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

[Cadence]

If the statistical distribution of NPC stats does not conform to the rules presented for PC generation, then it creates a lot of problems. Invariably, it means that PCs don't play by the same rules as anyone else; and when the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, that basically amounts to codified meta-gaming (i.e. you succeed at the task because you're a PC; which rather cheapens any victory you might earn, when you know it's only because the rules are biased in your favor).

One of the few things I actually liked about 4e was that it got rid of needing to think about NPCs and PCs as needing to use the same rules, and harkened a bit back to 1e and 2e about only doing as much as was needed for NPCs. The opposite of that was my least favorite thing about 3.5/PF - why does a great Blacksmith necessarily get better at combat in terms of BAB and hp (as they do if you use the expert class)!?!

As far as ability scores in particular, the 1e DMGs words on it show there's a long history of the PCs and NPCs being different:

NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS

Non-Player Characters: You should, of course, set the ability scores of those NPCs you will use as parts of the milieu, particularly those of high level and power. Scores for high level NPCs must be high -- how else could these figures have risen so high? Determine the ability scores of other non-player characters as follows:

General Characters: roll 3d6 for each ability as usual, but use average scoring by considering any 1 as a 3 and any 6 as a 4.

Special Characters, Including Henchmen: Roll 3d6 as for general characters, but allow the full range (3-18) except in the ability or abilities which are germane to his or her profession, i.e. strength for fighters, etc. For all such abilities either use one of the deterministic methods used for player characters or add +1 to each die of the 3 rolled which scores under 6.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why is it a bad idea? Because your total modifier will be +1 less than a race more suited to a particular class? I'm not trying to be difficult, but does that single point of modifier really prevent you from playing a sub-optimal race/class combination?

Personally, I find them more enjoyable because they are different.

The beauty of a flexible solution is that you would still be free to play a (relatively speaking) low-Int orc wizard, but other people with other preferences wouldn't have that choice forced upon them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I cannot begin to explain how little interest I have in representing standard deviations of ability scores among elven farmers.

Perfectly said.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I want to see more of them at my table. And as a DM, I've seen more than enough of Half-Orc barbarians. I want to see a half-orc wizard make use of Savage Attacks on spells. And I know from experience that I see less of them at my table because they know they're getting screwed over by the rules, and no one likes it when the rules say "this is bad" for no good reason.

I understand the frustration so thanks for responding.

I would allow a Half-Orc caster to use Savage Attack on melee spell attacks maybe? I can just see a Half-Orc druid using the Primal Savagery cantrip and getting to add the Savage Attacks bonus to it!

Finally, I would try to stop thinking of it as the rules saying "this is bad" when it really isn't. It's normal. It just happens that another race might be better. shrug

Anyway, thanks again!

 

[Minigiant]

I've always been in the mindset that PCs are usually freaks of nature. Some PCs might be normal but that is their quirkiness averaging within itself. PCs are the "professional sports players" of the fantasy world.

In now way should PC statistics be used to extrapolate NPC statistic. They are not of the same blessing, bloodlines, or beliefs of the PCs unless the NPCs are canonically former or potential PCs. In those cases they are separate from the PC population.

 

[Cadence]

Edit: @dnd4vr beat me to it.

It seems silly to restrict PCs to the racial stereotype, especially if it makes playing an orc wizard or halfling barbarian a bad idea. It's more fun to play characters succeeding against the stereotypes of their race. I'm not interested in another high elf wizard or orc fighter. We've all seen hundreds of them. Sure, races have an average, but 5e is pretty explicitly heroic. The usual constraints of your race don't apply to heroes. And they shouldn't. Because its not fun.

Does a net +1 bonus change due to presence/absence of a +2 racial modifier on a single ability make that much difference? I mean, apparently it must given all the folks who say some race/class combinations are so sub-optimal as to be not worth pursuing if the bonus is missing.

But then I wonder how anyone managed to be happy rolling characters instead of using point-buy or a common array, where the differences were certainly larger than a single bonus. Or how folks manage to continue playing when only one of the party members has found a +1 weapon at that point. ::::

 

[DND_Reborn]

The beauty of a flexible solution is that you would still be free to play a (relatively speaking) low-Int orc wizard, but other people with other preferences wouldn't have that choice forced upon them.

It is never forced upon anyone, especially if the DM and table agree to change it. After all, you have a flexible solution: float the racial ASIs. A lot of groups house-rule it anyway...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Edit: @dnd4vr beat me to it.

Does a net +1 bonus change due to presence/absence of a +2 racial modifier on a single ability make that much difference? I mean, apparently it must given all the folks who say some race/class combinations are so sub-optimal as to be not worth pursuing if the bonus is missing.

But then I wonder how anyone managed to be happy rolling characters instead of using point-buy or a common array, where the differences were certainly larger than a single bonus. Or how folks manage to continue playing when only one of the party members has found a +1 weapon at that point. ::::

The +1 weapon is a great example. Think how excited players get when they get a +1 weapon.

Starting with a +2 bonus to your primary stat is kind of like starting with a +1 weapon that also affects your ability checks and saving throws. And it also stacks with everything else you get...including actual magic weapons...for most of the game.

So, um, yeah. We can argue about how much difference 5% actually makes, but the reality is that players really seem to like that +1.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Edit: @dnd4vr beat me to it.

AHA!

But then I wonder how anyone managed to be happy rolling characters instead of using point-buy or a common array, where the differences were certainly larger than a single bonus. Or how folks manage to continue playing when only one of the party members has found a +1 weapon at that point.

Excellent points. My understanding is many groups still want to roll for ability scores and you can easily get a PC with great stats and another with maybe one good score. Does the one with lower scores have to be less fun to play???

 

[Guest 6801328]

It is never forced upon anyone, especially if the DM and table agree to change it. After all, you have a flexible solution: float the racial ASIs. A lot of groups house-rule it anyway...

Oh! Well there's your solution right there! Get your table to agree to keep traditional racial ASIs. And while you're at it, agree to add it to the ability score maximums, too, which I know is something you like.

Problem solved.

I'm really glad we had this little talk.