D&D 5E 5E AD&D Restricitons

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But for the rules to say that women have a capped or penalized Strength, that you cannot play a female character who is exceptionally strong -- well, there's just no reason for that. It limits creative options and potentially alienates woman gamers for no upside.

But 5E rules do already limit creative options and prevent women from being exceptionally strong. They cannot exceed Str 20 except under special circumstances.

5E also limits creativity for males. It just so happens that males are capped at the same value as females, thus making a statement about physical equality between male and female physiologies. That's a bit odd, but not half so odd as the fact that 5E makes the same statement of equivalence between Goliath and Gnome physiologies. I have no idea what's going on there. (IMO a good rule for old-school-style gaming is to say that racial modifiers also change the ability cap, so Dragonborns would be able to get up to Str 22.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I was just shocked that there were people defending it as a good rule, or that people that didn't use it were "virtue signalling." It's a terrible rule.

If a rule exists in a campaign, restricting certain races/genders from achieving certain combinations, but the DM is known to waive the restriction for any player who asks while still maintaining the general rule for verisimilitude, so there is no PC in practice affected by the restriction... does it make a noise?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ganymede81]

Disregard for negative peer pressure?

That is called contrarianism, and it seems implausible that gamers express preferences for certain game editions/mechanics principally in order to thumb their nose at those that prefer different editions/mechanics.

Joy in simulationism?

This was one of the big justifications made by Gygax, but it is built upon a foundation of sand. The Player's Handbook is principally a mechanical window in which players, through their characters, interact with the game world. It is not a system for simulating the sociocultural paradigm of the game world. When constructing a game world, the DM simply chooses what it is like; he or she does not attempt to simulate what it would look like by contrasting the stats of generation after generation of unmentioned NPCs.

 

[JonnyP71]

Re: the edit- if true (I don't have a copy at work!), then they are wrong. Terribly wrong.

On your first point, I'll give you another example of just how poorly thought out some of Gygax's tables are. Especially with the arbitrary gender restrictions.

When UA was released, they changed the level limits to your prerequsite ability in that class and made new tables. So... if you look at the halfling table, you'll notice something interesting.

It is no longer possible for a female halfling to be a fighter, period. Because it requires a 15 strength. Oops!

Don't be daft, 15 is not a requirement, it's just the point at which they start the table... anything less than 15 meant the same level limit as 15.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This was one of the big justifications made by Gygax, but it is built upon a foundation of sand. The Player's Handbook is principally a mechanical window in which players, through their characters, interact with the game world. It is not a system for simulating the sociocultural paradigm of the game world. When constructing a game world, the DM simply chooses what it is like; he or she does not attempt to simulate what it would look like by contrasting the stats of generation after generation of unmentioned NPCs.

Well, that certainly is an opinion!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*