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

[TwoSix]

Except it's pretty obvious that we disagree on the meaning, and you know what meaning we mean. All you are doing is preventing the discussion from addressing the actual points being made. It's childish.

If you really, really, really want me to copy and paste the definitions I looked up when this started, so that we can all agree that it's easy to find such things in support of our own positions, so that we can get past this distraction and move on, then I will do that. For you. Because I care.

Really.

For the record, I don't care. I'm not going to be sucked into quibbling over word choice. If no one can post an affirmative opinion for why the game mechanically preferencing some tropes over others is a good thing, I'm going to walk away knowing I won the argument.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If I were to put my point more formally, I might say that the game doesn't want me to play a non-optimal combination either.

I would have to disagree. The game doesn't care whether you have an Int score 1 higher and an extra cantrip, or higher Con and armour proficiency, or an int score 2 higher and advantage on mental saves. Choosing your race is a judgement that you are making based on your own values. These values can be anything from an interesting character concept that you would like to try out, to mathematical minmaxing.

 

[Phoebasss]

I would have to disagree. The game doesn't care whether you have an Int score 1 higher and an extra cantrip, or higher Con and armour proficiency, or an int score 2 higher and advantage on mental saves. Choosing your race is a judgement that you are making based on your own values. These values can be anything from an interesting character concept that you would like to try out, to mathematical minmaxing.

Most people, myself included, are between those two. We want to play interesting characters with unique concepts that are well integrated into their setting and have their own goals and motivations. We also want a character who performs on par with others of their class from level 1, and like it or not, the bar is 16. If the game required sacrifices from everyone who wanted a 16, it might not be a 16, but as is, it's a 16.

 

[Maxperson]

I have a hard time believing that you're engaging with this in good faith. Your definition of encouragement is so far off the beaten path that it could be applied to all sorts of absurd things. When you say the game encourages half-orc wizards, you mean it doesn't discourage them that much. When I say it suppresses alternative builds, you say it doesn't, but you mean it doesn't that much. 5e, by no definition in any dictionary, encourages non-optimal race/class combos. It just doesn't discourage them as much as you think it should.

I am engaging in good faith. I firmly believe that the game encourages the play of things like Orc Wizards via the softened game math. I don't argue for things that I don't believe, though I sometimes argue things that I don't do personally in my game. An example would be a discussion about what RAW is for something. I will argue what I believe RAW is, even though in my personal game I might not agree with that RAW and have house ruled it.

On this topic, as I said above, I do believe the game is encouraging. There are different types of encouragement and while the game encourages the play of Orc Wizards and such, it doesn't do so actively. It probably would have been better if they had put in the paragraph something like the following, "We designed this game so that it works very well with class/race combinations where the primary stat of the class does not receive a bonus from the race. Don't feel like you have to pick a race that raises the primary stat of the class you want to play. You will still do very well and enjoy the game no matter what race/class combination you choose."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, but you're ignoring a pretty large middle portion of the spectrum, here. Very, very few people are pure optimizers. I have a strong powergaming/optimization streak, but I don't play a Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter Fighter or an Oath of Vengeance Paladin or a Hexblade Sorlock as my characters.

But I also don't play gnome bards, or half-orc wizards, or a bunch of other interesting concepts precisely because they're suboptimal. And I (personally) know a bunch of other players who make that same calculation, whether consciously or subconsciously. To me, playing a character with a starting 14 or 15 is as grating as driving with the parking brake on; every time I roll an attack or damage I notice that my bonus isn't what it could be, and it makes the game less fun.

So, speaking as someone who has personally made these calculations, I know for a fact that removing racial bonuses in favor of a racial ability would give me more options.

So my last comment on this topic, since we seem to be talking past each other.

First, the analogy.

If you like writing in free verse, then of course you would say that it gives you more options to play with. For example, you can use "orange" a lot more than someone writing rhyming stanzas.

On the other hand, if you prefer a more formal structure, then you are necessarily giving up some options, in order to enjoy the creative advantages of that formal structure. If I am writing a Crybin Petrarchan Sonnet, then I am necessarily going to limit myself, but I am doing so in a formal way because it provides me other options for creativity. In addition, I can also play against type (for example, Dante used a three rhyme technique) but I can only do so if that type is already established!


