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

[Celebrim]

You're saying I can't get thespian with a one-hit wonder?

Were you and I at the same table when you said that, my next words would be "Just sit down in that chair right there and let me show you how it's done."

I'd love to see it.

No seriously, I would.

First off, as a player I still get to see the story - the party's story (which is the one that matters) - play out even if my own role at the table is to, in effect, play a series of bit parts.

That's an interesting perspective, but regardless, you are still forgoing some of the most important aspects of narrative by accepting that that is what story means in the context of an RPG. I don't think I agree that the party's story is the story that matters, any more than I'd agree that in a cooperative game only an individual characters story matters. And as a practical matter, the party's story is the story of the members that have made up the party, and if no part member arises above the level being a bit player, the whole story suffers. My current campaign suffers IMO from all the lose threads and broken stories that have occurred as characters died. If I novelized it, there would be more continuity for the purposes of improving the story.

Second off, in a randomized system there's only so much powergaming one can do...

You'd think, but I'm pretty sure that's not true.

As soon as I see the words "damage per round" my first reaction is to want to just skip to the next post; as all they make me think of is 3e-style powergaming crap that's largely anathaemic to the way I prefer to play.

I'm not a powergamer myself, but I also prefer as a player not to lose my character, and as a GM for my player's characters to survive. For that to happen in a 'randomized system', they have to exert both system mastery and skillful play.

I've found straight Thieves aren't as bad at combat as you seem to think...provided they don't just wade into the front line and try going toe to toe:

Round 1 - sneak into position and hide
Round 2 - sneak in, two-weapon backstrike, back out when possible if foe not dead
Round 3 - move and hide
Round 4 - sneak in, two-weapon backstrike ... (etc.)

Leaving aside whether it is even legal to do that with thief skill, and whether its tactically possible in the majority of situations, your combat got to round 4.

No you don't. The MU's no-armour restriction trumps the Fighter-side's ability to wear it, assuming you ever want to cast any spells.

With dual-classing, that's certainly true. It doesn't with demi-human multi-classing, unless I was mistaken the entire time I was playing 1e AD&D.

 

[Shasarak]

3e swung the pendulum way too far the other way; in that a competent PC could build what she wanted in the few days break between adventures. Bleah!

My favourite was 4e. Take an hour and a bit of magic pixie dust and Bleah! any item you want.

It is no wonder that 5e herpy derped too far back the other way on the pendulum swing.

 

[MoonSong]

The "Roll under Stat" skill system isn't a bad idea though. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Imagine if you ported that over to 5e? Stats don't give bonuses to skills, they simply set the base DC for a character to succeed at a skill. Proficiency bonuses could be added to the stat to give a modified base DC. It would be a bit wonky since we don't do "roll under" for anything else, but, I think it's not a huge problem.

Roll under stat is how DSA does it.

That's untrue. She is not told that for a few reasons. First, she is not limited to female PCs. Second, a 18/50 strength is still very, very strong, so the concept is still there even with a female PC.

In patriarchal Balkanic societies otherwise non-citizen women were/are allowed mostly full rights, as long as they basically stopped being women. Doesn't make the situation less sexist.

It took me years of playing before I realized how imbalanced the game was and how favored a good build could be over one that wasn't. Contrary to you intuition, having high stats in 3e is generally less important than good stats in 1e, because in 3e a 14 is actually a pretty good number and the gap between a 14 and an 18 is there but its not infinite.

I still have people doubting my tales of playing Cha 13 sorcerers in 3e. The perceptions are quite distorted by overly generous stats being normalized over the editions. Anything between 11-13 is actually high -and 8-9 is not really low-

The whole thing with all the male gods being lecherous old farts is sexist, but really isn't the far from many real world mythologies - Zeus was a serial rapist.

I'd say that ironically Hades was the nicest of Greek Gods -abduction of Persephone notwithstanding-.

 

[Helldritch]

@Celebrim

1) I played mostly AD&D from 1981 up to 1993. I was strongly against 2ed as it was not bringing anything that should have been brought. I was quite a harsh DM. I have never been afraid to TPK, and I am still not afraid to do it. Most group don't go past level 9. But those that do...

