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

[Cap'n Kobold]

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?

Nope, just checking some facts, helping out with explanations, and pointing out that racial bonuses are more than just the ability scores.
Someone feeling pressured into taking a synergistic combination of race and class is probably always going to feel that, whether or not the synergy is based around ability bonuses or other racial traits.

 

[Phoebasss]

If you cared about accuracy, rather than speed, then you'd write up the archmage as an actual wizard.

How do you feel about legendary actions? Because my inclination is usually to give legendary actions to boss characters, and to give them special abilities that make the players work for their victory. I could do that by drafting a level 1 wizard, selecting an archetype, and going up the levels, and giving them legendary actions as well, but I think that would get me something not as interesting for the PCs to play into. A lot of my PCs are very well read and recognize almost every spell from the PHB and Xanathar's just by effect description. So it's going to provide a better "wow" effect if this archmage has some powers they haven't seen before. Something he invented while living up in his tower doing his thing. Utilizing only abilities the PCs are already aware of is a surefire way to bore my PCs. They've read every piece of unearthed arcana and spell-like effect on a monster stat block. Sometimes its good for NPCs to have something unique, even if its something the PCs can't do because the system doesn't support it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

If the book says half-orc wizards are rare, and the mechanics for half-orcs and wizards make you not want to play a half-orc wizard, then that sounds like everything is working as intended. What's the problem here?

 

[TwoSix]

If the book says half-orc wizards are rare, and the mechanics for half-orcs and wizards make you not want to play a half-orc wizard, then that sounds like everything is working as intended. What's the problem here?

I think @Elfcrusher said it best upthread, to paraphrase: "If there's only going to be one orc wizard in the world, I want it to be a PC."

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

You have not effectively demonstrated this to be the case,

 

[Guest 6801328]

If the book says half-orc wizards are rare, and the mechanics for half-orcs and wizards make you not want to play a half-orc wizard, then that sounds like everything is working as intended. What's the problem here?

If the book says that the vast majority of people are farmers and other commoners don't go adventuring, do you think the rules should make me want to not go adventuring play an adventurer? Would that be working as intended?

 

[Phoebasss]

Nope, just checking some facts, helping out with explanations, and pointing out that racial bonuses are more than just the ability scores.
Someone feeling pressured into taking a synergistic combination of race and class is probably always going to feel that, whether or not the synergy is based around ability bonuses or other racial traits.

This is just the absolutism about "minmaxers" again. The only thing that seems to consistently skew race choice among most players is the ASIs. I and many of my players would be happy with having different mechanical benefits based on race. But losing the ASIs just for roleplay reasons just isn't an option for many people. Say what you want about those reasons, but you'll see more diversity if you float the ASIs. And that's the long and short of it. I want to see more diversity in race/class combos at my tables. If you aren't interested in that as a goal, fine. But let's not have any pretensions that 5e is perfectly open to all race/class combos, and its all in my head. If it were all in my head my players wouldn't feel the same way.\

EDIT: 5e forces you to pick either the story you want to tell, or a character with a 16. Whether you call that the baseline or not, that's the choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can't we just throw a sidebar in the PH saying something like, "as written, some cultures are naturally inclined toward certain classes.

Eew, can we not?

 

[TwoSix]

Nope, just checking some facts, helping out with explanations, and pointing out that racial bonuses are more than just the ability scores.
Someone feeling pressured into taking a synergistic combination of race and class is probably always going to feel that, whether or not the synergy is based around ability bonuses or other racial traits.

I disagree with that; there is absolutely a difference in degree between a racial bonus and a racial feature. That's not to say that a racial feature can't be overly strong and cause distortion, but strong racial bonuses are inherently distorting.

And personally, I'm not absolutely opposed to racial bonuses, PF2 is a wonderful example of a D&D-type game that does them right, IMO.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How do you feel about legendary actions?

As I recall, only monsters get those. There are no sample NPCs in the Monster Manual who get legendary actions, lair actions, or legendary saves. That's why they're fair game. There's nothing that an NPC can do that isn't just a greasy mirror reflection of what a PC can do, but monsters represent a different reality entirely.

If I'm playing my level 17 wizard by the PHB rules, and I come across an NPC archmage who can break those rules in obvious and significant ways, then I'm going to call shenanigans.