As I keep writing, it is perfectly fine to view this as mere underpinnings to allow you more options- a "MadLibs" style mix-n-match of race, class, background to get the traits you want for your character, without having to worry about any formal constraints. It's all about options! High-strength gnome barbarians with a scholar background, and high-intelligence bugbear wizard with a gladiator background .... it's all good. Whatever works at your table.

But that same pain that you feel- that's the joy that I feel when I get a character concept that is against type, but also works perfectly for me. As I keep writing -- all of those character concepts that I dream of to play against type don't work if the type isn't established and formalized.

It's just a philosophical difference, which is okay! Different people can enjoy different things.

 

[Guest 6801328]

For the record, I don't care. I'm not going to be sucked into quibbling over word choice. If no one can post an affirmative opinion for why the game mechanically preferencing some tropes over others is a good thing, I'm going to walk away knowing I won the argument.

I have a hard time believing that you're engaging with this in good faith. Your definition of encouragement is so far off the beaten path that it could be applied to all sorts of absurd things. When you say the game encourages half-orc wizards, you mean it doesn't discourage them that much. When I say it suppresses alternative builds, you say it doesn't, but you mean it doesn't that much. 5e, by no definition in any dictionary, encourages non-optimal race/class combos. It just doesn't discourage them as much as you think it should.

Yeah, I think I'm done with that childish nonsense. I'm just getting sucked into the mud pit. I find it hard to not keep replying, hoping reason will prevail, but I'm really just killing neurons.

Good-bye, Max.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh, that is an ironic turn of phrase.

Heh. Yeah. I typed that fast. Semantics involves words that mean essentially the same thing being argued over. "It's six! No, it's a half dozen! No, it's the number after 5!" In this case suppression has a very different meaning than encouragement or even discouragement. That's what I meant when I said words have meaning.

 

[Maxperson]

Most people, myself included, are between those two. We want to play interesting characters with unique concepts that are well integrated into their setting and have their own goals and motivations. We also want a character who performs on par with others of their class from level 1, and like it or not, the bar is 16. If the game required sacrifices from everyone who wanted a 16, it might not be a 16, but as is, it's a 16.

The bar is 14, not 16. That most people opt to play a 16 just means that they are choosing to play above the bar. The bar doesn't rise because of their choice.

 

[Phoebasss]

On this topic, as I said above, I do believe the game is encouraging. There are different types of encourage and while the game encourages the play or Orc Wizards and such, it doesn't do so actively. It probably would have been better if they had put in the paragraph something like the following, "We designed this game so that it works very well with class/race combinations where the primary stat of the class does not receive a bonus from the race. Don't feel like you have to pick a race that raises the primary stat of the class you want to play. You will still do very well and enjoy the game no matter what race/class combination you choose."

Even if the game said that, the math doesn't add up. The game, in practice, as played by real living humans, shows a marked difference in play rate between combos that can get a 16, and those that can't. It's up to the game to change what its telling its players through mechanics.

Let me use an analogy.
If I have two kids, one is a footballer and the other is a chess player.
At the end of each week I give the football kid a chocolate bar.
When the chess player asks why he didn't get a chocolate bar, I tell him chocolate bars are for football players.
Am I encouraging the chess player to continue playing chess? Or am I encouraging them to play football?

To make sure you understand, ASIs are the chocolate bar, footballers are race/class combos that get a 16, and chess players are race/class combos that don't.

 

[Haldrik]

Heh. Yeah. I typed that fast. Semantics involves words that mean essentially the same thing being argued over. "It's six! No, it's a half dozen! No, it's the number after 5!" In this case suppression has a very different meaning than encouragement or even discouragement. That's what I meant when I said words have meaning.

Heh, to the dispute over the word "encourage", I might characterize 5e as being more "forgiving" of bad subpar choices, rather than "encouraging" them.

Probably it is because 5e made an effort to remove aspects of previous editions that were too powerful, broken.

So the contrast is more likely to be between a bad choice versus a reasonable choice − rather than a bad choice and an incredibly good choice.