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

[MechaPilot]

I just don't see how "balance" over levels could possibly be a good idea. Gygax was creating a new kind of game, so there was bound to be some wonkiness. Since game designers quickly abandoned this idea,I think we can assume it's a poor design choice.

Well, in fairness, if you assume that people are going to play across the full range of levels, then "Campaign Balance" (the term I use for balancing classes by making some better at early levels and others better at later levels) makes a certain amount of sense.

However, campaign balance breaks down when people don't play across the whole range of levels. That, coupled with information that most campaigns don't reach the highest levels, is likely what prompted a change to "Level Balance" (where classes are balanced against other classes as long the characters are the same level).

Also, campaign balance wasn't done away with right away. 3e used campaign balance. However, they also screwed it up by forgetting that the different XP tables per class were a necessary part of that kind of balance. It was 4e, and 5e to a lesser extent, that went for level balance by trying to take the characteristics of the "sweet spot" and applying them across the full range of levels.

Limiting players levels based on their race/class combo causes problems in the game, and yes, it is punishing the player. Once again, this was the first rpg, and designers learned, modified game philosophy, and added tools to their tool box, so to speak.

I agree that it caused problems and felt punitive. Had they given humans something as an ability other than "can advance to any level" then that might have been avoided. Even simply saying that humans advance faster than non-humans would have been a decent way to go. And, frankly, given the longevity of elves and dwarfs, would have made sense. Humans have less time, so they push themselves harder than the longer-lived races to achieve more in their limited life span.

Of course, I can play the game any way I want. We were, however discussing the racial limitations in the old ADD. I don't miss them because it squashed player choice, and didn't work well from a game design perspective.

I think the class-based ability score requirements probably squashed the majority of player choice.

 

[schnee]

I think the class-based ability score requirements probably squashed the majority of player choice.

Yeah, as an old Grog, that's exactly what happened. Nobody played a class with a low limit. Nobody.

It was too punitive to play a character with super low ability score caps, so we saw very few of them.

It made for a very human / elven / half-elven campaign landscape. The only other races we saw were home-brewed that had none of those problems.

There's a certain romance about the past, but IMO, like most of AD&D's weird complexity, it was hand-waved away by most of the player base and forgotten.

 

[JonM]

And my position is that if you have a PC that is better at exploration, and one that is better at combat, and one that is better at interaction, and you play all equally, then the game is in fact balanced. You need to look at the entire game, in all pillars, for the typical duration of an entire campaign. If a player excels at certain points of the game but doesn't in others, that doesn't mean the game is not balanced as a whole.

Oops, I forgot to comment on this point. Actually, in this one area, I agree with you. Classes can (and should) be better at different things, and a game that handles balance properly should factor this in. Otherwise, you get cookie cutter class design that does not sustain interest. I've always thought of this as the "feathers and bricks" scenario. Any mediocre designer can toss an equal number of bricks on the scale and balance it. Truly elegant game design requires you to put the right number of feathers on one side and bricks on the other and balance the scales.

Don't quite get what this has to do with classes and/or race level limitations being balanced, at any given point in the game, though. A 3rd level rogue should be as good at doing rogue things as a 3rd level fighter should be at doing fighter things, more or less, and factoring in contextual elements. Telling the 3rd level rogue, "don't worry, little guy - some day you'll break even" just doesn't cut it.

 

[JonM]

See below (forgot to quote).

 

[JonM]

Yeah, as an old Grog, that's exactly what happened. Nobody played a class with a low limit. Nobody.

It was too punitive to play a character with super low ability score caps, so we saw very few of them.

It made for a very human / elven / half-elven campaign landscape. The only other races we saw were home-brewed that had none of those problems.

There's a certain romance about the past, but IMO, like most of AD&D's weird complexity, it was hand-waved away by most of the player base and forgotten.

Exactly! Having been there, too, I couldn't agree more, on every point.

 

[Lylandra]

Your rl experience is the exception confirming the rule of thumb that the 10% of the strongest women are about as strong physically as the 10% weakest men and that is a fact. But in the game I agree that should not matter so imho no problem with the female human warrior being as strong as a man. With the smaller folk I got a problem in imagination that they should be as strong as well. They got their own shticks. What you are overlooking in your attempt to be pc in a game is, that this goes both ways. The next player of a human then wants to be as adept as the halfling in hiding in the woods or wants the lucky feat also etc. etc.

Again: Why shouldn't the human be as "stealthy" as the halfling? The stealth skill uses DEX and (depending on edition) skill ranks or proficiency, plus maybe some magical boni. Besides the 5e "halflings can use people as cover", a DEX based human can be just as stealthy as a lightfoot. And one could debate with "realism" against this as well. But this is okay!

