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

[Cadence]

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.

Which makes me wonder a bit about the folks who like to roll for their ability scores. Is it a gambling thing? Or do they just not care about missing out on the extra bonus here or their if it happens?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Think how excited players get when they get a +1 weapon.

LOL, IME the +1 isn't' the exciting part, it is that creatures resistant to non-magical damage aren't safe any more.

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.

Or... you can keep them as they are and you can just float them, which is a much easier house-rule to implement.

Problem solved.

I'm really glad we had this little talk.

You know, me, too. Glad it is over because I hate to see the snark coming out... Bye.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or... you can keep them as they are and you can just float them, which is a much easier house-rule to implement.

Hey, I'm just trying to help you with the transition when racial ASIs go away. Which we all know is coming.

 

[Minigiant]

Now that I think of if, NPCs rolls their stats too. However they roll "boring". The average NPC rolls all 3s and 4s. If they are from a culture that heavily focuses on particular ability scores like a wild tribe or a high society clique, they might roll a 2 or a 5. Maybe two 2s and 5s.

But rolling a 1 or a 6 is the mark of the PC. Even if they roll 6,2,2 for a total of 10, that 6 marks them as a PC. That 10 hits different. They are blessedby the gods, touched by the star, or have the special genes needed to be a legend.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Which makes me wonder a bit about the folks who like to roll for their ability scores.

Gambling is probably part of it. Even if you know it probably won't help, the chance that it just might is always alluring.

But there's also the "clicky clack shiny plastic" bit.

That said, you tend to have to be pretty unlucky to not get at least one good score. So it's not that much of a risk. And there's also the possibility of getting interesting scores, which can lead to ideas you might not have entertained otherwise.

Or... you can keep them as they are and you can just float them, which is a much easier house-rule to implement.

This discussion is in the context of a "AD&D5e" type thing. Any choice is equally "easy". Plea to "ease" is to ignore the premise.

 

[Phoebasss]

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. ::::

It feels worse to knowingly choose to be worse than another member of your class. Randomness doesn't give a choice, so it feels different. People don't like choosing between worse and better. They'd rather choose between options that are at least roughly equivalent.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

They’re not different though. They’re exactly the same, except worse. If the only difference between an elf rogue and a dwarf rogue is that the dwarf is 5% less likely to hit, deal 1 less damage, and get hit 5% more often, why would I ever want to play a dwarf rogue?

Granted, that isn’t actually the only difference. But it is the most mechanically impactful difference, and it’s a difference that only detracts from the efficiency of the dwarf rogue without adding anything worthwhile to compensate. So even if I like the idea of a dwarf rogue, the game strongly discourages me from playing one, by making my character mostly the same as any other rogue, but a bit worse.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

The problem is that d&d is effectively a world where those "professional sports players" can get genetic engineering & cybernetic implants in the form of spells & magic items so starting with high base stats reduces the room for growth. Lets say hypothetically you start with 5 7 9 10 12 base & add a +1 base or magic item to one of those from your culture along with a +2 one from your background. The highest you could start with would be a 14 & it's not going up until you can raise the base, add a different type of bonus (ie enhancement/magic/whatever) or you get a +4 item. as the group gets new +1/+2/etc items the old starting +1/+2 items get shared around to shore up those low "freak of nature" numbers across the group. Sure those blue/green age artifacts & SK troop itens are going to make life difficult & force some effort into staying under the radar in darksun, but just being a PC character tends to already do that.

5e pretty much starts them at cybernetically & genetically enhanced beings with like one & a half more steps left without needing to be a freak of nature like rainman or the hulk because they are still basically average everywhere else and don't really need to care.

 

[Cadence]

They’re not different though. They’re exactly the same, except worse. If the only difference between an elf rogue and a dwarf rogue is that the dwarf is 5% less likely to hit, deal 1 less damage, and get hit 5% more often, why would I ever want to play a dwarf rogue?

Just checking. So you always put your highest stat in the "prime requisite" for whatever class you're playing?

 

[Maxperson]

I want to stop pretending that a character’s ability scores dictate characters’ physique in any meaningful way. A Goliath with 10 strength (or even as low as 5 strength if you roll stats!) can still be 7’10” and 440 pounds, while a 2’9”, 37 pound halfling can have 20 strength. And both characters have the same carrying capacity (300 pounds). And the halfling will deal significantly more damage with melee weapons, but the Goliath can be a significantly better archer, I guess? Ability scores have never translated into physical characteristics in a way that has made any sense, and the game has consistently improved as the attempts to pretend they do have gotten relaxed. Again I say, the sooner we can just stop pretending the stats mean anything more than what they actually do, the better.


It has only ever meant that, and the game would be better if we would stop trying to make it mean more.

You may want to play your ability score increase, darkvision 60, speed 30, fey ancestry, keen senses, trance and go fight an AC 13, HP 15, speed 30, darkvision 60, aggressive, 1d12+3 slashing, but most of us don't want to play that way.

D&D is not now, nor has it ever been, just the mechanics.

And in 3e size mattered. A 24 strength halfling could not lift as much as a 24 strength goliath.