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

Well, my favorite edition IS 1e....

The gender caps could be dropped with no real impact.
But I'd definitely like the racial & class min/maxes.

And since most of you seem to think PB is the only way to generate your characters it won't affect you much, if at all.

Maybe in my next 5e campaign I'll reinstate those min/maxes.

Carlsen Chris said:

Do you miss the time when a 4 Intelligence character couldn't be an Elf, or when a female human couldn't have 18/00 strength? Would the re introduction of racial and gender minimums and maximums add anyting to 5E, or would it be pointless? Would it detract?

Click to expand...

Nope. I don't miss them, because I still have them.

But the races are a bit different in my campaign. Based on the idea that in a lot of fiction, something like elves are seen as superior to humans in some, if not many ways. I like the rules to support that.

I also have class level limits, and spell level limits based on abilities. Again, to support the design of the world itself. Why aren't there more people casting 5th level spells in the world, to the degree that it changes the nature of society? Because it takes a 17 in that ability to do so.

Adventurers are always a cut above, and of course there are also magical ways to improve them. My ASIs give you a +1 to an ability score and a feat, or +1 plus pick two from: +1 to an ability score, new proficiencies, new skills, new maneuvers, etc.

We also roll our stats in order. You start with what you were born with and work from there. Of course, everybody has at least 3 characters too. The goal is to give you a mix of random determination, and your own choice. With players having so many characters (that can come in and out of the campaign frequently), the restrictions have never been an issue. But they go a long way to helping explain some of the demographics of the world.

I'm sure it won't be popular here, and is often questioned, but then those that decide to play find that they really enjoy it. I also find it amusing that folks would choose not to play it at all when it's only an issue at character creation.

Shiroiken said:

It is a relic of a different era, where ability scores didn't matter as much.

Click to expand...

What in the Abyss are you talking about? Your scores mattered ALOT in AD&D.

● Those minimums dictated what race & class you could choose. You rolled low, guess what? You weren't playing an _______ this time.
I don't know about you, but I think that's really important.

● You (often) got bonus xp if your classes prime stat was high enough.

● You didn't get +'s just for having a stat like you do here in the 21st century.....

● Skill checks were generally roll =/under your score. So yeah, you might not have +/-s, but you were better off trying to roll under a 13 than you were a 9.....

● You also weren't on some treadmill of increasing your scores every few lvs. So when you did somehow get a stat increase it was a big deal.

I have no problems with racial mins/maximums. But I have a problem with gender differences. Even if you get past just how stupid it is to have them, the D&D team might as well lock themselves in a garage with the cars running if the did something like that again.

ccs said:

What in the Abyss are you talking about? Your scores mattered ALOT in AD&D.

● Those minimums dictated what race & class you could choose. You rolled low, guess what? You weren't playing an _______ this time.
I don't know about you, but I think that's really important.

● You (often) got bonus xp if your classes prime stat was high enough.

● You didn't get +'s just for having a stat like you do here in the 21st century.....

● Skill checks were generally roll =/under your score. So yeah, you might not have +/-s, but you were better off trying to roll under a 13 than you were a 9.....

● You also weren't on some treadmill of increasing your scores every few lvs. So when you did somehow get a stat increase it was a big deal.

Click to expand...

In AD&D, you didn't get much (if any) benefit unless you had a 15 or higher. Yes, there were classes that were supposed to be rare due to ability requirements, but except for the paladin, they weren't super high (15 was the highest, except for the 17 Cha for paladin), and the 1E Unearthed Arcana even provided an alternate rolling method that pretty much ensured you could play the class you want (not to mention the number of DMs that just boosted the scores to reach the minimum). The bonus XP should have been huge (a big benefit if you got lucky and got a 16), but in reality it seldom mattered since everyone and their brother got it (DM's might give it to everyone, or players would only keep characters that had high ability scores anyway). I do miss avoiding the treadmill, however.

As for "skill checks" that was a product of 2E, which I didn't start playing until the late 90s. There was some system in the Dungeoneer's/Wilderness Survival Guides, but not many DMs I know used it. This made things more about the player's skill, rather than the characters.

