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

[tetrasodium]

Can I ask, out of curiosity, what you find mechanically interesting about the choice between half-orc and high elf wizard? I just want to understand what it is that makes losing 5% efficiency at nearly everything you're supposed to do well in exchange for getting to tell your story a compelling decision?

as you start moving between settings the tropes used to build a particular race based on how that race exists in FR start breaking down & in some cases they break down hard.
Since we are specifically talking about orcs & half Orcs I'll start with them. Orcs in eberron have a massively different cultural role in the setting... For example:

There is also an eberron specific half orc subrace that adds a bunch of spells to your class spell list but is a bad example in this case because they all look to be on the wizard list & it's other features are a really bad mix for wizard. There is a halfling subrace that adds spells to class lists too & it makes a great no arguing over if that's subjectively good enough example in what it would add to the wizard class spells... This wizard will play viscerally different even before you get into how the dragonmark focus items it gains access to change things

In total there are 13 dragonmark races and there are plenty of reasons why someone might look at a particular races features to say "I want that on my $class even though the +2 is a suboptimal attrib", Your inability to see or accept or even bother arguing why it's bad speaks towards another problem unrelated to either option. All of the nonhuman races have race features like this but rarely do they risk to the level of shiny that variant human has with "I can bring a (multi)feat based concept online 4 levels earlier" free feat. Moving the attrib bonus out from under race into some other design space like culture/background/whatever allows those racial features to be more interesting & better developed so race plays a bigger role in every class making it so you can have two three four or more players at the same table with the same class but they all play differently because they have different races. The presence of a +2 in one stat vrs some other stat does not significantly change how those two play the game. @Haldrik are you also unable to see how this wizard with a 14-15 int & +2 in wis along with a bunch of nonwizard spells/new racial features is just as good as the +2 16 int wizard but good in a different way?

as much as you protested when @TwoSix raised it, this is not a question of bad vrs good, it's a question of good in one way vrs good in other way(s) and still reasonably good

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I pretty much wholesale reject the idea that DnD isn't the "generic fantasy character" game already. It's the default game for any fantasy gaming group, and most people who play other games have reasons for doing so, while people usually pick DnD because... why not?

So, to slightly push back on that.

There is a big difference between "generic" and "default" that I think you are confusing.

D&D is not just the default fantasy TTRPG ... D&D is the default TTRPG, period. To borrow a phrase- when D&D sneezes, the rest of the TTRPG industry catches a cold. It's the 800lb gorilla.

It is (almost always) the first TTRPG that most people play, and it is a generic shorthand for all TTRPGs in the culture at large (don't bother explaining to someone else that you're playing Pathfinder, or Traveler, or Blades in the Dark, just say, "I'm playing D&D" and they will understand).

D&D is certainly the default TTRPG.

But it's not generic fantasy. D&D is weird. It is its own thing. It doesn't model any particular fantasy very well (or any "generic fantasy") other than .... D&D.

Generic fantasy isn't Dragonborn Paladins, and Tortle Monks venturing forth to defeat Beholders. That's D&D. Not generic fantasy. IMO.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Random thought: What if race provided a stat floor, rather than a bonus? Just as an example, if you were playing an elf, and your Dex was less than 13, it would became a 13.

That way, you're still getting that setting building that comes from the tie between race and stat, but it doesn't benefit any particular class build, except by favoring multiclassing into classes with the related stat.

I've thought about a similar thing. It does mean that anybody building a class that didn't require Dex would effectively (using Standard Array) have a 13 instead of an 8 in the array.

 

[TwoSix]

I've thought about a similar thing. It does mean that anybody building a class that didn't require Dex would effectively (using Standard Array) have a 13 instead of an 8 in the array.

Yep, pretty much. I think it adds some interesting cost-benefit analysis to the race pick, but I understand some people might feel it's too much.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think this is problematic.

Not on the surface of it, but of it leads to the game losing some of the tension, the mechanical texture, that makes creating a character feel like playing D&D.

I think it is a mistake to just give everybody what they want, to make orcs just as good PC wizards as elves.

