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

[Charlaquin]

While not totally at the point they are, this is widely my feeling as well.

A lot of people have talked about how PCs are special. Not in my games. PCs are rather ordinary people who have found themselves in strange situations and manage to see their way through it, often by accomplishing the extraordinary.

This doesn't mean they can't be powerful. Of course they can. Just as an NPC can be powerful. But you will never see a "destined" PC in my games. PCs are meant to do incredible things--they choose to try, and hopefully succeed.

But are they statistically average?

 

[DND_Reborn]

For some quick and dirty math, all point buy results have average stats between 12.5 and 11.5. So the average is probably about a 12.

Yep, something like 12.05 or so. Good guess.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, you don't lose anything from free ASIs, and we gain something. So what's the issue?

ASI's aren't even a part of this discussion. We were discussing what the baseline game assumption is. So I guess no issue.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok. But your argument in favor of racial ASIs was that they create trends, which makes characters who buck those trends cooler. I refuted that claim, and then you agreed with me. So, which is it?

You didn't refute the claim as it wasn't part of this discussion. Without the racial stat bonuses, you can't buck the trend. That concept ceases to exist. I didn't say it was more or less cool than not. Just that you can't do it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah and what I am trying to understand is why people are so attached to racial ASIs. Here's what I've seen so far:

1. Tradition.
2. They are necessary to maintain racial differentiation because without racial ASIs the various races are just "humans with masks" and non-ASI differentiators (Fey Ancestry, Halfling Luck, etc. etc. etc.) are insufficient to achieve differentiation.
3. That people who want to get rid of racial ASIs are just minmaxing, non-roleplaying scum and their opinions are invalid.
4. The suppression of funky archetypes (e.g. Dwarf bards and Halforc wizards) is a good thing.
5. At least one person, recently summarily tossed onto the virtual sidewalk outside of Enworld, seemed to think he was the lone defender of the last bridge in a real life culture war. Or something to that effect.

Any I missed?

The association, mechanically, directly, and in a very simple manner, of each people with certain Ability Scores, is beneficial to establishing the basic thematic and mechanical identity identity of the folk of D&D in a way that players can understand at a glance.

Now, if it was just “Associated Ability Score: XYZ” and Background and Class also had such an entry, and you get 3 points to spend in your AASs, and 1 more to spend freely, I’d be fine with that, prolly.

I’m also fine with totally free form “any 3 points, no more than 2 in one ability score” as an alternate option for people that want more fine tuning, so maybe I don’t count as “arguments opposed”.

 

[Phoebasss]

Without the racial stat bonuses, you can't buck the trend. That concept ceases to exist. I didn't say it was more or less cool than not. Just that you can't do it.

The Stereotypes continue to exist outside of this game. Also, the trends can still exist without them being a part of PC generation. Tolkein and Gygax's legacies don't stop existing just because they aren't mechanically represented in every character generation process. And the more important part of bucking the trend isn't the stats. It's the story. Just because the game doesn't force all orc pcs to be strong doesn't mean weak orcs aren't an anomaly. It just means they won't be as much of an anomaly at my table.

 

[Guest 6801328]

While not totally at the point they are, this is widely my feeling as well.

A lot of people have talked about how PCs are special. Not in my games. PCs are rather ordinary people who have found themselves in strange situations and manage to see their way through it, often by accomplishing the extraordinary.

This doesn't mean they can't be powerful. Of course they can. Just as an NPC can be powerful. But you will never see a "destined" PC in my games. PCs aren't meant to do incredible things--they choose to try, and hopefully succeed.

I definitely prefer games where the "heroes" are regular people. Ok, maybe above average regular people, but nothing that would freak out their neighbors. I love The One Ring, for example: no, you don't get to play Glorfindel or Aragorn or an Istari, and you probably won't be the one to throw the ring into Samath Naur.

But to me that's all part of the narrative, and has nothing to do character creation. The only real reason to have actual rules for character creation is for player equality, not PC/NPC equality.

 

[Maxperson]

The Stereotypes continue to exist outside of this game. Also, the trends can still exist without them being a part of PC generation. Tolkein and Gygax's legacies don't stop existing just because they aren't mechanically represented in every character generation process. And the more important part of bucking the trend isn't the stats. It's the story. Just because the game doesn't force all orc pcs to be strong doesn't mean weak orcs aren't an anomaly. It just means they won't be as much of an anomaly at my table.

No, they really can't exist without them. I'm not talking about stereotypes, so that's irrelevant. I'm talking about a race that is predisposed towards certain professions based on stats. Someone going against that is bucking the trend. Without built in stat bonuses, there is no trend to buck. Every race is good at everything equally with regard to stats.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The association, mechanically, directly, and in a very simple manner, of each people with certain Ability Scores, is beneficial to establishing the basic thematic and mechanical identity identity of the folk of D&D in a way that players can understand at a glance.

Hmm. Ok, that's enough of a variation from my #2 to be a different thing, if I'm understanding it.

Although it feels like a bit of a tautology to me: "we need elves to get a bonus to dexterity to properly convey their identity of having high dexterity."

 

[Phoebasss]

No, they really can't exist without them. I'm not talking about stereotypes, so that's irrelevant. I'm talking about a race that is predisposed towards certain professions based on stats. Someone going against that is bucking the trend. Without built in stat bonuses, there is no trend to buck. Every race is good at everything equally.

You're still bucking a trend. Just not the statistical trend. You're bucking a narrative trend. If, for example, in my setting, all orcs live in a giant wizard tower and learn magic, an orc barbarian with no magic powers is bucking the trend. It's about the story, not the stats. The stats are just there to facilitate telling a cooperative story and provide a way to determine results when results are in doubt. There's no narrative benefit from racial ASIs that doesn't exist without them. And as they are now, they actually make the scenario above require substantial homebrewing of the orc ASIs to work right.