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

Caliban

Rules Monkey
I don't miss them.

But I am intrigued by the notion of, instead of a bonus to a stat, each race has a requirement for that stat. I.e. You have to "buy" the elf race by putting a minimum of a 15 in Dex and an 13 in the sub-race bonus. The maximum stat is increased, but you don't get an inherent bonus to it. (i.e. Elves have a Racial Max Dex of 22, and have to start with at least a 15, but don't actually get a bonus to Dex.)

You may or may not want to add a few extra non-stat racial bonuses.

The idea is that you "buy" the race, instead of taking the race to increase your stats.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As long as you don't treat NPCs as second-class citizens, who are somehow inferior to PCs simply because they're NPCs, then I won't hold it against you. That's how I was reading your post, but it could have been a simple miscommunication due to the nature of text-based forums.

Not even sure how you do this: Do you mean inferior in terms of power? Or in terms of spotlight time? Or social status?
 

The idea is that you "buy" the race, instead of taking the race to increase your stats.
This reminds me of the last two editions of GURPS, and the huge difference that sort of change can make.

In the previous edition of GURPS, stats were purchased on a bell curve, so it was cheap to buy +1 or +2 (above racial starting average) and more expensive to get +3 or +4, with +5 or greater being prohibitive. The cost for playing a race was also designed on a bell curve, so it would only cost a couple of points to play a race that had a racial average that was slightly above human average. Exact numbers escape me, but it worked out something like playing +2 above racial average for a race that was naturally +2 above human average meant that you could effectively start with a +4 to a stat for a lower cost than a human starting with a +3. The net effect was that you saw a lot of elven archers, dwarf fighters, and goblin wizards.

With the more recent edition, they got rid of the bell curve, and all stats are a flat cost. Whether you wanted +1 or +5 to a stat, it cost the same flat rate per point. An elf might still start at Dex +2, but it would cost you 40 points to play an elf, and a human could just spend those 40 points to buy Dex +2 without being an elf. Except not really, because being an elf also meant that you were pretty and aged more slowly, so it would actually cost you 47 points to play an elf compared to the 40 points to just be a better human. The net effect was that non-human races became exceptionally rare, because they were causally less powerful; an elf archer was always less skilled than a human archer, because the elf archer was loaded down with racial benefits that didn't actually help them in any way, where the human could just spend all of those points on being good with a bow.

It's a similar situation here. If both humans and elves have to pay the same point cost to start with a 15 in Dex, then the major reason to make your archer an elf rather than a human - the major reason why a serious party would bring an elf along, rather than a human - is because they have better non-stat racial benefits. You know, like automatic proficiency with the bow and the perception skill, which are meaningless in the context of a character who would have both of those things anyway. (The higher maximum Dex would be the real reason that so many amazing archers were elves, but that is a non-factor until you're super high-level, and balancing characters so that they're bad at low level and good at high levels is another trend that's been out of fashion since the late eighties.)
 

Not even sure how you do this: Do you mean inferior in terms of power? Or in terms of spotlight time? Or social status?
In terms of the statistical model. Whether a halfling warrior is permitted to raise their Strength above 12 (for example) should never depend on whether the warrior is a PC or NPC, because the difference between PC and NPC is a meta-game distinction that doesn't reflect anything objective within the game world.
 

The Old Crow

Explorer
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.
 


Caliban

Rules Monkey
It's a similar situation here. If both humans and elves have to pay the same point cost to start with a 15 in Dex, then the major reason to make your archer an elf rather than a human - the major reason why a serious party would bring an elf along, rather than a human - is because they have better non-stat racial benefits. You know, like automatic proficiency with the bow and the perception skill, which are meaningless in the context of a character who would have both of those things anyway. (The higher maximum Dex would be the real reason that so many amazing archers were elves, but that is a non-factor until you're super high-level, and balancing characters so that they're bad at low level and good at high levels is another trend that's been out of fashion since the late eighties.)

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. :p

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. :)
 
Last edited:


In terms of the statistical model. Whether a halfling warrior is permitted to raise their Strength above 12 (for example) should never depend on whether the warrior is a PC or NPC, because the difference between PC and NPC is a meta-game distinction that doesn't reflect anything objective within the game world.

Ah. I see. Yep. Racial maximums are a property of the race and apply whether the member is a PC or NPC.
(Granted, NPCs are much less likely than PCs to actually encounter this issue.)
 


Remove ads

Top