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

[Charlaquin]

Notice that Gandalf stayed way the $%@^ out of town for that part. He's experienced enough to recognize an incoming TPK.

I mean, they only made it to Rivindell because the DM’s overpowered NPCs saved them. Then all the hobbit players insisted on rolling up new characters.

 

[TwoSix]

Notice that Gandalf stayed way the $%@^ out of town for that part. He's experienced enough to recognize an incoming TPK.

Let's be honest, that whole "plot" where Gandalf was stuck on a tower was just the DM explaining why Gandalf's player couldn't show up.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ugh. I hate that phrasing.

"On occasion one player or another will evidence a strong desire to operate as a monster, conceiving a playable character as a strong demon, a devil, a dragon, or one of the most powerful sort of undead creatures. This is done principally because the player sees the desired monster character as superior to his or her peers and likely to provide a dominant role for him or her in the campaign."

That's from the first DMG.

That’s great. We’re not talking about the game that was written for. We’re talking about D&D 5e. (Well... Level-Up, actually.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, that's fair. It's the core disagreement here, and it comes down to preference and opinion.

Well, if Level Up should change how 5E does things, there needs to be a problem that is important enough.

This is not a completely new game, where doing things differently isn't "different". But for Level Up, it would be.

What's so important that the project should risk coming off as different from 5E?

So with respect, no, its not about preference and opinion. It's about stating problems, arguing they can't wait, and arguing why the need for change trumps the need to remain compatible.

In this case, there's a whole cabal of "genericists" that I hope EN Publishing doesn't listen to. 5E follows in the great tradition of D&D games since already from the beginning of time in offering wonky and weird limitations that force you to choose "packages" of abilities, preventing you from getting exactly the way you want.

Not getting exactly what you want might be slightly frustrating at first, but it provides the texture that makes you come back for more.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, but WotC only uses one of those methods for its NPCs.

Yes, their sample NPCs work as sample NPCs, to facilitate one method. They don't need to create samples for how to create characters as PCs, using the other method; we wouldn't expect them to, because they aren't needed, so their absence doesn't indicate support for one method over the other.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As for the extra cantrip, I'm currently playing a High Elf wizard for thematic reasons(playing a Bladesinger), and I could do without it. Most cantrips are just damage variations and you don't need a lot of those. I'd much rather have Relentless Endurance, Lucky or a bonus feat.

I found that I could get by on just one or two attack cantrips. It was all the other utility cantrips that was the reason I wished for more.

That's the absolutism red herring once again.

If you say so. I wasn't entirely sure what the person I quoted meant, so was hedging my bets.

Explain how I’m going to get a half-orc wizard with a 16 at level 1.

?
You can't.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let's be honest, that whole "plot" where Gandalf was stuck on a tower was just the DM explaining why Gandalf's player couldn't show up.

Gandalf was the DM’s self-insert NPC.

 

[aco175]

Now, I am a purist as you said, but I don't mind this trade-off because I know it represents a sacrifice by the PC to break away from the norm.

I seem to remember an early edition, maybe Basic, allowing you to trade 2 points for 1 point. I think that you could only do some of them. For example, trade down 2 points of strength and raise one point of intelligence like you as saying. This works better when rolling for stats and may even be best when you straight-line the stats instead of pick where they go.

I might be ok with trading the 2 points of your racial bonus for 1 point someplace else.

 

[Phoebasss]

I don't think it need a reworking of the stat system. The concept of the party face is highly unrealistic. Look at the group interactions you've had. How often in a group discussion do you choose the most charismatic person and have him speak for you? Not often I wager. Now how often to people without high charisma and/or great social skills open their mouths during an important time? Quite often.

In real life you are absolutely right. I don’t do that. But when I’m in a small group speaking to the King of Uplandia, I might let the person who is best at conveying what we want nicely do their job. 5e is often built around niches, and some classes have been handed the niche of “basically all interaction in the social pillar.” party faces have become a dnd forum trope specifically because they’re a normal reality of playing 5e with people who want to succeed at their in-character goals. Should it be that way? Maybe not, but I’m not gonna jeopardize the party’s plans by having my 8 Cha Ranger be the one to make the case for the 3000 gold we need.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean, they only made it to Rivindell because the DM’s overpowered NPCs saved them. Then all the hobbit players insisted on rolling up new characters.

"Please? I'll play two characters, the badass elf I'm imagining and my hobbit."