I've had quite a few of my players that took first place in tournament play in my area. Once in a tournament, the top 4 places were held by players of mine. The people in charge even asked me to show them how I was DMing. I obliged them and gave them one of my pet module.

It is not because my experience is different from yours that it is not a good one. What is in there is there to be used. Maybe your players were not going that high. But most campaings were not going as high for me too. But those that did... Boy they did. In OD&D, my first gaming group rose to level 36 up to Temporal 4th. Remember that in those strange times, gold was worth experience. 1 for 1...

2) Magic item creation was ridiculously easy. Want a +3 sword? Fine. Magic weapon, permanency and voilà. You got it. Anything above +3 was a bit harder. That is why you needed special metal that were already considered magical in nature and the receipe that were going to help you create one. Ho and what was a single point of constitution when you could previously clone yourself a body without the loss of constitution that could happened? And restoration was there to give that point back to you. Or, in last resort, a wish.

Once you got to level 12 and up, making magic was almost a laugh. The higher you got in level, the easier it was getting. When they brought in the cost in experience to create one, that put a real stop (well, more or less depending on how you viewed thing). And even then, there was a loop hole in 2nd edition in which the wizard could avoid paying the experience costs... (but that should be for another post...).

As for building an artifact,
No the players did not have that kind of power. But with legend and lore they could get their hands on the nearest copy. Wish was the mandatory way to get attribute enhancement. Magic jar into a willing host that you paid. Wish what you want, host ages instead of you. Compensate the host with a few thousand gold pieces and rince and repeat.

Remember, I am not talking about the average group here. I am talking about elite power gamers that rose to rarely seen levels. I was one of them. Just DMing was a challenge in every way. I saw a single 14th level mage destroy the steading the hill giant by himself. The other players just watched him with amused smile. That mage knew what he was doing.

As for my dual fighter mage. Nope, he rolled so poorly in strength that he barely qualified for dual training. I was specialized in the long sword as any other fighter of that time. I was really hoping for gloves of ogre strength. I never saw one pair near me. I switched to mage because:
1) I had rolled an 18 in intelligence with a 3d6 roll.
2) A role play opportunity to do so opened itself.
3) I had taken care to keep some of the wizard loot for my self. The second wand of magic missile, the second wand fire, an extra pair of bracers of ac 5. etc...

As for the treasures...
If you follow the strict rule yep, it can be hard, at first look.
Take a sample progression.
Level 1-4 Rahasia then Horror on the hills. or Castanamir's lost island with Castle Caldwell? Maybe Temple of elemental evil?
Level 5-10 Either Scourge of the slave lords, or Desert of desolation?
Level 10-14 Why not take GDQ 1-7?

Right there you have more magical items than a single group can hope for. In fact, you can equip more that 3 different groups with what you will find in magic items in there. You even have a girdle of giant strength, a pair of gloves of ogre's strength and the famous dwarven throwing hammer. Should I add more? And if your players started with homlett in the temple of elemental evil, they have a frost brand, and a flame blade in there too... If you expand the nodes and fill them with the treasure they propose, it can become quite ridiculous. Yep, magic finding was not at its lowest.

As for your experience, I have no doubt that it was a great one. But from 1981 to 1986, I was playing 5 to 7 times a week with sessions ranging from 4 to 8 hours or more each. I was playing with many different groups. Most groups were lasting but a few months and would go on by themselves as I was introducing them to the hobby and I was training their DM. They were replaced almost immediately by an other group for an introduction into the hobby and training of their DM. I was really active in our equivalent of the YMCA in our region. That is why I have had the chance to play that much and to have so many different players. Now, I restrict my self to two groups, family and work makes up for a hard schedule. One meet on a weekly schedule, the other we play once or twice a month.

From 1986 to 1990 I had only two groups. One met for 2 to 3 times a week and the other was as today, once or twice per month. The group that was meeting for 2 to 3 times played the equivalent of 8 to 12 years in those four years. So yes, These levels could be attained back then. But it took time and dedication. Maybe this little historic of my past gives you an insight of what I am.

 

[Maxperson]

In patriarchal Balkanic societies otherwise non-citizen women were/are allowed mostly full rights, as long as they basically stopped being women. Doesn't make the situation less sexist.

Cool. We're discussing figments of the imagination here, not real people. Apples and oranges.

