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

[Phoebasss]

So, I think you are really hinting at a slightly different issue when you start with "catch-all tropes" and end with "racial biases[.]"

I want to be clear that one core strength of D&D (in my opinion) has always been that it treats all of humanity as the same. While there have been a few stray references and/or Dragon articles that might have tried to further differentiate humanity, that has (thankfully) never been a thing in D&D.

One of the benefits of playing "make believe" or D&D is that you get to imagine yourself as something other than a human (if that's you bag). There are times when I'd like to imagine I'm playing a strong brute, or a lithe cat, or a flying birdperson. Just like if I was playing sci-fi game, I would hope that the aliens were different (or, you know, just had funny head ridges but otherwise just like us!).

There are those who think that the use of the term "race" combined with certain key differentiation has something to do with the real world; I am sympathetic to those arguments, especially when it comes to the origin of certain concepts (such as orcs) and being sensitive about portrayals.

I don't think that this necessary caution means that, for example, the Goliath (+2 Str, +1 Con) is bad. And I don't think that your preference is universal- far from it.

Maybe racial biases isn't quite the right word. I have my own political opinions, but as far as my arguments here, I view this as very much a mechanical issue. Or specifically an issue where mechanics infringe on players' willingness to play out the stories they want to tell.
I just think players should have the option of defying those racial stereotypes if they so choose. A goliath who has difficulty opening jars is something that I think could make for the beginnings of an interesting backstory. How does that society treat a goliath with 8 Strength? Do they have some sort of unique circumstances that led to these unusual ASIs? I'm interested in telling these kinds of stories, and DnD is inches away from being able to tell these types of stories more often. It just requires dropping one last tradition to put it over the edge into making character creation interesting again. The game is (I believe) fully capable of differentiating races through means that aren't stats. Be it specialized feats or well-written lore in the race section of the PHB-equivalent.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Maybe racial biases isn't quite the right word. I have my own political opinions, but as far as my arguments here, I view this as very much a mechanical issue. Or specifically an issue where mechanics infringe on players' willingness to play out the stories they want to tell.
I just think players should have the option of defying those racial stereotypes if they so choose. A goliath who has difficulty opening jars is something that I think could make for the beginnings of an interesting backstory. How does that society treat a goliath with 8 Strength? Do they have some sort of unique circumstances that led to these unusual ASIs? I'm interested in telling these kinds of stories, and DnD is inches away from being able to tell these types of stories more often. It just requires dropping one last tradition to put it over the edge into making character creation interesting again. The game is (I believe) fully capable of differentiating races through means that aren't stats. Be it specialized feats or well-written lore in the race section of the PHB-equivalent.

Bummer for you if they replace the goliath +2 Strength ASI with a feat "You have advantage on Strength checks involving moving, breaking, or freeing stuck objects."

 

[Phoebasss]

If that's your experience, then it's no wonder that you think you have to put the +2 into your main stat. That's the DM's fault in my opinion. All three pillars should be used in about equal amounts, and if most situations are coming down to combat resolution, something is terribly wrong. You should be able to interact socially and explore without it almost always coming down to combat.

I'd quit a game where most situations ended up in combat. Combat has its place and is fun, but it's not most of the game.

Edit: All PCs should be using all stats to interact with the world as well. They should not be relying on their primary stat for most of their interaction. Their primary can and probably will be more than any other individual stat, but the other stats should greatly outnumber the prime stat when combined, and should be used fairly often.

It's alright, I play games with actual social mechanics, and a playable exploration system when I want those things. 5e doesn't have those, and that's fine. It's trying to be a particular type of game. Socializing is a very small part of 5e's mechanical weight, and that's fine.

I will say just generally in my games, most players try to leave interacting with the world in certain ways to the player that's best at it. That's how the concept of the party face happened in the first place. Is that a good thing? I dunno, but that's a bigger discussion that would involve reworking the 6-stat system entirely. As 5e is currently written and, largely, played, the Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock is going to be the one most often interacting mechanically with the social pillar.

 

[Phoebasss]

Bummer for you if they replace the goliath +2 Strength ASI with a feat "You have advantage on Strength checks involving moving, breaking, or freeing stuck objects."

Well, granted, but at least that means I just lose access to some small out of combat capability rather than losing access to a 16. I also do think it might be a good idea to give each race a few options for racial feat, especially because that provides even more of the desperately lacking customization.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Benefits are in the eye of the beholder. Sure, if you pick a High Elf and get +2 to int, you will get a bonus to hit, DC, etc. However, if I go with a Dwarf Wizard, I get a bonus to hit points which are nice for a wizard, a +1 to con saves which are fairly common, and a +1 to concentration checks which helps with many spells. If I go with +2 dex I go first more often and have a higher AC, both nice for wizards. Charisma bonuses the social pillar. And so on.

It's pure opinion which is better. You feel that it has to be in the prime stat. I don't. I'm happy with the game giving me different bonuses to help my wizard and doing just fine with a 14.

