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

[Crimson Longinus]

743 posts and I don't think anybody has been swayed in the slightest. Maybe @Cadence.

Oh c'mon, this discussion has been going on for several threads so it is much more than 743 posts by now without anyone changing their minds!

 

[Cadence]

743 posts and I don't think anybody has been swayed in the slightest. Maybe @Cadence.

I was won over on what I'd have them put in the books (removing racial ASI's for PCs, but leaving in different standard stat blocks in the MM and maybe putting something in the PhB describing what races are known for). But not on how much I dislike a bunch of the arguments put forward for doing it

Oh c'mon, this discussion has been going on for several threads so it is much more than 743 posts by now without anyone changing their minds!

And another thread had already convinced me that mental ASIs were probably not worth it. (And maybe not even calling it Intelligence anymore...). And I was convinced that allowing OOC without sanction might definitely make some tables work better (even if not my own) and be consistent with the 5e rules.

Maybe I just don't have the mental stats to be on here and resist the forces arrayed against me

 

[Guest 6801328]

For reference, the thing I care about is always going to be player choice and the ability to tell a variety of stories in a compelling way. Something racial ASIs make more difficult because it means more half-orc barbarians show up to my table and I have yet to see a half-orc wizard at my table. Which is a story I'm interested in helping to tell.

Agreed.

I mean, I totally also agree with others that Orcs are genetically much stronger than Halflings. But I don't need chargen rules to reflect that. if one party of five adventurers happens to have a weak Orc and a bizarrely strong Halfling in it, that doesn't change the truth of my world.

 

[glass]

743 posts and I don't think anybody has been swayed in the slightest. Maybe @Cadence.

Welcome to the Internet (or possibly just welcome to the world).

I have been talking about gaming on the internet for a couple of decades now, and I have seen people who are not me change their minds in response to arguments maybe four times. If I include myself, that number goes up a bit. I will wll your for free though, I consider taking reasonable steps to avoid racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia at the table/in life to be matters of basic human decency. So you (the generic "you", not @Elfcrusher) will have an uphill struggle getting me to change my mind about them.

_
glass.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I was won over on what I'd have them put in the books (removing racial ASI's for PCs, but leaving in different standard stat blocks in the MM and maybe putting something in the PhB describing what races are known for). But not on how much I dislike a bunch of the arguments put forward for doing it

FWIW, I also totally agree with NPC stat blocks and fluff that reflect racial differences. I'm really not trying to genericize (?) the races.

 

[Phoebasss]

Agreed.

I mean, I totally also agree with others that Orcs are genetically much stronger than Halflings. But I don't need chargen rules to reflect that. if one party of five adventurers happens to have a weak Orc and a bizarrely strong Halfling in it, that doesn't change the truth of my world.

Definitely, and I’ll keep my orc intellectual elite and meaty mini-luchadore halflings at my tables. Because that’s fun for me. It’s about having the option.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Welcome to the Internet (or possibly just welcome to the world).

I have been talking about gaming on the internet for a couple of decades now, and I have seen people who are not me change their minds in response to arguments maybe four times. If I include myself, that number goes up a bit. I will wll your for free though, I consider taking reasonable steps to avoid racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia at the table to be matters of basic human dignity. So you (the generic "you", not @Elfcrusher) will have an uphill struggle getting me to change my mind about them.

_
glass.

Things I recall changing my mind about on Enworld:

• The portrayal of orcs is a problem. (I initially dismissed that as political correctness run amok.)
• Recently persuaded by @Chaosmancer that Sorcerers have a problem (specifically that when subclass abilities are fueled by sorcery points it forces them to choose between the subclass ability and the base class ability.)
• Like @Ovinomancer, I was seduced by the "metagaming is not a problem" camp
• @Bawylie convinced me that there is a tiny glimmer of something worth exploring in the otherwise perfectly odious Warlord class.
• Alright alright alright....chainmail bikinis are not ok. Sheesh.

I've yet to be persuaded that there's any purpose to "signing" every forum post, however.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

FWIW, I also totally agree with NPC stat blocks and fluff that reflect racial differences. I'm really not trying to genericize (?) the races.

And that's the thing. Some of us feel very strongly that the PCs should be the part of the world in the way that those realities of the setting apply to them just like they do to the NPCs and feel very strongly that the fluff should be reflected in the rules. That is the fundamental core of the disagreement, and as it ultimately is a preference issue, no one is gonna change their mind. There simply cannot be one solution that satisfies everyone, or even close to it.

But my suggestion in another thread to address this was to simply write the rules to contain options to how to handle this. Break up all the species features and ASIs into clear half-feat-sized chunks. Then there can be predetermined packages with equal number of such traits (six, maybe?) for those people who like having solidly determined species in their setting. It also supports subspecies, four traits from species, two from the subspecies. But the biggest thing from your perspective that it allows those GMs who want more flexibility to just ignore the premade packages and let the players just choose any six such traits for their character. And for people who like rigidly defined species but also like making their own stuff (so me) it would allow easily creating new species.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I will say that even if you don't see anything wrong with it, I think it requires more justification than that, a reason to exist. Not just no reason not to. Because lots of people do see something wrong with it, so it needs more justification than something that no one has an issue with. And I think that mechanically and narratively, its an unnecessary restriction that hurts the game; rather than improving the game with their presence, racial ASIs make for a worse game, mechanically.

That is VERY much a matter of opinion. Having to pick from a package of options, rather than a near-infinte buffet, encourages creativity because you have to work around limitations.

And the reason for them to exist, especially in a single setting game like Star Wars or Star Trek, is 40+ years of characterization and franchise recognition. Throwing that away WOULD hurt the game, imo. Granted there is some wiggle room in multi-setting games like D&D, but even then a narrative standard, backed by mechanics, has to be set.

 

[TwoSix]

• @Bawylie convinced me that there is a tiny glimmer of something worth exploring in the otherwise perfectly odious Warlord class.

Truly, a diplomat worthy of the Spartans! Err, Athenians. OK, Greeks.