Idiosyncratic limits, limits that's "just there" for no particular reason, should be cherished. They define the experience of building a D&D character as opposed to a generic fantasy character.

Yeah, that's fair. It's the core disagreement here, and it comes down to preference and opinion.

 

[Phoebasss]

as you start moving between settings the tropes used to build a particular race based on how that race exists in FR start breaking down & in some cases they break down hard.
Since we are specifically talking about orcs & half Orcs I'll start with them. Orcs in eberron have a massively different cultural role in the setting... For example:
View attachment 124896
There is also an eberron specific half orc subrace that adds a bunch of spells to your class spell list but is a bad example in this case because they all look to be on the wizard list & it's other features are a really bad mix for wizard. There is a halfling subrace that adds spells to class lists too & it makes a great no arguing over if that's subjectively good enough example in what it would add to the wizard class spells... This wizard will play viscerally different even before you get into how the dragonmark focus items it gains access to change things
View attachment 124897
In total there are 13 dragonmark races and there are plenty of reasons why someone might look at a particular races features to say "I want that on my $class even though the +2 is a suboptimal attrib", Your inability to see or accept or even bother arguing why it's bad speaks towards another problem unrelated to either option. All of the nonhuman races have race features like this but rarely do they risk to the level of shiny that variant human has with "I can bring a (multi)feat based concept online 4 levels earlier" free feat. Moving the attrib bonus out from under race into some other design space like culture/background/whatever allows those racial features to be more interesting & better developed so race plays a bigger role in every class making it so you can have two three four or more players at the same table with the same class but they all play differently because they have different races. The presence of a +2 in one stat vrs some other stat does not significantly change how those two play the game. @Haldrik are you also unable to see how this wizard with a 14-15 int & +2 in wis along with a bunch of nonwizard spells/new racial features is just as good as the +2 16 int wizard but good in a different way?

as much as you protested when @TwoSix raised it, this is not a question of bad vrs good, it's a question of good in one way vrs good in other way(s) and still reasonably good

I don't actually know why this quotes me. Is it directed at me?

 

[Phoebasss]

So, to slightly push back on that.

There is a big difference between "generic" and "default" that I think you are confusing.

D&D is not just the default fantasy TTRPG ... D&D is the default TTRPG, period. To borrow a phrase- when D&D sneezes, the rest of the TTRPG industry catches a cold. It's the 800lb gorilla.

It is (almost always) the first TTRPG that most people play, and it is a generic shorthand for all TTRPGs in the culture at large (don't bother explaining to someone else that you're playing Pathfinder, or Traveler, or Blades in the Dark, just say, "I'm playing D&D" and they will understand).

D&D is certainly the default TTRPG.

But it's not generic fantasy. D&D is weird. It is its own thing. It doesn't model any particular fantasy very well (or any "generic fantasy") other than .... D&D.

Generic fantasy isn't Dragonborn Paladins, and Tortle Monks venturing forth to defeat Beholders. That's D&D. Not generic fantasy. IMO.

I don't really think I'm confusing them though I did kind of use them interchangeably there. My position is basically that DnD has sat at the front of the TTRPG world for so long, that its catch-all tropes and racial biases have become the base other fantasy games build from or make changes to. And I think it can do a better job at being that base by not sticking so strongly to the tropes it established that then became staples of fantasy games. Not to mention some of the official settings even seem to spit in the face of certain racial stat bonuses.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't really think I'm confusing them though I did kind of use them interchangeably there. My position is basically that DnD has sat at the front of the TTRPG world for so long, that its catch-all tropes and racial biases have become the base other fantasy games build from or make changes to. And I think it can do a better job at being that base by not sticking so strongly to the tropes it established that then became staples of fantasy games. Not to mention some of the official settings even seem to spit in the face of certain racial stat bonuses.

So, I think you are really hinting at a slightly different issue when you start with "catch-all tropes" and end with "racial biases[.]"

