D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Ilbranteloth]

I don't miss the gender maximums, since they were designed to penalize female characters only. "It's a game where females are allowed almost as much fun as males!" made it hard to recruit other women to play, it was fingernails on blackboard annoying, and I finally quit 1e over it. 2e brought me back. (THANK YOU, 2e, I shall always love you!)

The racial minimums and maximums were meant to differentiate, rather than create clear superiors or inferiors. I don't know that it was done well and I don't know that I really miss it, though, as I think that racial features are a better way to model a race being good in certain areas. I simply don't like it when something like "high dex" is thought of to be a racial feature and it leads to camping dex and insisting any other race which might match it in dex is now encroaching on its territory. Usually this seems to be leveled at humans who for some reason aren't supposed to be best at anything, even though in 1e (male) humans had the highest Str ceiling. I think the only way stat camping would work was if there were only six playable races, one for each stat.

Well, for the gender maximums, I don't think they were intended to penalize. I think they were intended to model that females are not as strong as males. And Strength is the only stat where they differed. In the real world, that still holds true today, although one might argue that the perception might have been a bit different in the mid- to late- 70s and it would not even be considered today. I was retaining those as well, but it got to the point where it just wasn't worth the trouble trying to explain it. And it really has virtually no difference in the quality of the game if there is no defined limit for either.

For me, I'm not really trying to add rules to differentiate. In other words it's not that I think there should be a race that does this, or has a high that, etc. It's from the other direction. Elves in my campaign aren't just thought to have unique fighting techniques, equipment, and such - they do. And it's not just that they might have a natural affinity for magic, they do. Not to mention centuries to perfect whatever they choose to do. So humans can reach certain heights, but beyond that they need magical or divine help. It's just tougher for them to learn to wield higher level magic than elves, and true high level magic, such as elven high magic, is not taught to humans, and magical assistance to increase an ability score is not usually given to humans by the elves. As a result, the elves have a higher maximum Intelligence.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Presumably there are other reasons to play an elf than just the +2 dex so you can be an archer. Right now, most archers I've seen in 5e are human anyway, because you can start with Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert.

And really, to fully do this thing properly, you'd replace the stat bonuses with something else that makes the race worth the cost of admission (maybe a racial feat - Magic Initiate for high elves, Sharpshooter for wood elves, etc).

Right now it's just an idea knocking around in my noggin, not a fully fleshed out set of rules.

I have been using racial feats (before the UA version). The sub-races essentially have "built-in" feats with their special abilities. Although I've been tweaking them from UA a bit.

For example, elves:

Elven Arcane Training
Prerequisite: An elf in good standing in ancestral elven home with access to training.
Elves are masters of the use of arcane magic. You gain one additional spell slot for each level of spells you can cast per day. In addition, when you use Arcane Recovery, you can regain a number of spell slots equal to or less than half your wizard level +2 (rounded down).

Elven Archer Training
Prerequisite: An elf in good standing in ancestral elven home with access to training.
When using a bow you gain the following benefits:
• In any round that you are not within 5 feet of a hostile creature, and you have attacked only with a bow, you can use your reaction to make an extra attack with your bow.
• Whenever you have advantage on an attack roll, you can reroll one of the dice once.

Elven Melee Training
Prerequisite: An elf in good standing in ancestral elven home with access to training.
• True elven chain, scale mail, or plate provides you immunity to slashing and piercing weapons that are not magical, and resistance to bludgeoning weapons that are non-magical.
• All true elven-made halberds, spears, and swords are finesse weapons for you, and you start play with an elven weapon.
• If you are a fighter, you gain this bonus maneuver:
Feinting Strike. If you make a melee attack against an opponent and miss, you can immediately use your reaction to make one weapon attack.

Note that armor in my campaign generally provides resistance to non-magical weapons of various types depending on the armor. There are maneuvers, fighting styles, and weapons that reduce immunity or resistance due to armor.

True elven weapons are not magic items per se, but they use their unique mithril alloy so they are treated as magic weapons in regards to immunity/resistance to non-magical weapons.

Generally speaking, gaining these items, as well as the training for the feats, is quite rare. But NPC elves will frequently have them, which is their primary intention.

 

[MechaPilot]

Well, for the gender maximums, I don't think they were intended to penalize. I think they were intended to model that females are not as strong as males. And Strength is the only stat where they differed. In the real world, that still holds true today, although one might argue that the perception might have been a bit different in the mid- to late- 70s and it would not even be considered today. I was retaining those as well, but it got to the point where it just wasn't worth the trouble trying to explain it. And it really has virtually no difference in the quality of the game if there is no defined limit for either.

As someone who hated and doesn't miss the gender maximums at all, I have to agree that they probably were not intended to penalize. I never personally met or corresponded with any of the people who created the game (or who are currently making it), but I have never heard anything about them as people that would make me ascribe a conscious and intentional bias against women or minorities.

