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

[Obryn]

Only in as much as many halflings are non-adventurers, so they tend to get grouped in with that one NPC stat block because the book can't be bothered to give stats for different types of non-adventuring NPCs. Rest assured that the actual NPC creation rules use the same method as PCs. A halfling blacksmith is much more likely to have Strength 15 than Strength 10.

It looks to me like the actual NPC creation rules are "Just assign stats as you see fit" with that being an option.

All of these are epic classics and you think just because you adopt stupid RL philosophies and offsprings of some MPORPGS into your game you think you are modern and advanced and your way of all things equal is the right way to play superheros in a pseudohistoric RPG.

If you do not like fluff why not leave it out totally:

Player A roll attack for Monster X Your Y-Weapon hits for 5 points of damage plus the unified strength modifier of +2, oh no lets take the average of weapon Y for equality, see what I mean?

You know what the first thing was that I hated about WoW when I tried it out and I admit played it for 3 years 12 years ago? That on level up it would distribute attribute raises automatically. I hated that. Every freakin Tauren warrior without equipment at level 60 would have absolutely the same stats, That's so bland that's like pokemon that's for kids who don't have math at school but not for intellectual people.

We all know D&D is not an acurate simulation, that is not the main point.
But us old schoolers see challenges in differences where as you seem to see the challenge in making everything equal and every obstacle easy to overcome.

This is such a weird combination of mischaracterizations, slippery slopes, and strawmen that I almost don't know what to make of it. Literally nobody is arguing any of this.

My point (probably not well made by that example) is that the more bizarre your race-class gets the less likely it is that the party will willingly or easily accept you. Every party accepts humans, nearly all accept elves, part-elves, dwarves and hobbitlings, and many (but not all) are OK with gnomes and part-orcs. Anything further out than that and you're just asking for some in-character PvP throwdown. (just imagine a character whose personal favoured enemy - be it by background, class, or whatever - is demons getting stuck in a party with a tiefling...yeah, that's going to end so well...)

Wouldn't that depend a lot more on the campaign setting norms than any kind of rule-set?

I think the argument being made is that the actual text of the game book is itself wrong, and needs to be changed.

Yeah, I got that. But you can't then turn around and argue that the text of the book supports your argument. Because, clearly, there's been no errata issued, and racial stat maximums were not accidentally left out.

 

[Lanefan]

I support mins and maxes during character creation. But all races can have individuals who keep improving while leveling.

This is, I think, in fact part of the problem - 5e allows too much stat advancement as a result of level-ups. It doesn't really matter what you put in your prime stat, because sooner or later it's going to get to 20 anyway.

Suggestion: really slow down stat increments.

For example, this is how I would write up the Half-Orc.

Half-Orc ability score modification: When you create a Half Orc character, you must assign a score of 15 or higher to Strength. Additionally, this Strength score improves by +2. You must assign a score of at least 13 to Constitution, and this Constitution score improves by +1.

(In other words, members of the Half-Orc race will tend to exhibit a Strength of 17 to 20.)

Halfling ability score modification: When you create a Halfling character, you must assign a score of 9 or lower to Strength and a score of 13 or lower to Constitution. You must assign a score of 13 or higher to Dexterity, and this Dexterity score improves by +2.

(In other words, Halflings tend to exhibit Dexterity between 15 to 20.)

Assuming, of course, one rolls the requisite stats. If I've decided to play a half-orc, for example, and don't roll anything higher than a 13 am I banned from playing a half-orc? (and I'm not asking this in any argumentative way as I'm quite cool with either a yes or no answer, I'm just wondering if you thought of this aspect) Ditto for the hobbit - if all my rolls are 12 am I banned from Hobbiton because I don't have a low enough stat?

For the general races, sure. But players aren't playing all halflings or half-orcs. They're playing PCs, exceptional individuals within the game. It doesn't matter than halflings are generally weaker than half-orcs in the broader population. The game is about this halfling PC being played by this player at the table and the PCs should not be so limited. That's why there are no stat minima or maxima for any PCs.

This brings up yet another question: how exceptional are the PCs vs. the general population of the game world? Some obviously think very special, others (like me) prefer that they at least start out pretty much just like everyone else and then become special through the run of play.

Thus, if you're playing a hobbit then the baseline assumption is that it grew up as a hobbit, in hobbit culture and with hobbit sensibilities. And that its stats show hobbit tendencies - high dex, high con, and low str.

Same for part-orcs - the tendencies will be high str, high con, low int and low cha.

But for some insane reason 5e doesn't like penalties, so the "low" aspects here aren't reflected in the rules, only the bonuses...and that to me is poor design.

Lan-"exceptions can, of course, occasionally and rarely happen - but they should be just that: exceptional and unusual even when compared to other PCs"-efan

 

[Coroc]

Sure there are old schoolers who see challenges in differences but there are also plenty of them (or us, as the case may be) who still won't make stupid assumptions about other people's playing styles and making "every obstacle easy to overcome", or worse, put them out on a public messageboard.

I do not critize the game style of other people. Some people are power gamers and that is ok. If you like hack and slay and 3E with all the rules expansions was / is the thing for you fine, enjoy it. If for you the challenge is to get your epic multiclass build of an total weird race to the table to overcome the epic mob with all its superfeatures which the dm has thought out to give you a real challenge then that is totally fine by me, that is an intellectual challenge with defined rules.