For "physically impossible": No, it is not. If I changed some assumptions about halfling muscle tissue and bone structure, I guess I could make it work. Besides, by our RL biology, a human also couldn't carry 300 lb without being encumbred at all.

I would't even try to apply RL experiences into the D&D world. Rather, I'd reverse the approach: As the D&D world is so full of magic and other stuff that clearly doesn't exist or work in our world, I'd completely ignore my earthling knowledge. Taking the ingame mechanics and premises and building my own world based on *them* does work so much better for me. This is why I don't need to apply RL dimorphism etc. to my fantasy societies. Women are not the "weaker sex" nor are there any RL biases based on the societal structures we know.

Of course there are players and GMs who love the "simulationist" approach to their game. And who'd like to make full use of their RL "medieval" knowledge. But let's be honest, D&D is already bad at simulating real life. So why bother trying?

 

[Lost Soul]

How is that not making female fighter less optimal than male fighter? Oh, sure. She can get there, but by being penalized at the start, it takes longer to get there and/or she has to devote more development resources to equal her male peers which means less opportunity to invest elsewhere.
Gender-based limits are simply something the gaming industry does not need, certainly not if it wants to leave its history of sexism behind.

Because you give her skill focus to make up for the -2 to strength. A feat is equal to a +2 modifier according to the way they designed classes. The same way I mentioned giving half orcs advantage on intimidation checks to make up for giving them a -2 to CHA. When you take from any character you give them something back to make it a net zero effect. Strength is not a Huge loss in this game when everyone is complaining about Dex being the god stat and replacing strength for almost everything in melee combat. Various threads in this forum complain ad nausea about fighters not getting enough skills and as a female fighter you could really come out ahead with much more variety and choice with this option. One less to hit is not going to crush a character at all. it is not optimal but it is not the crushing of a character you claim it to be.

 

[MechaPilot]

. . . the 10% of the strongest women are about as strong physically as the 10% weakest men and that is a fact.

No, the strongest 10% of women are not about as strong as the weakest 10% of men. In real life there is a physical strength difference between the genders, but your statement vastly overinflates that difference to the point where you'd have an "average" man being stronger than the strongest of women if what you said were true, and that just isn't the case.

 

[Yaarel]

The same way I mentioned giving half orcs advantage on intimidation checks to make up for giving them a -2 to CHA.

Symmetrically speaking, the hypothetical Half Orc would get +2 Intimidation and −2 Persuasion, while the Charisma score remains unadjusted.

 

[Coroc]

Again: Why shouldn't the human be as "stealthy" as the halfling? The stealth skill uses DEX and (depending on edition) skill ranks or proficiency, plus maybe some magical boni. Besides the 5e "halflings can use people as cover", a DEX based human can be just as stealthy as a lightfoot. And one could debate with "realism" against this as well. But this is okay!

For "physically impossible": No, it is not. If I changed some assumptions about halfling muscle tissue and bone structure, I guess I could make it work. Besides, by our RL biology, a human also couldn't carry 300 lb without being encumbred at all.

I would't even try to apply RL experiences into the D&D world. Rather, I'd reverse the approach: As the D&D world is so full of magic and other stuff that clearly doesn't exist or work in our world, I'd completely ignore my earthling knowledge. Taking the ingame mechanics and premises and building my own world based on *them* does work so much better for me. This is why I don't need to apply RL dimorphism etc. to my fantasy societies. Women are not the "weaker sex" nor are there any RL biases based on the societal structures we know.

Of course there are players and GMs who love the "simulationist" approach to their game. And who'd like to make full use of their RL "medieval" knowledge. But let's be honest, D&D is already bad at simulating real life. So why bother trying?

Lylandra, you are evading, your base principle is not so wrong as e.g. any of the giant creatures be it Spiders Dragons or even giants would break the rules of biophysics. But where do you start and where do you stop? Imagine you are playing your strength 20 halfling barbarian great weapon master (Where does this sword go with the halfling as always my reaction when i saw gnomes with legendary weapons in WoW).. ok but i'm getting slightly of Topic so imagine your halfling is attacked by a pixie warrior and the dm rolls 1d12 +10 damage. you ask him why this Little pixie warrior ould do that sort of damage if it is Magic mayhap, but the dm answers oh no ist just so this pixie got a strength of 30 for a +10 and is wielding a greataxe.
So would that still fit into your ist a game world without limits or would you say that is ridiculous i could accept that this damage came from a Magic effect but not from natural biological strength and impossible physics that is hard for me to imagine.
I like emersion into my games be it as a dm or a player, and some things are easyer to handwave, maybe becausethere is some conditioning e.g. you hear about giants in a fairytale and later on you see them in some movie so it is ok.
But the only conditioning you get concerning Little things being overly strong is from some grotesque cartoons, and i prefer to envision my games like Lord of the rings or game of thrones but not World of Warcraft the movie.