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

[Pauln6]

Maybe Frodo was ‘lucky’?

If D&D wants one version of Halfling to be Lightfoot (emphasis on ‘light’) and an other version to be Stout (emphasis on ‘stout’), that seems fine. The stouter of the two is also tough like a Dwarf.

Halflings got no bonus to con but it capped at 19 in 1e for this very reason.

 

[Coroc]

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

We got this but on a far lesser and never violent level whenever dwarves and elves are in one party at our table.

 

[Lylandra]

Still you play in a game system with vancian casting you know it is called that way because of Jack Vance?

Read some stuff of Cordwainer Smith it is science fiction as much as fantasy but he had beast headed humanoids in the early sixties.

You use alignment? Want to know where some of this philosophy comes from?
Read Michael Morcocks Elric. Oh theres more to that Melnibonese are quite similar to drow in their attitude and as evil as you can imagine. Oh the sword Stormbringer and elemental lords are in there to as are some archdemons and a true neutral place.

You like planescape or teleporters gates and such?
Try the book World of tiers from Phillip Jose Farmer.

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.

I don't like vancian casting at all. I tolerate it because it's in the rules. My ideal form of magic would be somthing like spell points

I do use alignment, but our groups transcend traditional alignments as they are really too vague and not broad enough to portray or classify the magnitude that is human(oid) ethics, idealisms, beliefs and emotions. Especially when you base this on an interesting character story. Alignment doesn't really limit our decisions. Character as a construct does. So, no "I kill you because my detect evil says you're eeeevol!" unless you're a (self-)righteous zealot.

I am not too fond of Planescape, even if one of our longest standing campaigns was PS. Sorry. I also don't need teleport to be happy. But if the setting or the campaign says it exists, then so be it.

Also thanks for implying that "my philosophies" are stupid. No need to get this ad hominem. And yes, I do like ideological conflicts far more than good vs evil. Because I like complicated and complex storylines, thank you.

You can have your opinion on MMORPGs, but guess what? They are not really made to do creative roleplay in. They are made as games first, everything else second. And of course they'd have to be balanced. Otherwise all players who'd want to compete on the highest "levels" (read: top notch difficulties or competitive PvP) would simply play the race/class combos that are flavour of the month.
We've seen this in early WoW and it was really bad for the game. But I guess we can agree that comparing TTRPGs to MMORPGs is a bit nonsensical. Even if some of the MMO gameworlds have TTRPG adaptions and very lore-rich settings

( I still have a very shy, young priestess of the Light and her grief-stricken page guardian as well as their "I'm totally not a Paladin cause the Light failed me" warrior who has seen too much horrors in the Third War companion waiting somewhere. One day...)

"not for intellectual people" again, who are you trying to insult here? There are really intelligent and educated people playing MMORPGs and they spend lots of their time doing and writing sims for many aspects of said games. They develop strategies collaboratively and perform them as a team. Some others do high quality machinimas to tell ingame stories as short movies. Others base their sociological research on game structures like guilds. soft-skill development etc. Just because your levels stat your attributes (and really, I guess that all wizards in D&D max out INT anyway as well...) this doesn't mean that all characters or their strategies are the same. Stat distribution is influenced by magic items (again, a very different incentive to play a MMORPG than a TTRPG) and these can vary heavily depending on build.

and I *do* like fluff. But as a designer, I'd try to find out where fluff should be just fluff and where it can and should influence crunch. 4e had too little fluff influence. But these arbitrary 2e limitations are... well, I don't see why any fluff should demand that. Or why we could not simply re-write the fluff. Or why we cannot create ingame fluff which does hinder your character if he/she's race X because you're in a society where half-orcs might have a social stigma.

I also *do* like challenges and obstacles and dangers and all that. But I'd like to have all this thrown at my characters in my storyline. What I really love most about TTRPGs is the possibility to solve problems or oversome (maybe seemingly impossible) obstacles by creativity and clever planning. I'd rather spend a whole session in RP discourse without throwing a single die and resolve everything based on fluff and player ideas and interaction rather than Diplomacy check DC 25, then Bluff Check vs Sense motive, then Athletics and Gather information DC 20 and have all of these modifies by flat racial/circumstance/attribute boni.

But what kind of challenges do you like? And which do seem too easy nowadays in comparison to ye olde days?