 

[Hussar]

You seem to have missed the part where an 18/50 is incredibly strong.



I have no problem with it, although I personally don't use gender limitations. It's certainly not sexist.

I know! Let's make it so that only humans can be paladins. Oh, wait, that's how it was. It wasn't racist, either.

There are three increments in 1e Str between 18/50 and 18/00.

Would you be okay setting the female Str max to 12 in 5e? Because THAT'S what the difference was. +2/hit and +3 to damage is the difference between 18/50 and 18/00. Pretty much the difference between 12 and 18 in 5e.

Still think it's not sexist?

Oh, and you cannot be racist to fictional races. Sorry, that's not how racism works.

 

[Hussar]

I'm beginning to think we weren't playing the same game. I'm trying to think what treasure table of the AD&D era you think is generous with magic items. If you played straight up by the tables, you'd end up with almost no magic items at all. I had rep as a 'killer DM', but even I would place more magic items than the rules strictly called for.

Really? Virtually every treasure roll had about a 10% chance of 2-4 magic items. That meant that killing a single troll (trolls came in groups of 1 as well as groups of 10) could net you magic items. EVERY lair had about a 10% (give or take) of multiple magic items.

How many lairs would a party have cleared out by, say, 7th level?

Good grief, the Paladin proves how generous 1e was for magic items. When you're hard capped to only 10 magic items, that means the expectation is there that everyone in the group will have more than that.

 

[Hussar]

Cool. We're discussing figments of the imagination here, not real people. Apples and oranges.

Then why are you attempting to apply real world gender differences to our figments of the imagination?

 

[Celebrim]

Enchant an item, permanency and some ingredients the DM comes up with, and a cost. Not onerous at all.

Really? Ok, allow me to quote from those non-onerous conditions. First, the least onerous and most accessible, "Enchant An Item"

First, it's a 6th level spell so at minimum you need to be 11th level and you have to have tested this spell and made into your minimum known spells - even with an 18 INT there is at least a 15% you'll never be able to learn this spell at all. Here is what the spell reads like, cleaned up a bit to not fill up the whole screen:

"The item to be prepared must be touched manually by the spell caster. This touching must be constant and continual during the casting time which is a base 16 hours plus an additional 8-64 hours [divided over 8 hours working days] All work must be uninterrupted, and during rest periods the item must never be more than 1' distant from the spell caster, for if it is, the whole spell is spoiled and must be performed again.... absolutely no other form of magic may be performed and the magic-user must remain quiet and in isolation. At the end of the spell the caster will "know" that the item is ready for the final test. He or she will then pronounce the final magic syllable [and if the spell-caster the passes a saving throw versus magic], the spell is completed. Once the spell is completed, the magic-user may begin to place the desired dweomer on the item, and the spell he or she plans to place on or within the item must [be begun] with 24 hours or the preparatory spell fades, and the item must again be enchanted. Each spell subsequently cast up on the object bearing an enchant an item spell requires 4 hours plus 4-8 additional hours per spell level of the magic being cast [and each of these may secretly fail as the DM rolls saving throws in secret without informing the caster is he's just wasted his time, thus it is possible to go through this whole process and end up with a magical item that does nothing]...No magic placed on or onto an item is permanent unless a permanency spell is used as a finishing touch... Scrolls or magical devices can never be used to enchant an item or cast magic upon an item being prepared."

Doesn't sound too bad, lets consider that permanency spell.

Well, to start with, it's a 8th level spell, and if I have an 18 INT there is a 15% chance I'll never learn it at all (so more than a quarter of 15th level 18 INT M-U's can't create permanent magic items). If you want to make a wand starting at 11th level, you can do that. But if you want to make a mere sword +1, you need to be 15th level! I don't think I've ever seen a 15th level M-U started legitimately, and I certainly never got a character that high. But that's not remotely the onerous part. The bad part is every time you cast permanency, you have a 5% chance of losing a point of Constitution permanently! I have no idea what idiots actually create sword +1's in D&D, because I have a hard time imagining a 15th level M-U ever deciding to risk a point of Constitution to create an implement that is so mundane and of so little use to himself as a sword +1, but there it is.

