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

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think we disagree with that. But 5e does put your characters a cut above by default. Every stat block for normal people is something below what the players will have with either standard array or point buy, and well below average for rolled results. The PCs are better than normal people in 5e, and that's something that shouldn't substantially change with this game if its to remain fully compatible. PCs ain't normal. If they was normal, they'd be farmin'.

I know PCs have better than normal ability scores (on average about +1 modifier greater across the board), but this has been the case since 1E, (if not sooner) when 4d6-L became the default ability score generation method. If you go back before then, 3d6 was the method used for PCs by default IIRC. So, the average went from 10.5 to 12-12.5 (or so depending on method).

But here's the point: you can get an average of 12 or so on 3d6 about 1 in 8 times. That means, even using 3d6 you can get scores equivalent to the methods used for PCs about 1 in 10 to 1 in 12 times. Even if you go to an average of 12.5, you still get scores to meet that average about 1 in 17 or so. Statistically speaking, that isn't significant. (Admittedly, if you want the 12.5 average, it is getting close LOL).

So, again, I just don't see PCs as better than normal people in 5E. They typically, however, represent some of the "exceptional" of normal people, if you get my meaning.

FWIW, in 1E/2E, I played a human Cleric with all his scores from 9-12, even his 12 WIS, so he actually had a 5% chance of spell failure. One of the most fun PCs I've ever had, TBH.

 

[Phoebasss]

In other words, what a race is predisposed to in-setting should be up to the GM, not the game devs. Because we aren't all working in one setting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

And that's fair enough and I can respect it.

I just understand the others POV because I lean in that direction as well. Like for the threads were someone was thinking about not allowing OAs on PCs... I would never do that but if others want to I am not going to tell them they are wrong or crazy--just not my style of game is all.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In other words, what a race is predisposed to in-setting should be up to the GM, not the game devs. Because we aren't all working in one setting.

I agree with that, but Max seems to have a preference for "bucking a trend" that exists in the wider gaming world, across all settings. I can't say I've ever been motivated that way, but he's allowed to like whatever he likes.

 

[Phoebasss]

I agree with that, but Max seems to have a preference for "bucking a trend" that exists in the wider gaming world, across all settings. I can't say I've ever been motivated that way, but he's allowed to like whatever he likes.

Imo, you still are. Just not for this specific version of 5e. The trend in D&D adjacent games has always been fast elf, strong orc, tough dwarf. That trend doesn't go away just because one game doesn't enforce it. Arguably, you're bucking an even larger trend.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I just understand the others POV because I lean in that direction as well. Like for the threads were someone was thinking about not allowing OAs on PCs... I would never do that but if others want to I am not going to tell them they are wrong or crazy--just not my style of game is all.

See, I agree with you on that one: once you start playing the game, the rules should apply to everyone equally.

But in a game where the players are going to go from level 1 to X, and they're going to encounter allies and adversaries ranging from giant rats to dragons and beyond, I don't really get the value of identifying one particular, narrow subset of NPCs and say "Ah, but if those NPCs didn't have their stats generated by the same rules as the PCs, this game is broken."

 

[Phoebasss]

So, again, I just don't see PCs as better than normal people in 5E. They typically, however, represent some of the "exceptional" of normal people, if you get my meaning.

I think I see what you're saying here. I feel like at this point the difference is more a matter of semantics and narrative than anything else. Though in fairness I don't remember what this post is in reference to as far as mechanics.

 

[Phoebasss]

See, I agree with you on that one: once you start playing the game, the rules should apply to everyone equally.

Totally in agreement as far as DnD style games go. In no small part because it makes remembering the rules easier if you're not remembering two separate sets of rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ll be the odd one out and say it doesn’t matter to me if NPCs follow the same rules as PCs. Most NPCs don’t even need ability scores at all, let alone needing to be generated the same way as PC ability scores.

 

[Phoebasss]

I’ll be the odd one out and say it doesn’t matter to me if NPCs follow the same rules as PCs. Most NPCs don’t even need ability scores at all, let alone needing to be generated the same way as PC ability scores.

I guess I mean specifically in combat. Like, I don't make my NPCs make persuasion rolls or anything like that. But in a fight, unless they have legendary actions or some intentional method of breaking parity, they still swing at AC and make saving throws normally.