 

[Lylandra]

-double post

 

[Obryn]

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

Forgive me if I have it wrong, but looking at where you're posting from, I think a language barrier might be in play. Because you're using a lot of terminology that is loaded for a native English speaker. You're speaking about your non-preferred playstyles like they are for children and that they don't care about challenge.

 

[MechaPilot]

I don't like vancian casting at all. I tolerate it because it's in the rules. My ideal form of magic would be somthing like spell points

Same here.

And, from what I've heard people say both here and on the old WotC D&D forums, changing Vancian casting to spell points was a very popular houserule at least as far back as the AD&D 2e days.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This assumes that adventurers are rather rare in the game world, or even that the PCs are the only ones.

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.

I'm well aware of this...and house-changed some of it a great many years ago.

Henches - and any adventuring type, for all that - roll just like PCs, and our rolling method is different also. Commoners use the averaged 3d6 from the DMG.

And in this way I can accept that adventurers (be they PCs or not) are 'a cut above' most of the time, assuming average rolls. But stop there. Don't take it any further, or else it becomes nigh-impossible to play a PC as a nobody rising to become a somebody (4e, I'm looking at you and your huge gap between commoners and 1st-level PCs).

Lanefan

 

[Pauln6]

In D&D 5e, all player characters cap at ability score 20. This limitation seems tolerated by the community because it is ‘fair’. It allows all races to be viable choices for a class because even if they start off lower, they can eventually reach the needed ability score. At epic levels, at Level 21+, the cap increases to 30.

This seems like a better way to go. If, for example, the Half-Orc capped at 22, then there would be significantly fewer Non-Orcs who participated in Strength-key classes.

And, if one worked around the cap by supplying Grugach Elves with Strength cap 22, Human feat with Strength cap 22, Dragonborn with Strength cap 22, Earth Genasi with Strength cap 22, the unlocking of all of the quasi-large brute races, along with the Orc and Mountain Dwarf at Strength cap 22, then this kind of explosion of ‘special’ races, is its own kind of problem. Nothing more than a cottage industry to work around an unnecessary ‘special’ race boost of a cap.

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

20 should remain the cap for creation. Other caps should be below that, not above it. Bear in mind that there is a big difference between 'viable' and 'optimal'. My Warlock has charisma 14 and is perfectly viable. Obviously stat bboosts from non standard sources can exceed maximums. That has always been the case. If you are asking me whether a halfling female with max strength 16 would be screwed in 5e then the answer is not in the slightest - less so than the 14 cap in 1e for sure.

 

[Lylandra]

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

*giggles* I usually solve such "problems" during session 0. I'm all for party tension, but the group shouldn't fall apart because of it. Plus, the last two settings I've played in actively put in exotic races as "normal people" as they were APs written for 4e.

If you as a GM want your Dragonborn or Tiefling to be seen as monster, then fine. If you want to limit your camapign set or player races/classe, that's fine as well. Especially in a theme camapign. Way of the Wicked? Be roughly LE please. Respect Asmodeus. And play human/elf/dwarf if you want to be taken seriously. Dwarf clan? Why would you want to play anything else but dwarf? Religious order? Sure, but please play something divine or martial.

 

[Coroc]

I don't like vancian casting at all. I tolerate it because it's in the rules. My ideal form of magic would be somthing like spell points

I do use alignment, but our groups transcend traditional alignments as they are really too vague and not broad enough to portray or classify the magnitude that is human(oid) ethics, idealisms, beliefs and emotions. Especially when you base this on an interesting character story. Alignment doesn't really limit our decisions. Character as a construct does. So, no "I kill you because my detect evil says you're eeeevol!" unless you're a (self-)righteous zealot.

I am not too fond of Planescape, even if one of our longest standing campaigns was PS. Sorry. I also don't need teleport to be happy. But if the setting or the campaign says it exists, then so be it.

Also thanks for implying that "my philosophies" are stupid. No need to get this ad hominem. And yes, I do like ideological conflicts far more than good vs evil. Because I like complicated and complex storylines, thank you.