The DMG also notes regarding this process that once it is complete, the M-U finds it so draining that the spell caster must rest for one full day for each 100 g.p. of the items experience point value, and during this period the caster is unable to use spells or undertake any but the most mild exercise. So even if you could create a Manual of Bodily Exercise, you'd be 50 days in bed before you could get any even after having completed the work.

But even the 5% chance of Constitution loss and the death spiral that entails isn't the worst of it. The worst of it is that you are vaguely up to the whim of the DM who is encouraged by the text to make the process as onerous as possible. For example, this is the proposed process for creating an example magic item in the DMG:

"For example, a player character wizard desires to create a Ring of Spell Storing. He or she commissions a platinum smith to fashion a ring of the finest quality and pays 5000 g.p, for materials and labor. He or she then casts enchant an item spell according to the Players Handbook instructions. As DM you know inform him or her that in order contain and accept the spells he or she desires to store in the device, a scroll bearing the desired spells must be scribed, and then a permanency spell cast upon the scroll, then the scroll must be merged with the ring by some means (typically a wish spell)."

Now, this is even worse than it sounds, because to do that, we have to come by a wish - which according to the Player's Handbook, can't come from a scroll or device if it is to be used in the manufacturing process, so in other words we are now in this case up to a 17th level character. Plus, he has to craft the scroll, which means that for each spell he has to discover a secret ink invented by the DM and containing whatever rare and fiendish ingredients that the DM demands (typically monster body parts, which then must be found and harvested). And the whole thing could still fail because the item fails a saving throw versus magic, some time after the special scroll is prepared (with chance of CON loss) and the wish then cast.

Now if that is the standard we are using, then asked to invent the recipe for actually desirable and 'chase' or 'kit' items, I'm as a DM going to be much harsher than that. I suppose there are groups out there that forgo some or all of these restrictions in practice or by declaration, but as a practical matter I have never seen a party in 1e AD&D create more than a few potions for their own use. The full force of the rules is designed in my opinion to ensure that parties generally prefer to acquire items through adventuring, rather than create magic marts.

It wasn't a minor artifact. It was simply a magic item like boots or cloaks, albeit a more valuable and powerful one. I just read the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Manual of Bodily Health. Neither of them says anything about ancient NPCs or PCs not being able to make them, nor does the magic item creation section.

I may have misremembered or misinterpreted, but this is what I read:

"Books (including tomes, librams and manuals), artifacts and relics are of ancient manufacture, possibly from a superior human or demihuman technology, perhaps of divine origin, thus books artifacts and relics cannot be made by players and come ONLY from the Dungeon Master."

It seems pretty plain to me that PC's can't make a Manual of Bodily Health or a Libram of Silver Magic.

I think your DM was just being cruel.

Maybe. Or it could be that they were just reading the rules, something that was in my experience notably rare at the time.

 

[Celebrim]

Magic item creation was ridiculously easy. Want a +3 sword? Fine. Magic weapon, permanency and voilà. You got it... Ho and what was a single point of constitution when you could previously clone yourself a body without the loss of constitution that could happened? And restoration was there to give that point back to you. Or, in last resort, a wish....Once you got to level 12 and up, making magic was almost a laugh...Wish was the mandatory way to get attribute enhancement. Magic jar into a willing host that you paid. Wish what you want, host ages instead of you. Compensate the host with a few thousand gold pieces and rince and repeat...

Ok, I'm just going to stop there. I'm glad you had fun, but I assure you that we were playing different games. I'm not going to spend time quibbling with all the fun you had in your youth. I'm just going to say that I don't think much of that would fly for any DM I ever had, and that a good deal of it seems to be very much against the plain reading of the advice in the 1e AD&D DMG. Now, good things can come from running very different campaigns than the 1e AD&D DMG envisions, and more power to those brave frontiersman.... but I really don't think we were playing the same game.

...The second wand of magic missile, the second wand fire, an extra pair of bracers of ac 5. etc...

A second wand of fire??? Yeah, definitely not the same game. The most high powered game I was ever involved in couldn't touch that.

Right there you have more magical items than a single group can hope for...

Well, sure, if the DM is running games entirely by offering you the adventure path of your choice, which notoriously power level you through extremely generous treasure and magic item stock piles to ensure that the party can go on to the next adventure, then sure...

But that's a far cry from, "treasure tables were much more generous then than what they are today."