Illithidbix said:

Nope, not at all.

I think if you want to consider the beyond ridiculousness of biomechanics in D&D, the Halfling is a curious starting point.

Although I now want to run a game that includes

"You see a dragon fly overhead, then it crashes..."

Click to expand...

That type of argument has always really irritated me. Because A is unrealistic and in the game, you must accept all other unrealistic whatevers. Ridiculous. Someday I'll write on essay on it, but for now the response is that flying dragons are part of the fiction from which game settings are drawn, whereas child-size folks with the strength of adult humans are not.

On topic, I'm not really a fan of racial max/min. The simple plus/minuses to stats based on race and gender are a more elegant approach.

It's clear that on planet Earth there is no way a human male and female should have the same strength maximums. At least Gygax's choices for 1e weren't completely ludicrous.

But when it comes to actually playing the game I find I don't miss them in the slightest. In fact, I think I'd get rid of racial bonuses completely. Add up the plusses each race currently gets. Give each player that many plusses with the restriction that no more than one stat can have a +2 added to it.

Shiroiken said:

In AD&D, you didn't get much (if any) benefit unless you had a 15 or higher. Yes, there were classes that were supposed to be rare due to ability requirements, but except for the paladin, they weren't super high (15 was the highest, except for the 17 Cha for paladin), and the 1E Unearthed Arcana even provided an alternate rolling method that pretty much ensured you could play the class you want (not to mention the number of DMs that just boosted the scores to reach the minimum). The bonus XP should have been huge (a big benefit if you got lucky and got a 16), but in reality it seldom mattered since everyone and their brother got it (DM's might give it to everyone, or players would only keep characters that had high ability scores anyway). I do miss avoiding the treadmill, however.

As for "skill checks" that was a product of 2E, which I didn't start playing until the late 90s. There was some system in the Dungeoneer's/Wilderness Survival Guides, but not many DMs I know used it. This made things more about the player's skill, rather than the characters.

Click to expand...

Well I will counter your ancedotes with others. We didnt use the UA method and when a DM boosts a score (say chr, which I think is 17), it was always the best score. So it can hurt.

In our gaming going back to the early 90's not everyone got the 10% bonus. Also, we had skill checks in 1e, and we used them sometimes. DM's also used the secondary skills in the DMG and sometimes even called for ability checks. Imagine that.

Having a high CON is kind of important also, especially for System Shock and Resurrection survival. Heaven the forbid you actually roll for Psionics and GET them!

Trust me, 15 is high when you are rolling 3d6.

All these aside, stats being important is built into 1e/2e, just like in 3/3.5/PF/5e, but not always in the same ways.

Carlsen Chris said:

Do you miss the time when a 4 Intelligence character couldn't be an Elf, or when a female human couldn't have 18/00 strength? Would the re introduction of racial and gender minimums and maximums add anyting to 5E, or would it be pointless? Would it detract?

Click to expand...

I remember those days fondly. Minima/maxima added a lot more racial character than stat modifiers do. That halflings get no bonus to Strength is a mere bagatelle, nothing. You can still have a halfling who is stronger than a 500 lb. gorilla and he won't even be unusual by 5E standards. But if halflings had to have starting Strength under 12 and Dex over 9, that would distinguish them from humans and make halflings more interesting, as a race.

dagger said:

Well I will counter your ancedotes with others. We didnt use the UA method and when a DM boosts a score (say chr, which I think is 17), it was always the best score. So it can hurt.

Click to expand...

This is what I did as a DM in 2e. I ran a game where my friends each played an invoker. If they didn't have the 16 required for Constitution then then had to put their highest stat into Constitution which would then be bumped up to the minimum. If their two highest stats were a 14 and a 15 then the 15 had to go into Constitution and they would be left with a 14 Intelligence instead of a 15.

I should probably note though that my method for stat generation back then was 4d6 drop lowest eight times and take the six best stats so chances are good that they would have something decent anyway.