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

[aco175]

That jacked halfling fighter with 18+ STR is the NFL DE of the halfling world. Everyone in the halfling village say "That boy is big." since he was a child. People speculate that he has human blood in him because a human adventuring party was is town 40 years ago and his grandma had his father while unmarried. The barbarian was winking at her a bit much. At level 1, you get the HS JV version of Big Halfling. At level 11, it's NFL All Star version.

I can see it the other way as well with the jacked halfling being the biggest kid in his hometown and then just Rudy when he gets to Notre Dame. "You're 5-nothing, 100-nothing..." Heart can only get you so far.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can see it the other way as well with the jacked halfling being the biggest kid in his hometown and then just Rudy when he gets to Notre Dame. "You're 5-nothing, 100-nothing..." Heart can only get you so far.

Yup. And I think a system should support all these stories.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Certainly PCs should be exceptional, unless the point of a specific campaign is to play non-exceptional characters but that's a specific choice.

I think the average member of a species should have 10/10/10/11/11/11 stat array modded by species/culture stats.

I have no problem with the idea of establishing a "Stat Cap" and having it apply PRE species/culture stat mods. By which I mean, if we cap stats at 20, and Wood Elves get a +2 to Dex, Wood elves can have a Dex of 22. If Halflings have a Strength Penalty of -2 and Half-Orcs have a Strength Bonus of +2, then the worlds strongest Halfling maxes at 18 Str and the Half-Orc at 22. That seems fair to me.
But I'm also fine if we DON'T do that as well.
What I absolutely DON'T want is Stats Cap @ 20, but Elves despite not having a Con Penalty have a Con cap of 14. Half-Orcs have a max Int of 12 for some reason. None of that.

 

[Maxperson]

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.


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.


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.

Yes. the DM narrates the results within RAW unless there is a house rule. If you read the rules on ability checks, it tells you that you only roll if the outcome is in doubt. The DMG backs that up and adds that there should be meaning to a failure as well. If you read the rules on attacks, there is no such rule that allows the DM to forbid a roll if the outcome is not in doubt. Nor is there a rule in the DMG regarding objects other than allowing attacks to happen and damage the structure. The exception is something huge like a castle wall. There specific beats general and it has immunity to all damage that doesn't exceed the damage threshold(damage reduction) with a single attack.

You are misapplying that section. That section on narration does not include in it the ability to just say no. That's why we have other rules and the rules don't stop on that page.

 

[Phoebasss]

Yes. the DM narrates the results within RAW unless there is a house rule. If you read the rules on ability checks, it tells you that you only roll if the outcome is in doubt. The DMG backs that up and adds that there should be meaning to a failure as well. If you read the rules on attacks, there is no such rule that allows the DM to forbid a roll if the outcome is not in doubt. Nor is there a rule in the DMG regarding objects other than allowing attacks to happen and damage the structure. The exception is something huge like a castle wall. There specific beats general and it has immunity to all damage that doesn't exceed the damage threshold(damage reduction) with a single attack.

You are misapplying that section. That section on narration does not include in it the ability to just say no. That's why we have other rules and the rules don't stop on that page.

It seems like you're kinda just saying that RAW literally doesn't cover a situation where an attack cannot succeed. Which seems like a failure on the part of RAW more than anything else.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can't believe an avowed anti-metagamer, anti-player-knowledge zealot posted this.

So you're claiming that what's essential for roleplaying is not just the numbers on the character sheet, but also how those numbers were generated?

That strikes me as a purely emotional, but logically indefensible, position.

Let's say we're in a game together, and the DM lets me play a new race that you didn't know about. I let you look at my character sheet. I roleplay the character according to the fluff. I show you artwork that I found on teh Interwebz. I have a hand-painted mini.

Are you seriously saying that without knowing how I arrived at my ability scores...without knowing what the racial ASIs are...you don't really have a sense of that character?

If so, perhaps you genuinely feel that way, but I'll note that to an observer such a position is indistinguishable from "I don't really have an argument for how racial ASIs impact the game, so I'm going to dig my heels in and say that it's the method, not the result, that matters."

Seems like a different argument than what they actually said.

What do specified ASIs (from anything) add that just giving a better standard array or more points for point buy doesn't?

the main benefit is not having to change the game’s math at all, while ditching them in favor of higher point buy would.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And no, they aren't at risk from dying from a single rat or cat. It's multiple rats and cats. PCs are exceptional in 5e. That is a trend from 4e.PCs are weirdo freaks. That's why the folk hero leaes the farm. Because he relizes that he could adventure.

Adventuring is for chosen ones and weird kids.

A common farmer isn’t at risk from a single cat, either. NPC statblocks exist solely to be interacted with by PCs, in 5e.

Level 1 characters are as exceptional as the world makes them, but by default they are not “weirdo freaks”.

 

[Minigiant]

I can see it the other way as well with the jacked halfling being the biggest kid in his hometown and then just Rudy when he gets to Notre Dame. "You're 5-nothing, 100-nothing..." Heart can only get you so far.

That's because you don't put halflings on defense.

You make them TE for short passes and defenders scared to tackle out of risking helmet to helmet call because they so short.

Or kick. Halflings Special Teams great.

A common farmer isn’t at risk from a single cat, either. NPC statblocks exist solely to be interacted with by PCs, in 5e.

Level 1 characters are as exceptional as the world makes them, but by default they are not “weirdo freaks”.

Normal people don't rob dragons. Str 18 halflings, orc wizards, human fighter/wizards, and STR 16 dwarves who left the safe dwarven mines do that.

Melrond the clumsiest high elf with his DEX 10 and warlock pact is a freak in elven society.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes. the DM narrates the results within RAW unless there is a house rule. If you read the rules on ability checks, it tells you that you only roll if the outcome is in doubt. The DMG backs that up and adds that there should be meaning to a failure as well. If you read the rules on attacks, there is no such rule that allows the DM to forbid a roll if the outcome is not in doubt. Nor is there a rule in the DMG regarding objects other than allowing attacks to happen and damage the structure. The exception is something huge like a castle wall. There specific beats general and it has immunity to all damage that doesn't exceed the damage threshold(damage reduction) with a single attack.

You are misapplying that section. That section on narration does not include in it the ability to just say no. That's why we have other rules and the rules don't stop on that page.

In addition to RAW and RAI I’m going to propose a 3rd category: RAIIBM. “Rules As Imaginatively Interpreted By Max”

 

[Lanefan]

It has only ever meant that, and the game would be better if we would stop trying to make it mean more.

Not quite "only ever" - in 1e strength-18 meant +1/+2.