Couple of points:
Don't High Elves only get a +1 to Int? Same as Humans and Tielflings.
The reason that they are regarded as the better wizards is that they get an extra cantrip, keyed off Int. Not the stat bonus.

Mountain Dwarf wizard is also very popular. You get armour prof and Str bonus to help carry it, so you can get a decent AC without having to burn spell slots.

What about Strength? You cheated by using Con as your example. It's the only stat useful to all characters in combat. Dex is pretty similarly generally useful for AC. But what do you do with Strength? Or Int? Those aren't opinion anymore. They are worse if you can't attack with them in a reasonable way.

Str is good for the Mountain Dwarf Wizard combination because it combines well with their racial trait of armour proficiency. Medium armour doesn't have a Strength requirement, but it can get heavy. A Mountain Dwarf wizard can have a better AC than a wizard relying on Mage Armour, without having to invest in Dex or burn spell slots. That is why people think the combination is worth playing, despite not having an Int bonus.

I don't actually know why this quotes me. Is it directed at me?

It is pointing out that the Halfling subrace in question would make a very effective wizard, despite not getting an Int bonus, because of all the additional spells they would grant access to.

Also that even though orcs in that setting are probably the furthest removed from the usual setting tropes, they still aren't known for their wizards.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Couple of points:
Don't High Elves only get a +1 to Int? Same as Humans and Tielflings.
The reason that they are regarded as the better wizards is that they get an extra cantrip, keyed off Int. Not the stat bonus.

Mountain Dwarf wizard is also very popular. You get armour prof and Str bonus to help carry it, so you can get a decent AC without having to burn spell slots.

Str is good for the Mountain Dwarf Wizard combination because it combines well with their racial trait of armour proficiency. Medium armour doesn't have a Strength requirement, but it can get heavy. A Mountain Dwarf wizard can have a better AC than a wizard relying on Mage Armour, without having to invest in Dex or burn spell slots. That is why people think the combination is worth playing, despite not having an Int bonus.

It is pointing out that the Halfling subrace in question would make a very effective wizard, despite not getting an Int bonus, because of all the additional spells they would grant access to.

Also that even though orcs in that setting are probably the furthest removed from the usual setting tropes, they still aren't known for their wizards.

You acknowledged upthread that you prefer a system that biases toward certain combinations, and away from others.

Do you REALLY need to try to disprove or otherwise argue away the claim that 5e does exactly that?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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).

3e is the only edition of D&D where PCs and NPCs are built in the same way.

Well, 3E and 5E. The DMG presents three methods for creating NPCs, of which two result in stat blocks; and one of those methods is as a PC. (The other is to adapt a template from the Monster Manual.) Of note to the topic at hand, since the default method of generating stats is by rolling 4d6 and drop (and definitely not 3d6), that means the bell curve for the whole population is centered around 12.5; and humans are still +1 across the board.

It is consistent with the rest of this edition to say that the templates in the Monster Manual don't reflect the actual stats of the characters they're trying to describe, but rather provide a "close enough" approximation for most purposes without needing to put in the work required to generate accurate stats. If you cared about accuracy, rather than speed, then you'd write up the archmage as an actual wizard.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What if you had a racial ASI +2 for a set ability, and a +1 floater.

If a bonus is entirely at the discretion of the player, and isn't derived from their fantasy race in any way, then it isn't a racial bonus in any sense. Since the point of a racial bonus is to make some races better at some things than others, and it doesn't do that anymore, then there's no reason to include it. You could just roll stats (or point buy) and be done with it.

Although, if the goal is to make characters on the same power level as 5E characters, I suppose it would be necessary to put those bonuses somewhere. Given that, attaching them to either class or background would make just as much sense.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, 3E and 5E. The DMG presents three methods for creating NPCs, of which two result in stat blocks; and one of those methods is as a PC. (The other is to adapt a template from the Monster Manual.) Of note to the topic at hand, since the default method of generating stats is by rolling 4d6 and drop (and definitely not 3d6), that means the bell curve for the whole population is centered around 12.5; and humans are still +1 across the board.

It is consistent with the rest of this edition to say that the templates in the Monster Manual don't reflect the actual stats of the characters they're trying to describe, but rather provide a "close enough" approximation for most purposes without needing to put in the work required to generate accurate stats. If you cared about accuracy, rather than speed, then you'd write up the archmage as an actual wizard.

It's notable that the official adventures tend to use stat block NPCs instead of presenting them like PCs. I just flipped through the appendix to Dragon Heist (which is chock-full of humanoid, adventurer-like NPCs) and I can't find any that seem to be made strictly with PC character rules. I'm sure that can be hand-waved away as inadmissible evidence, but there it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Max, cut it out. We don't even have to agree on what the definition of "suppression" is, you just have to acknowledge how we are using it. If it helps you, pretend we made up a new word that means "the unintentional influence over subconscious decision-making that leads to statistical patterns suggesting certain biases" and then in your mind replace "suppression" with that word. Please respond to the argument instead of engaging in this semantic quibble.

Dude, it's a metaphor. Nobody was morally equating them.

You’re trying to explain semantics and metaphor to Drax the Destroyer.