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

[tetrasodium]

While I think this is neat, and maybe a good place for +1s, I do still take issue with the idea that we need to do this. Why can't I be a shut-in from Korth? Someone born on the lakeside who never got the hang of fishing? Why aren't those valid character ideas? They still connect to the setting, just in a different way. I sympathize a lot with the idea that adventurers are outcasts, because if they weren't, they never would have left home.

EDIT: I feel like +2 Cha doesn't solve the roleplaying problem you're trying to solve here is the main thing. If your players aren't looking to their background and character concept to inform their actions, you're not gonna solve that with a +2.

I just threw it together, Maybe there is a background available from the GM that lines up with your shut in pretty well maybe not... Maybe instead the GM put more effort into that list and those things are going to be important to the campaign
@Elfcrusher sure maybe as a GM I want to include some of those things atop the other bonuses to encourage certain additional character choices but all of those things you listed take quite a bit of consideration to balancing both against each other & "what minmaxed monsters will these make" because your examples are all over the power scale

 

[Phoebasss]

I just threw it together, Maybe there is a background available from the GM that lines up with your shut in pretty well maybe not... Maybe instead the GM put more effort into that list and those things are going to be important to the campaign

But why does how effective you are in combat need to key off culture? Why can't it provide other things, namely skills and something like the background ability that exists now for backgrounds? Why do I need to be from Korth to be a good sorcerer?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Monsters (including humanoid NPCs) already don't follow the same rules as PCs, so you're bringing up a problem that WotC has already decided is not a priority. Keeping DMs from having to create monsters the same way players create PCs was deemed much more important (and rightly so if you ask me - in fact the way 3E handled NPCs was the specific straw that broke the camel's back for me).

And requiring NPCs to use different rules from PCs was the specific truckload of cement that broke the camel's back for me. As someone may have said upthread, there's absolutely no reason to ever become invested in a character, if the world they live in is made of obvious illusions and duct tape. If your target audience is primarily composed of people who really don't care, then there's no reason to go out of your way to also alienate the people who do care.

For the record, though, determining NPC stats as though they were PCs is still the first option presented in the DMG.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I’m ruling that an attempt to destroy a stone wall with a sword fails without a roll on the basis of not having a chance of success.

That's not RAW, though. Failure without a chance of success is for ability checks only. RAW allows via attacks vs AC 17 and hit point damage, for a swordsman to hack his way through a stone wall. If you rule otherwise, it's a house rule as you are altering RAW and enacting new rules in its place. It's a very reasonable house rule in my opinion.

 

[Charlaquin]

But why does how effective you are in combat need to key off culture? Why can't it provide other things, namely skills and something like the background ability that exists now for backgrounds? Why do I need to be from Korth to be a good sorcerer?

Yeah, I was onboard with cultural ASIs at first, but the more I’ve considered it, the more I’ve realized it just kicks the can down the road without actually addressing the issue. I’m still for separating race and culture and having both grant bonuses of some kind. Just not ASIs. If ASIs have to be in the game, they should either be floating or tied to class (since class is the character element that cares the most about ability scores). But ideally they should just be gone, replaced with ability generation methods that result in higher base scores and/or non-ASI features.

 

[tetrasodium]

But why does how effective you are in combat need to key off culture? Why can't it provide other things, namely skills and something like the background ability that exists now for backgrounds? Why do I need to be from Korth to be a good sorcerer?

I don't think anyone is arguing that culture & background should not include those things & my example was just to quickly show why "floating" bonuses were a poor solution compared to the culture/background link that seems likely to be used for the attrib bonuses. for purposes of the example those would have been a needless complication & there is too much unknown at this point. I'm all for relevant skills being included since it could be massaged by the gm to make jarring idiot savant style minmaxing take some mild amount of effort beyond "oops my background chosen for $feature has a skill or two my race/class gets so I can pick whatever I want."

 

[Campbell]

For the record I really care. I care about having a more results oriented process for making NPCs. Creating NPCs like PCs should be an option, but not the default expectation.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not RAW, though. Failure without a chance of success is for ability checks only.

Can you back that claim up with a source? Here’s what I’ve got:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment.

The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do.

Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.

This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.

Nothing about the DM only getting to decide an action succeeds or fails without a roll out of combat. On the contrary, it specifically says the play pattern holds in combat. If you can find a quote from the rules that says the DM can’t rule an attack successful or unsuccessful without a roll, or that the play loop described here only applies out of combat, be my guest.

RAW allows via attacks vs AC 17 and hit point damage, for a swordsman to hack his way through a stone wall.

If the DM determines that the action requires a roll to resolve, absolutely. But that call is up to the DM to make, and I wouldn’t call that an attempt to destroy a stone wall with a sword has a chance of success.

If you rule otherwise, it's a house rule as you are altering RAW and enacting new rules in its place. It's a very reasonable house rule in my opinion.

It’s not a house rule. It’s simple application of the basic pattern of play. If you want to claim otherwise, find me a quote from the books that supports your claim.

 

[Phoebasss]

I don't think anyone is arguing that culture & background should not include those things & my example was just to quickly show why "floating" bonuses were a poor solution compared to the culture/background link that seems likely to be used for the attrib bonuses. for purposes of the example those would have been a needless complication & there is too much unknown at this point. I'm all for relevant skills being included since it could be massaged by the gm to make jarring idiot savant style minmaxing take some mild amount of effort beyond "oops my background chosen for $feature has a skill or two my race/class gets so I can pick whatever I want."

I disagree with the main contention though. Floating them is the best possible solution if we're keeping them. Of course skills can be included in culture, but ASIs should not be there. Because I want to prevent "all sorcerers are from Korthe" just as much as I want to prevent "all Wizards are gnomes or high elves"

 

[Guest 6801328]

@Elfcrusher sure maybe as a GM I want to include some of those things atop the other bonuses to encourage certain additional character choices but all of those things you listed take quite a bit of consideration to balancing both against each other & "what minmaxed monsters will these make" because your examples are all over the power scale

Sure. I threw mine together, too.

And...if the assumption is that if some people are going to try to minmax optimize resistance to cold damage vs. advantage on swimming checks (or whatever it is) a lot more people are going to optimize which ability score they're going to get +2 on. Both the predictability and the magnitude of the benefit are so much greater.