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

[Maxperson]

Where am I saying suboptimal is bad or wrong? Here's what I'm saying, as succinctly and clearly as possible:

• Evidence strongly suggests that racial ASIs suppress race/class choices.

Voluntarily making the choice not to play something, because you don't like how bonuses work is not suppression. Nobody is forcing you to avoid Orc Wizards. Nobody is preventing you from playing Orc Wizards. Those are the definitions of suppression. There is no evidence of suppression going on here.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The closer the choices are to each other in quality, the more interesting the choice. People are willing to take lots of small hits to play the combo of their choice. They have shown over and over that they won’t take not getting a 16. The data shows it. I personally know someone you would probably describe as a “true optimizer”, but if gnome were given the ability to chooses its racial +2, he would be playing a gnome at most tables. He has more fun roleplaying a gnome. He likes their other racial abilities and is happy to give up lots of minor powers for them, but he isn’t willing to give up +1 and lose an ASI or feat selection in future for it.

Unfortunately, dismissing anybody who would prefer to not start with a 14 in their primary stat as a dirty powergaming minmaxing scumbag is a foundation stone of the other side's position.

 

[Maxperson]

So when somebody doesn't want to pay a poll tax because it's a lot of money for them, but they could if they really wanted to, that's not voter suppression?

So poor people who cannot afford a tax is not at all the same as you just choosing based solely on your personal preferences, not to play an Orc Wizard. It's insulting to poor people and minorities, and quite frankly grossly inappropriate for you to equate those things like that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Voluntarily making the choice not to play something, because you don't like how bonuses work is not suppression. Nobody is forcing you to avoid Orc Wizards. Nobody is preventing you from playing Orc Wizards. Those are the definitions of suppression. There is no evidence of suppression going on here.

Max, cut it out. We don't even have to agree on what the definition of "suppression" is, you just have to acknowledge how we are using it. If it helps you, pretend we made up a new word that means "the unintentional influence over subconscious decision-making that leads to statistical patterns suggesting certain biases" and then in your mind replace "suppression" with that word. Please respond to the argument instead of engaging in this semantic quibble.

 

[TwoSix]

The closer the choices are to each other in quality, the more interesting the choice. People are willing to take lots of small hits to play the combo of their choice. They have shown over and over that they won’t take not getting a 16. The data shows it. I personally know someone you would probably describe as a “true optimizer”, but if gnome were given the ability to chooses its racial +2, he would be playing a gnome at most tables. He has more fun roleplaying a gnome. He likes their other racial abilities and is happy to give up lots of minor powers for them, but he isn’t willing to give up +1 and lose an ASI or feat selection in future for it.

This. I love playing halflings, but I only really ever played them in 3.5 because strongheart halflings were actually a strong choice in that edition. In 5e, I've never played one because their bonuses simply never match what class I want to play and it's too painful to sacrifice the 1st level feat that VHumans get. (Which is actually another 5e pain point that's probably even worse than racial ASIs.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

So poor people who cannot afford a tax is not at all the same as you just choosing based solely on your personal preferences, not to play an Orc Wizard. It's insulting to poor people and minorities, and quite frankly grossly inappropriate for you to equate those things like that.

Category error. In the formal sense. Look it up.

EDIT: Also, you just made a Maxman argument (sort of like a Strawman, but not exactly). I didn't say "poor person" and I didn't say "couldn't afford". I just said that it was a lot of money for that person, and they chose to not pay it.

 

[Phoebasss]

Voluntarily making the choice not to play something, because you don't like how bonuses work is not suppression. Nobody is forcing you to avoid Orc Wizards. Nobody is preventing you from playing Orc Wizards. Those are the definitions of suppression. There is no evidence of suppression going on here.

In case you're wondering I did in fact google the dictionary definition of suppression before using it to make sure it correlated, concluded that the definition given there wasn't actually indicative of its modern usage, and that's why I gave an example of its modern usage. To make sure people wouldn't yell about dictionaries. But alas my examples of its use fell on deaf ears it looks like.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Look, I mean you can argue that I (and others) shouldn't care about my stats, but I do care. That's simply a fundamental distinction you can't bridge. And I'm going to advocate for a game that caters to my preference.

I have no issue with you not liking the fact that racial benefits can be better for some combinations than others.
I have no issue with you saying that this leads you to not want to play a non-optimal combination.
I do have an issue with the claim that the game does not allow people to play a non-optimised combination

 

[TwoSix]

So poor people who cannot afford a tax is not at all the same as you just choosing based solely on your personal preferences, not to play an Orc Wizard. It's insulting to poor people and minorities, and quite frankly grossly inappropriate for you to equate those things like that.

Dude, it's a metaphor. Nobody was morally equating them.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but you're ignoring a pretty large middle portion of the spectrum, here. Very, very few people are pure optimizers. I have a strong powergaming/optimization streak, but I don't play a Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter Fighter or an Oath of Vengeance Paladin or a Hexblade Sorlock as my characters.

But I also don't play gnome bards, or half-orc wizards, or a bunch of other interesting concepts precisely because they're suboptimal. And I (personally) know a bunch of other players who make that same calculation, whether consciously or subconsciously. To me, playing a character with a starting 14 or 15 is as grating as driving with the parking brake on; every time I roll an attack or damage I notice that my bonus isn't what it could be, and it makes the game less fun.

This is personal preference and I can respect that.

So, speaking as someone who has personally made these calculations, I know for a fact that removing racial bonuses in favor of a racial ability would give me more options.

This, though, is not true. The options are there for you whether you choose to avail yourself of them or not. That there would be more that you would choose to do is correct. That there would be more options is not correct.