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

[Phoebasss]

The existence of a cultural taboo is not sufficient justification to make the story of defying it a compelling one. After all, we (the audience) are fully aware of the fact that orcs are just as good at being wizards as elves are. We would never expect the orc to be bad at wizardry. And the fact that anyone within the setting would ever believe such an obvious un-truth just makes them pitiable.

If we assume that most people act rationally, then we would never expect orcs to value strength over intelligence in the first place. And if the narrative requires orcs to act irrationally, then that's also not very compelling. I believe the technical term is an "idiot plot"; of the second order, in this case.

People believe obvious untruths like that all the time. People are not all rational actors, because if they were there would also be no in-setting conflict. We also know that this game doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The trope that orcs are dumb and elves are quick still exists for us, the players. A gentle and charismatic Spartan diplomat is still a story of defying expectations even though spartans are humans. Because we have the expectation of spartans as strong, hard-as-nails people. Those expectations aren’t shaped by racial stat blocks, they’re shaped by the world.

EDIT: Just for reference, there is an actual story of such a spartan in Thucydides, and he is treated as an outlier in Spartan Culture.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

This seems overly alarmist.

 

[TwoSix]

People believe obvious untruths like that all the time. People are not all rational actors, because if they were there would also be no in-setting conflict. We also know that this game doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The trope that orcs are dumb and elves are quick still exists for us, the players. A gentle and charismatic Spartan diplomat is still a story of defying expectations even though spartans are humans. Because we have the expectation of spartans as strong, hard-as-nails people. Those expectations aren’t shaped by racial stat blocks, they’re shaped by the world.

EDIT: Just for reference, there is an actual story of such a spartan in Thucydides, and he is treated as an outlier in Spartan Culture.

Be careful, this is when people start to drown in the Saelorn quicksand.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I seem to remember an early edition, maybe Basic, allowing you to trade 2 points for 1 point.

Moldvay, B6. You could lower certain abilities to raise your prime requisite on a 2:1 basis.

But it was limited as to what you could do (for example, you couldn't raise or lower Con or Cha).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Boy, I go away for 6 hours and come back to something like 120 new posts??? It took me nearly an hour just to catch up!

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

Like @Maxperson said, roll stats. shrug

I already posted how with 4d6-L, you have over a 50/50 chance of rolling at least one 16 or better. Unless the DM limits you to one rolled set (most allow 3 sets IME anyway), you have a good chance of getting your 16.

Now, I know a lot of people like point buy (and some seem to like the standard array... ), so of course you can't with those methods.

But, I'm done with this thread. The arguments keep going in circles. Many people have suggested variant ideas to fix whatever seems to be the problem (if you have one... depending on your point of view).

I would hope with over 600 posts we'd have more voters for the poll, that is the only disappointing thing to me. But, having watched it closely we've seemed to have settled on a roughly 70/30 split.

Moldvay, B6. You could lower certain abilities to raise your prime requisite on a 2:1 basis.

But it was limited as to what you could do (for example, you couldn't raise or lower Con or Cha).

This was why I suggested the racial ASI +2 could be sacked for a floating +1.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Boy, I go away for 6 hours and come back to something like 120 new posts???

Come back in 5 days, and you'll find a complete copy of Hamlet!

....or a threadlock. Either/or.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Come back in 5 days, and you'll find a complete copy of Hamlet!

....or a threadlock. Either/or.

LOL probably!!!

It got me thinking I would love it if the mods put a 20 posts limit per thread on users (unless you started the thread, then keep it unlimited so you can respond to everyone else). I know I get caught up in the debates myself, and such a system would force me to make my points and move on.

Anyway... speaking of moving on... bye all. See you in the next thread.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

People believe obvious untruths like that all the time. People are not all rational actors, because if they were there would also be no in-setting conflict. We also know that this game doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The trope that orcs are dumb and elves are quick still exists for us, the players.

Out of curiosity, did you play much 3E or 3.5? Because it provides a rather archetypal example of what happens when narrative and mechanics are at odds with each other. Although they were nominally trying to continue the existing narrative, that elves liked (arcane) magic and dwarves didn't, they also gave wizards a d4 hit die and provided a 4-point Constitution disparity between the species, while simultaneously removing all racial class restrictions.

Rational players, looking at this, concluded that playing an elf would present a nigh-insurmountable barrier to success as a wizard - especially in comparison to playing a dwarf - and that it was implausible for elves and dwarves, who had to actually live through such a reality, to be unaware of that fact. The ruleset simply described a world where all of the best wizards were dwarves, rather than elves, and any lore to the contrary was factually incorrect.

 

[Charlaquin]

Spoiler: Background has two +1 ASIs, one set, one floating

So here's what our first playtest packet might look like (we've started work on it).

NOTE -- playtest packet means we're looking for the good and the bad. If it doesn't work for you, that's data. If it does, that's also data. Above all, we want data.

So...

• Heritage has a feat instead of ASI
• Culture contains the non 'biological' aspects of what was once 'race'
• Background has two +1 ASIs, one set, one floating

The model looks like this:

Heritage -- Elf - bio stuff, feat
...Culture -- wood elf
...Culture -- high elf
...Culture -- dark elf
...Culture -- (new elf)
Background - (inc ASIs)

+ some 'general' Cultures (like Cosmopolitan, Lone Wanderer, Nomad)

Any Heritage can take any Culture and any Background (if the [GM*] agrees).

We refer to these three building blocks as your 'Origin'. As in, everything before your first class level.

*Working on our term for that.

That... All sounds pretty dope, I’m here for that. I would prefer background not to give ASIs either, but since it’s one fixed, one floating and it’s not attached to race, I can live with it.

 

[Phoebasss]

Out of curiosity, did you play much 3E or 3.5? Because it provides a rather archetypal example of what happens when narrative and mechanics are at odds with each other. Although they were nominally trying to continue the existing narrative, that elves liked (arcane) magic and dwarves didn't, they also gave wizards a d4 hit die and provided a 4-point Constitution disparity between the species, while simultaneously removing all racial class restrictions.

Rational players, looking at this, concluded that playing an elf would present a nigh-insurmountable barrier to success as a wizard - especially in comparison to playing a dwarf - and that it was implausible for elves and dwarves, who had to actually live through such a reality, to be unaware of that fact. The ruleset simply described a world where all of the best wizards were dwarves, rather than elves, and any lore to the contrary was factually incorrect.

We're just ignoring the spartan example aren't we?

At any rate, is the thing you're suggesting that we can't write lore that's not based firmly in the rules? If all races are roughly neutral on a class-by-class basis, the world is liable to make more sense, because how many people become wizards would be based more firmly in the setting, rather than the mechanics of racial ASIs.

"It doesn't make sense for the elves to believe that orcs suck at magic."
Well, sure it does. It's just up to the GM to provide an explanation. Perhaps they've just never seen an orc wizard. Perhaps the orc tribes rely on oral tradition which made the development of magical schools difficult. Maybe the high elf education system is deeply racist and based on the beliefs of their failing empire. All of these are better justifications for these beliefs than ASIs.

It would be weird to say that we shouldn't believe the Amazons were great warriors because they don't have the right ASIs. The belief that the Amazons are made up of tall, powerful, warrior women is a cultural touchstone, not an immutable fact of life. Likewise for the belief that orcs are dumb.