That said, reality doesn't always match up with our intentions: while the inclusions of gender maximums probably didn't come from a place of bias or a desire to penalize, I can tell you they did create the perception of a penalty with myself, and with all of the other women who I tried to bring into the hobby.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As someone who hated and doesn't miss the gender maximums at all, I have to agree that they probably were not intended to penalize. I never personally met or corresponded with any of the people who created the game (or who are currently making it), but I have never heard anything about them as people that would make me ascribe a conscious and intentional bias against women or minorities.
.

Kim Mohan (editor of Dragon) did a response in one of the 80s Dragon magazines that was pretty sexist in defense of the strength penalty. In his defense, that was the 80s, and I'm not saying he's a sexist now. But that response was pretty bad.

 

[MechaPilot]

Kim Mohan (editor of Dragon) did a response in one of the 80s Dragon magazines that was pretty sexist in defense of the strength penalty. In his defense, that was the 80s, and I'm not saying he's a sexist now. But that response was pretty bad.

Oh. Thanks for informing me. I never really got into the magazines, so there's no way I would have known about that.

Also, I agree. People can change, and something written in the 80's should not be taken as an accurate indicator of what that same person believes in 30 years later.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh. Thanks for informing me. I never really got into the magazines, so there's no way I would have known about that.

Also, I agree. People can change, and something written in the 80's should not be taken as an accurate indicator of what that same person believes in 30 years later.

Definitely. I had some pretty backwards ideas in the 80s. Heck, I had some in the 90s too lol.


*Edit* And I didn't mean to single Kim out. Back then, there was a lot of sexism. Len Lakofka, who had a huge influence in the game design as a playtesters and contributor, wrote an article that basically said women are better thieves than men, but suck at fighting (Notes on Women & Magic article). But again, I think there is some moral relativity going on there. If you look at pop culture in the 70s in general (like the show Laugh In), sexism was HUGE and widely accepted as the norm. I'm sure neither of these guys adhere to the same beliefs now as education and awareness has improved.

 

[mrpopstar]

I don't miss them.

 

[Satyrn]

Why limiting a player that wants a challenge?

I played an Int 8 Wizard, which was actually the result of rolling everything at character creation (including class). I also rolled her background details from Tyranny of Dragons, and she turned out to be a former dragon re-incarnated into human by Bahamut, as a sort of punishment. So she could learn and cast spells, but could not understand why; the reason was... she's a dragon trapped in a human body, including human brain with less-than-average Int, so she actually already knew a lot of magic but couldn't remember.

And yes it was difficult to play, mostly because of the only 1 spell prepared. Obviously I tried to choose spells that didn't need an attack or ST.

You almost shame me.

When I was creating my forest gnome battlemaster, I placed the (default array) stats randomly, randomly chose his race, background (smuggler) and his class . . . except the randomly chosen class was a beserker barbarian. I pictured him as a swahbuckling Han Solo running head first into a horde of orc stormtroopers. It was awesome

. . . and then I noticed that the only thing about the barbarian that would have used his 16 Dex was the unarmored defense. All the other features require Strength. I just couldn't bring myself to play an 8 Strength barbarian.

You almost shame me, except that an 8 Int wizard can probably still be effective at it's schtick by focusing on buffs.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As an aside, if you look at the world championship results for weightlifting, women today are lifting almost the same as men were doing when AD&D was written. Gotta love modern training, diet, and equipment. So...strike one against gender limitations. And when you consider the trade off for being that level of pedantic is a huge black mark against the game and the community, it's a no brainer to me.

It's much easier for me to see how a 100kg woman can be as strong as a 125kg man than a 15kg halfling being as strong as a 125kg man. To me, a 20% gap isn't a big deal, but an 88% gap is a bit far.

 

[MechaPilot]

Definitely. I had some pretty backwards ideas in the 80s. Heck, I had some in the 90s too lol.


*Edit* And I didn't mean to single Kim out. Back then, there was a lot of sexism. Len Lakofka, who had a huge influence in the game design as a playtesters and contributor, wrote an article that basically said women are better thieves than men, but suck at fighting (Notes on Women & Magic article). But again, I think there is some moral relativity going on there. If you look at pop culture in the 70s in general (like the show Laugh In), sexism was HUGE and widely accepted as the norm. I'm sure neither of these guys adhere to the same beliefs now as education and awareness has improved.

Thanks for the edit. I actually ran across the Len Lakofka article you mentioned while Googling the other article. I agree that Lakofka's idea of replacing the Charisma stat with a Beauty stat for determining the ability to seduce male characters as some kind of gender-gated high magic of estrogen-kind is laughable and only serves to make my initial opinion of the man (I'd never heard of him before) an unfavorable one.

Not that I'm against introducing beauty and seduction into D&D.

I have my players select the attractiveness of their characters (average, beautiful, or ugly) with average being the default way things are handled in the PHB, and with the other two both granting benefits and penalties (for example, ugly and beautiful people both stand out in a crowd. Ugly people have social difficulties but are generally seen as being more physically intimidating and competent, while beautiful people have things easier in social situations but are seen as less physically intimidating and as having gotten by, at least in some degree, on their looks).

Plus, romance and sexuality are parts of the human experience, and they can make characters more rounded and realistic.