You can have your opinion on MMORPGs, but guess what? They are not really made to do creative roleplay in. They are made as games first, everything else second. And of course they'd have to be balanced. Otherwise all players who'd want to compete on the highest "levels" (read: top notch difficulties or competitive PvP) would simply play the race/class combos that are flavour of the month.
We've seen this in early WoW and it was really bad for the game. But I guess we can agree that comparing TTRPGs to MMORPGs is a bit nonsensical. Even if some of the MMO gameworlds have TTRPG adaptions and very lore-rich settings

( I still have a very shy, young priestess of the Light and her grief-stricken page guardian as well as their "I'm totally not a Paladin cause the Light failed me" warrior who has seen too much horrors in the Third War companion waiting somewhere. One day...)

"not for intellectual people" again, who are you trying to insult here? There are really intelligent and educated people playing MMORPGs and they spend lots of their time doing and writing sims for many aspects of said games. They develop strategies collaboratively and perform them as a team. Some others do high quality machinimas to tell ingame stories as short movies. Others base their sociological research on game structures like guilds. soft-skill development etc. Just because your levels stat your attributes (and really, I guess that all wizards in D&D max out INT anyway as well...) this doesn't mean that all characters or their strategies are the same. Stat distribution is influenced by magic items (again, a very different incentive to play a MMORPG than a TTRPG) and these can vary heavily depending on build.

and I *do* like fluff. But as a designer, I'd try to find out where fluff should be just fluff and where it can and should influence crunch. 4e had too little fluff influence. But these arbitrary 2e limitations are... well, I don't see why any fluff should demand that. Or why we could not simply re-write the fluff. Or why we cannot create ingame fluff which does hinder your character if he/she's race X because you're in a society where half-orcs might have a social stigma.

I also *do* like challenges and obstacles and dangers and all that. But I'd like to have all this thrown at my characters in my storyline. What I really love most about TTRPGs is the possibility to solve problems or oversome (maybe seemingly impossible) obstacles by creativity and clever planning. I'd rather spend a whole session in RP discourse without throwing a single die and resolve everything based on fluff and player ideas and interaction rather than Diplomacy check DC 25, then Bluff Check vs Sense motive, then Athletics and Gather information DC 20 and have all of these modifies by flat racial/circumstance/attribute boni.

But what kind of challenges do you like? And which do seem too easy nowadays in comparison to ye olde days?

First of all thank you for your long reply to my rant, and I beg your pardon on my not intended insult that your philosophies are stupid. In fact I see that you have got quite interesting philosophies.

On Vancian casting: I do not like it either. Back in 2e we replaced it with spell slots because the cleric would never have the right spell for every illness and would have felt
helpless not to be able to contribute.

Spellpoints are a very good solution also, in fact the 5 E sorcerer class is imho really powerful just because of this mechanic. (Some people disagree I never understood their arguments)

I do play MMORPGs to, atm my favourite is DDO that one got really cool old school dungeons but also hack and slay scenarios and great riddles. I also enjoy LOTRO and play a bit of SWTOR but rarely.

Sorry to again pick MMORPGs as a comparison but this fits to well: I also tried neverwinter a D&D MMORPG with much more players than DDO but whereas in DDO you got to find a hidden Door in neverwinter a twinkling path always leads you to the direct quest solution.

So that is one thing I enjoy in D&D very much it is riddles. I tend to invent riddles for my players when I DM. In riddles I do not only mean mechanical puzzles but also RP orientared riddles. In one of my last sessions I told one of my players to make a saving throw which he botched and I told him in secret that he is now madly in love with a woman who in reality was a succubus. And he rpd it so perfectly, all the other players were so confused and I had great laughs on the grotesque situation. He did get a big XP boon and an inspiration for that.

I also like it to design combats so that they nearly kill the players but not actually - only with very bad luck. And I do not cheat as a DM because my current group does not want that. So I do all the rolls in the open and work without a screen. And that gives me deeper inner satisfaction when again i designed a group of mobs exactly to the point
The orcs in my current Greyhawk campaigned are modelled as PCs rather than following the monster guidelines, that adds to the challenge.

I like to reflect a certain time period in real history in terms of technology and items available.

For my current campaign its 30 years war just without guns.

I like logic consistency within my games I hate if I have to handwave to much. A bit of it is ok. And maybe therefore I rather restrict in race class available to play since I am a working man and do not want to spend to much time on my design. It simply makes things easier than an anything goes. But if my players wish something to exist I discuss it with them and if possible I integrate it because its their fun and spare time as much has mine.

Your take on alignment is interesting would you eventually in another thread elaborate a bit more about it?