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

[Phoebasss]

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.

Wherever you believe the bar is, the game provides a bonus for picking "preferred" race/class combos.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

First, I totally agree that this is all a matter of philosophical and aesthetic preference. As I keep saying, it comes down to whether you think it's desirable for Orc wizards to be rare, or undesirable. Arguing about whether it's really true they are rare is just a waste of time.

I will, however, quibble with your analogy. Not to be argumentative (although I won't deny I love a good argument) but for illustrative purposes.

Earlier somebody said that games are all about playing within constraints. And I agree! It's good that you have to choose between casting mighty spells and attacking multiple times in a round. It's good that you can't make all your scores 20. It's good that you can't have Halfling Luck, Relenteless Edurance, and Fey Ancestry, all at the same time. All those decisions are trade-offs between mechanical advantages.

But the "constraints" (whether voluntary or otherwise) on race/class combinations are not like that. The trade-off they introduce isn't between two different powers; it's between powers and story. You CAN get "both" powers (meaning, the class abilities plus the ASI that improve them) you just have to choose race X.

So, yes, I totally agree that an important part of games is forcing players to make trade-offs. Otherwise there's no point in playing games. But not all trade-offs are of the same type.

So going back to the first point, the aesthetic difference in opinion seems to be not whether trade-offs and constraints are good...we all agree they are...but whether the particular trade-off we are talking about is one of the good ones.

 

[TwoSix]

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!

Don't worry, I get the analogy. I've already watched the end of Evangelion, I know that limitations exist to provide meaning and context.

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.

I get your desire to play against type, I often do so myself. I think my greater point is that type is already established, we have 40+ years of community shared tropes that establish those types. You don't need rules enforcement to know that a dwarf wizard or a halfling barbarian is unorthodox! We know that because that's an established baseline for fantasy game play.

I guess I don't see the need to keep establishing those types through a discrete ruleset.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

You choosing to value the better Int bonus over the free medium armour proficiency is your value judgement. Your belief that you require a 16 (in one of your primary stats presumably) to perform "on par" is also your judgement.
The sacrifice for wanting a 16 isn't just the opportunity cost of playing a race with different capabilities, it is also being worse at the other ability scores that you sacrificed to max out that one.

 

[Haldrik]

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.

For 5e, I find a 16 necessary for me to consider a character acceptable.

I dont really care about an 18. But in the current climate of 5e, I wouldnt play a character that was less than 16.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can't we just throw a sidebar in the PH saying something like, "as written, some cultures are naturally inclined toward certain classes. This is a baseline that matches many classic stories in the fantasy genre from which D&D draws much of it's inspiration. However, I can limit certain culture/class combinations. If you feel this limits your choices unnecessarily, talk with your GM about allowing you to add bonuses to any attribute, instead of those designated by your culture. These would still be +2 to one attribute, and +1 to a second".

Replace the word culture with whatever the game decides to go with.

 

[TwoSix]

Can't we just throw a sidebar in the PH saying something like, "as written, some cultures are naturally inclined toward certain classes. This is a baseline that matches many classic stories in the fantasy genre from which D&D draws much of it's inspiration. However, I can limit certain culture/class combinations. If you feel this limits your choices unnecessarily, talk with your GM about allowing you to add bonuses to any attribute, instead of those designated by your culture. These would still be +2 to one attribute, and +1 to a second".

Replace the word culture with whatever the game decides to go with.

I don't think it's the ideal solution, but I'd be fine with it. I'd prefer the more permissive wording that 5e backgrounds use for replacing skills and tools, though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know of any other tabletop game in which the fanbase is so embracing of the idea of player characters starting out on objectively unequal footing, and resistant to the idea of "hey, maybe people don't like their character concept being suboptimal right out of the gate, let's change that". Well, other than games that use completely random chargen and expect you to go through 10 different characters in the course of a campaign. But putting meatgrinder style OSRs aside, I can't think of any games other than D&D and D&D adjacent trad games where this is an issue.

Is this just a D&D thing?

Virtually every game that has different species encourages certain combinations with class or career. Star Wars from Fantasy Flight is a good example for a reasonably popular game. Is this sort of thing still ok in science fiction, but no longer ok in fantasy?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Can't we just throw a sidebar in the PH saying something like, "as written, some cultures are naturally inclined toward certain classes. This is a baseline that matches many classic stories in the fantasy genre from which D&D draws much of it's inspiration. However, I can limit certain culture/class combinations. If you feel this limits your choices unnecessarily, talk with your GM about allowing you to add bonuses to any attribute, instead of those designated by your culture. These would still be +2 to one attribute, and +1 to a second".

Replace the word culture with whatever the game decides to go with.

Or how about (in future versions of the game):

"Traditionally, some cultures in D&D lore are naturally inclined toward certain classes. There is nothing in the rules that reinforces this tradition, but you should follow whatever your heart tells you."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Latching onto arguments about the definitions of words, or the difference between "not allowing" and "discouraging" (or whatever) seems like a refusal to engage with the actual argument being made, which leads me to conclude the people doing it are afraid to do so, knowing they don't actually have an argument.

I'll say it again: if people think that the game should encourage some race/class combinations, and discourage others, just say so. I literally have no argument to make against that position. It's an opinion, and I hold the opposite opinion.

Why is this so hard?

I'll say that. I think the game should encourage some race/class combinations, and discourage others, in keeping with classic stories in the genre. I have no problem with a given table wanting to float ASIs instead if everyone agrees, and suggest a variant rule allowing exactly that.