and the DM makes me roll a new character, I can roll up a human paladin.
That paladin will use PC generation rules.
But, that paladin did not spring out from the ground instantly.
He or she existed in the world.
While my fighter was alive, the paladin was an NPC
When I take control of the paladin, the paladin is a PC.
Those paladins are the same person and use PC generation.

There are NPCs that use NPC rules and NPCs who are potential PCs.

 

[CapnZapp]

You're after way too steep a power curve if you want just "a couple of levels" difference meaning the higher-level will always whoop the lower-level's ass.

A couple of levels should tilt the odds some sure, but by no means make the outcome guaranteed.

That's why I wrote:

As for exactly how many (or how few) levels, that touches upon the greater question of whether to use "bounded accuracy" or "adding level to proficiency", to use the terminology (and approach) of 5e and PF2 respectively.

Feel free to ask again if you don't know what this means.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3e is the only edition of D&D where PCs and NPCs are built in the same way. Even in 3e there are classes intended only for NPCs, such as the commoner and expert. It's impossible for NPCs to gain XPs the same way PCs do as a player can get a bonus for good roleplaying (DMG pgs 40-41).

In 1e ability scores are determined differently for PCs and NPCs (DMG pg 11). It is possible for an NPC to be a Sage (DMG pgs 31-33) but impossible for a PC. By the rules it is not possible to play a 0th level character as a PC*. PCs, having the capacity for level advancement, are extremely unusual individuals: "Human and half-orc characters suitable for level advancement are found at a ratio of 1 in 100. Other races have an incidence of 1 in 50." (DMG pg 35). 1e PCs start off as heroes in the sense that they have exceptional capabilities - higher ability scores and character classes.

EDIT: *The cavalier in Unearthed Arcana is an exception.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Good night anyhow, probably time for me to sleep also!

LOL, see you had posts hours later, guess you didn't make it?

I feel like the fairness angle is mostly just kinda misguided traditionalism, so I’m not gonna respond to that except to say I disagree because those +2s are an “in general” thing and shouldn’t be immutable. Especially not for PCs.

As far as this idea, it seems like it kind of epitomizes the idea that compromise ends with no one happy.

The race purists are gonna hate it because now you can make halflings as strong as orcs, and I think there’s no real reason it shouldn’t float into a +2 instead of a +1. Now, because odd numbers are meaningless in 5e except 13, it may actually solve most of my issues, except for the fact that I still think it should be up to the GM to decide that in their setting, the orcs are the smart ones, and all the high elves live in mud huts built with the mold earth cantrip they get from their racial cantrip. I think we have no reason to tie races to the most generic fantasyland imaginable just because 5e is the default game for generic fantasyland.

Ok, I thought about this a bit more and actually I see it working out well. I'll explain with the half-orc wizard example. This half-orc doesn't spend time doing much of the things other half-orcs do, such as mostly physical activities. As such, he spent more time developing his intellect. It was harder for him because it isn't typical of his people. So, he traded in his STR +2 for an INT +1.

So, the idea is while (maybe) biologically disposed to being stronger, the PC decided to instead work harder to develop something else.

The halfling, instead of playing dexterous games like throwing rocks, etc. spent his time climbing and working harder at more physical activities. He traded in his DEX +2 for a STR +1.

Now, I am a purist as you said, but I don't mind this trade-off because I know it represents a sacrifice by the PC to break away from the norm.

Finally, I totally agree that the DM decides for their setting. If that breaks away from tradition by having super smart orc, high CON elves, etc. I am perfectly fine with that of course! As long as such things are covered in session 0, no worries. But, 5E D&D has a standard design, and unless the DM decides to deviate from that design, I think it should represent the norm.

 

[Cadence]

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

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 in some games it's the characters are competing against the world (the DM) with no particular expectation of any of them becoming heroes (Call of Cthulhu & Paranoia ?).

In others I think the assumption is that the characters are actively on their way to most likely become heroes with the DM as facilitator of their legendary tale (13th age with the "Meaningful Death Rule" & Fate?).

In old D&D, didn't Gygax also talk about not making it too hard on them? I don't think the goals of presenting a setting and a story and leaving it to the players were meant to contradict the goal of them (hopefully) becoming heroes of the story. They all set off from the metaphorical Rivendell, we hope they'll all become heroes, and but some of them would probably (in 1e, 2e, and B/X anyway) fall along the way. Trying to think back to the 1980s, it feels like the difference was that for the first few levels your odds of dying in the world were vastly bigger than they are today, but once we made it past that I don't remember it being particularly more deadly than the games that came after. Given the increased effort it feels like players put into making their characters backgrounds in some cases, I'm not sure I mind them starting off today at what would have been 3rd level in the old days.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Math based on feelings does not equate to suppression. Nobody is forcing them to feel that way. I'm not saying that there's no argument to be made to change how the stat bonuses work. I'm saying that an argument of suppression is wrong. There is no suppression.