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

[tetrasodium]

I am using shorthand. By remove, I mean remove from race, by which I mean float.

"Float[ing]" has a specific meaning though. This is an example of a race with two floating +1 ASIs.

"floating" cold also mean "in addition to the racial benefits every character can raise one/two of their base attributes by x." They are not going to be floating, they will be attached to background with one set +1 & one floating +1. You should probably avoid arguing for something specific that is different from what will be put in & may or may not be different from what you are arguing.

 

[Phoebasss]

"Float[ing]" has a specific meaning though. This is an example of a race with two floating +1 ASIs.
View attachment 124902
"floating" cold also mean "in addition to the racial benefits every character can raise one/two of their base attributes by x." They are not going to be floating, they will be attached to background with one set +1 & one floating +1. You should probably avoid arguing for something specific that is different from what will be put in & may or may not be different from what you are arguing.

I think floating is better than background, but I far prefer background to race. Floating means you get to choose ASIs. Though I'll reserve most of my judgement on tying ASIs to the background system until the heritage playtest packet releases and I get the chance to try it out. Remove [from race] is just the shorthand we'd settled on at some point during conversation. Most everyone got what I meant.

And I mean that second definition of floating.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

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

I took certain precautions to minimize the chance that I would cause that to happen by going totally postal on Max.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think floating is better than background, but I far prefer background to race. Floating means you get to choose ASIs. Though I'll reserve most of my judgement on tying ASIs to the background system until the heritage playtest packet releases and I get the chance to try it out. Remove [from race] is just the shorthand we'd settled on at some point during conversation. Most everyone got what I meant.

And I mean that second definition of floating.

And in any event, this is a total distraction from the point you were trying to make.

 

[TwoSix]

"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.

Or, as I prefer to do, you simply state as the DM that something is true in the narrative, and therefore it is true. This is especially easy when you accept that the PCs are exceptional, and the rules for building PCs are gamist guidelines, not worldbuilding suggestions.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

I firmly believe that simulationists suck at roleplaying, for example, with just a few shreds of anecdotal data and a strong gut instinct to back it up.

 

[Phoebasss]

Or, as I prefer to do, you simply state as the DM that something is true in the narrative, and therefore it is true. This is especially easy when you accept that the PCs are exceptional, and the rules for building PCs are gamist guidelines, not worldbuilding suggestions.

But isn't that how you got your title of "unserious gamer"? I wouldn't want that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But isn't that how you got your title of "unserious gamer"? I wouldn't want that.

I'm reminded of the scene in Uncle Buck where the uptight principal says Buck's 6-year-old niece "isn't taking her studies seriously".

 

[TwoSix]

But isn't that how you got your title of "unserious gamer"? I wouldn't want that.

It’s a burden, but I muddle through.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

I was ignoring it because it wasn't favorable to you. A Spartan diplomat is the real life equivalent of an orc wizard. It's proof that, even if you aren't the best in the world at what you do, sometimes it's more important to provide that service at all, if it can't otherwise be found around there. A bad wizard is still a wizard, and they're all the more valuable in a society where wizards are rare.

Unless the story of Thucydides involved him talking circles around his Athenian counterparts, in spite of his cultural background. The only Thucydideses on Wikipedia were Athenian.

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.

We can believe anything we want about stuff that doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. If it did exist, and the way it existed was not in matching with our beliefs, then we'd be fools to continue believing it against all evidence to the contrary.