It is just not my style of roleplaying. We did get excited too back then e.g. when DS came out and you could play a Kreen.


It had 4+1 attacks and the bite could paralyse, cool. But it could not wear any armor so that's fine by us.

No nitpicking on wether it might be lacking Strength because the other guy playing a Halfgiant had 24 for it.

But our first question was also how would other races get along with its eating habits?


I do not like it when new generation players say oh that's all so bland what they did back then when in fact it is bland what they do them selves in other peoples view, and when in fact they play a game which was based on all those old tropes as you might call it.

If my post came out to emotional or personal than I beg your pardon that was never my intention.

No one is worth less purely because he has a different taste in whatever or a different opinion than me.

You know that saying: Stupid people talk about other people, average intelligent people talk about things happening, and intelligent people talk about ideas

I talk games= ideas not people. And that is what we all do here each with their own passion and preferences.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It looks to me like the actual NPC creation rules are "Just assign stats as you see fit" with that being an option.

Given that the rules are consistent, assigning stats as you see fit should also conform to the same distribution. The average Strength for all halflings is still 10 or 11, even if you happen to decide that the Strength for one particular halfling is 8 or 10 or 15. You can skip the process if you already know what the end result is going to be, and we have a good idea about what the end result is likely to be because the underlying process is very simple.

 

[billd91]

This brings up yet another question: how exceptional are the PCs vs. the general population of the game world? Some obviously think very special, others (like me) prefer that they at least start out pretty much just like everyone else and then become special through the run of play.

Thus, if you're playing a hobbit then the baseline assumption is that it grew up as a hobbit, in hobbit culture and with hobbit sensibilities. And that its stats show hobbit tendencies - high dex, high con, and low str.

Same for part-orcs - the tendencies will be high str, high con, low int and low cha.

But for some insane reason 5e doesn't like penalties, so the "low" aspects here aren't reflected in the rules, only the bonuses...and that to me is poor design.

I'm at the point in my gaming career that I don't sweat the small stuff as often with respect to PCs. If they want to play lower strength, they have the power to put one of their lower rolls in Strength. If they want to play against type, they have the power to put a higher roll where their normal racial stock is weak.

That said, I have nothing against penalties either. I play Pathfinder and don't see anything wrong with halflings getting a -2 to their Strength. Of course, that halfling still has an unlimited advancement plan in that stat under that game and could still end up stronger than the half-orc in the group if he chooses to develop in that vein.

In any event, the PCs aren't going to face a hard limit relative to each other because of the races they picked. If someone wants to play a halfling who hits as hard as a half-orc, I'm all for it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You know what the first thing was that I hated about WoW when I tried it out and I admit played it for 3 years 12 years ago? That on level up it would distribute attribute raises automatically. I hated that. Every freakin Tauren warrior without equipment at level 60 would have absolutely the same stats, That's so bland that's like pokemon that's for kids who don't have math at school but not for intellectual people.

You may have played WoW, but you've clearly never played Pokémon.

 

[Coroc]

It looks to me like the actual NPC creation rules are "Just assign stats as you see fit" with that being an option.


This is such a weird combination of mischaracterizations, slippery slopes, and strawmen that I almost don't know what to make of it. Literally nobody is arguing any of this.


Wouldn't that depend a lot more on the campaign setting norms than any kind of rule-set?


Yeah, I got that. But you can't then turn around and argue that the text of the book supports your argument. Because, clearly, there's been no errata issued, and racial stat maximums were not accidentally left out.

Your meme made my day

I like it when people make it that I can laugh about myself without being ashamed

 

[Coroc]

You may have played WoW, but you've clearly never played Pokémon.

Ups you got me there

Maybe my little son when he is a bit older will explain the rules of pokemon to me one day

 

[Lanefan]

Your character was supposedly always looking to do the good and right and noble thing, and your first reaction was mistrust to the point of contemplating murder?

Pretty much, in that I was looking at what I considered to be a monster joining the party; and that it wasn't obviously charmed or otherwise controlled, and that every other draconic being I'd ever met had somehow tried to bend my nose into my face.

Lan-" and later events in that campaign would, as it happens, prove me right"-efan

 

[Obryn]

This brings up yet another question: how exceptional are the PCs vs. the general population of the game world? Some obviously think very special, others (like me) prefer that they at least start out pretty much just like everyone else and then become special through the run of play.

Well, they're the ones that go out adventuring. Which self-selects for adventure-capable prowess and unusual 'black sheep.' So yeah, they're exceptional, but just kind of naturally so, which we represent with good stats, plenty of HP and - most importantly - a character class. How do we know these are capable folks? Well, the players are making and running them, and the game's going to be about them doing adventuring stuff. (That's rather than any kind of in-setting 'chosen one' status. Unless, you know, that's your jam, or it's an assumption of the setting.)

This distinction goes way back to AD&D 1e, so it's neither new nor alien. Player Characters used one of several methods, but probably Method I (4d6 pick 3, 6 times, arrange to taste). NPCs on the other hand used one of several worse methods, depending on whether they were just some guys (3d6 in order, treat 1's as 3's and 4's as 6's), or henchmen (3d6 in order, except for 'germane' stats where you used a player character method, or +1 per die of the 3d6 that rolls under 6.) AD&D DMG pg 11 if you want to check it out.