I want to be clear that one core strength of D&D (in my opinion) has always been that it treats all of humanity as the same. While there have been a few stray references and/or Dragon articles that might have tried to further differentiate humanity, that has (thankfully) never been a thing in D&D.

One of the benefits of playing "make believe" or D&D is that you get to imagine yourself as something other than a human (if that's you bag). There are times when I'd like to imagine I'm playing a strong brute, or a lithe cat, or a flying birdperson. Just like if I was playing sci-fi game, I would hope that the aliens were different (or, you know, just had funny head ridges but otherwise just like us!).

There are those who think that the use of the term "race" combined with certain key differentiation has something to do with the real world; I am sympathetic to those arguments, especially when it comes to the origin of certain concepts (such as orcs) and being sensitive about portrayals.

I don't think that this necessary caution means that, for example, the Goliath (+2 Str, +1 Con) is bad. And I don't think that your preference is universal- far from it.

 

[Maxperson]

What about Strength? You cheated by using Con as your example. It's the only stat useful to all characters in combat. Dex is pretty similarly generally useful for AC. But what do you do with Strength? Or Int? Those aren't opinion anymore. They are worse if you can't attack with them in a reasonable way.

I didn't cheat. I answered the question. Wisdom and Charisma are similarly useful. Strength is the least useful, but still useful depending on the situation. And it's pretty telling that you say that "They are worse if you can't attack with them in a reasonable way." Combat is one pillar among three and while it has the most rules devoted to it, because if its complexity, it is not the most important. All three pillars are equally important in a game or at least in my opinion should be.

EDIT: Not to mention that Combat is the only fully fleshed out pillar in 5e, and most situations in most games come down to combat resolution eventually.
EDIT 2: And no matter how you swing it, your primary stat is how you're going to be interacting with the world most often.

If that's your experience, then it's no wonder that you think you have to put the +2 into your main stat. That's the DM's fault in my opinion. All three pillars should be used in about equal amounts, and if most situations are coming down to combat resolution, something is terribly wrong. You should be able to interact socially and explore without it almost always coming down to combat.

I'd quit a game where most situations ended up in combat. Combat has its place and is fun, but it's not most of the game.

Edit: All PCs should be using all stats to interact with the world as well. They should not be relying on their primary stat for most of their interaction. Their primary can and probably will be more than any other individual stat, but the other stats should greatly outnumber the prime stat when combined, and should be used fairly often.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, I think you are really hinting at a slightly different issue when you start with "catch-all tropes" and end with "racial biases[.]"

I want to be clear that one core strength of D&D (in my opinion) has always been that it treats all of humanity as the same. While there have been a few stray references and/or Dragon articles that might have tried to further differentiate humanity, that has (thankfully) never been a thing in D&D.

One of the benefits of playing "make believe" or D&D is that you get to imagine yourself as something other than a human (if that's you bag). There are times when I'd like to imagine I'm playing a strong brute, or a lithe cat, or a flying birdperson. Just like if I was playing sci-fi game, I would hope that the aliens were different (or, you know, just had funny head ridges but otherwise just like us!).

There are those who think that the use of the term "race" combined with certain key differentiation has something to do with the real world; I am sympathetic to those arguments, especially when it comes to the origin of certain concepts (such as orcs) and being sensitive about portrayals.

I don't think that this necessary caution means that, for example, the Goliath (+2 Str, +1 Con) is bad. And I don't think that your preference is universal- far from it.

I'm pretty sure that by "racial biases" they meant things like elves being magical or hobbits being lucky, or even more specifically like "elves get +2 Dex". I really don't think it was meant as more than that.

Should I read anything into your assumption that it was? Such as a suspicion that this is all really about that?

(Or maybe I'm wrong. I'll let @Phoebasss clarify.)

EDIT: I don't want to come across as snarky, so let me explain that this fierce defense of racial ASIs genuinely perplexes and surprises me. So I have a sneaking suspicion that others have a sneaking suspicion that this is all a front for an attack on D&D from the forces of political correctness, which tends to trigger all sorts of weird reactions. Thus I tend to see evidence, perhaps where there is none, of this happening.