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

[Obryn]

This is what strength represents in 5e.

"Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.
A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation. The Athletics skill reflects aptitude in certain kinds of Strength checks.

The DM might also call for a Strength check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door
• Break free of bonds
• Push through a tunnel that is too small
• Hang on to a wagon while being dragged behind it
• Tip over a statue
• Keep a boulder from rolling"

That's a hell of a lot of brute force involved with strength. You can of course ignore that and play your game differently, but we're discussing the rules and fluff here, not your personal game.

Or it's a lot of judicious use of a halfling's strength which they've (athletically) trained at, for precise and focused use of their 'raw physical force' while living in a big peoples' world.

I already covered how climbing, swimming, and even jumping are no big deal - all of which are covered under strength. And for the rest, really, I can imagine all of those with the proper training in a world where there are also dragons. And we've already established that the actual rules of the game support halflings doing them just fine, so ... all of those would be fine in my personal game or anyone else's who didn't make a contrary houserule, no?

 

[Maxperson]

Or it's a lot of judicious use of a halfling's strength which they've (athletically) trained at, for precise and focused use of their 'raw physical force' while living in a big peoples' world.

I already covered how climbing, swimming, and even jumping are no big deal - all of which are covered under strength. And for the rest, really, I can imagine all of those with the proper training in a world where there are also dragons. And we've already established that the actual rules of the game support halflings doing them just fine, so ... all of those would be fine in my personal game or anyone else's who didn't make a contrary houserule, no?

Brute strength is not divorced from athleticism. It's not possible by RAW for a halfling to be good at one and not the other.

 

[Obryn]

Brute strength is not divorced from athleticism. It's not possible by RAW for a halfling to be good at one and not the other.

Nor anyone else for that matter, and the function of the rules seem to imply that that's fine enough to qualify for high stats.

 

[Maxperson]

Nor anyone else for that matter, and the function of the rules seem to imply that that's fine enough to qualify for high stats.

But the fluff doesn't support that, which is horrible game design and the cause of this issue. Again, we are both correct based on what is written in the 5e PHB.

 

[Obryn]

But the fluff doesn't support that, which is horrible game design and the cause of this issue. Again, we are both correct based on what is written in the 5e PHB.

So I think it's pretty silly to go around in circles, particularly where I'm put in the awkward place of supporting 5e game design, which I think has plenty of problems (just, you know, not specifically here). But we're not both correct, given how gameplay and the narrative that develops from there will unfold based on the workings of the game's actual rules.

"The rules are wrong, because fluff" is not persuasive unless you're presuming they made an actual error in publication, which would presumably be a good candidate for errata. Yes, you can think the rules around halfling strength suck, which puts you in the position of making houserules for the game to better fit it into your expectations. But this doesn't mean the rules were wrong to begin with. It just means you didn't like it.

If you want to continue to go around in a circle go back a few posts where I'm replying to this exact sentiment, read them again, pretend I just re-posted them, and form up new replies if it floats your boat.

 

[Maxperson]

So I think it's pretty silly to go around in circles, particularly where I'm put in the awkward place of supporting 5e game design, which I think has plenty of problems (just, you know, not specifically here). But we're not both correct, given how gameplay and the narrative that develops from there will unfold based on the workings of the game's actual rules.

"The rules are wrong, because fluff" is not persuasive unless you're presuming they made an actual error in publication, which would presumably be a good candidate for errata. Yes, you can think the rules around halfling strength suck, which puts you in the position of making houserules for the game to better fit it into your expectations. But this doesn't mean the rules were wrong to begin with. It just means you didn't like it.

If you want to continue to go around in a circle go back a few posts where I'm replying to this exact sentiment, read them again, pretend I just re-posted them, and form up new replies if it floats your boat.

We are going in circles, so I'm just going to correct a misperception on your part. I'm not saying the rules are wrong because the fluff doesn't match. I'm saying the fluff must match or there is a problem. If the Medusa fluff said her gaze caused those who met it to burst out laughing, but the crunch says it turns people to stone and makes no mention of laughing, there's a problem. The halfling fluff and crunch are like that.

Fluff and crunch must match or it's lousy game design. When you have an issue like the Medusa example or the Halfling reality, it causes disconnects. Some people will lean towards the fluff, and others the crunch. It's a split that shouldn't, and wouldn't exist if the designers had done their jobs.

 

[billd91]

Fluff and crunch must match or it's lousy game design. When you have an issue like the Medusa example or the Halfling reality, it causes disconnects. Some people will lean towards the fluff, and others the crunch. It's a split that shouldn't, and wouldn't exist if the designers had done their jobs.

They did their jobs and, like is frequently necessary, they made trade-offs to improve playability. The fact that you don't like the trade-off they made neither makes it bad game design nor them not doing their job.

 

[Maxperson]

They did their jobs and, like is frequently necessary, they made trade-offs to improve playability. The fact that you don't like the trade-off they made neither makes it bad game design nor them not doing their job.

There is no trade-off. The fluff and crunch fail to match and that's a simple fact. They didn't trade one for the other since it would have taken a small handful of words to fix the problem.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They did their jobs and, like is frequently necessary, they made trade-offs to improve playability. The fact that you don't like the trade-off they made neither makes it bad game design nor them not doing their job.

Likewise, whether or not you think their trade-off was worth-while does not make the game good or bad. Quality is inherently subjective.

Suffice it to say, in aggregate, a lot of people thing they went too far here, and that this design choice makes the game worse over-all. There's no way to tell whether or not they're in the majority, because this forum has a strong sampling bias toward people who consider the game good enough to play (or at least good enough that it's worth debating); the most vocal critics of this design would have given up on the edition long ago.

 

[Sadras]

I genuinely believe that anyone who thinks adding sexism to a game about fantasy and having fun should neuter themselves with a meat tenderizer before drinking everything they can find under the kitchen sink. It has no place in gaming and no place in society, it is unacceptable to think it is and still call yourself a human being. I despise the kind of people who think discrimination based on sex,colour and/or ethnicity is a fun thing to introduce, they are the same kind of people who drag humanity lower each day and make my soul just cringe at the thought of them ever procreating. /endrant

Good grief. Really?

Colour - well Drow or Shadow Elves are different to other elves physically with different abilities. And that is perfectly ok.
Ethnicity - people in different lands know and speak different languages and that is perfectly ok.
Sex - When I play I'm not a min/maxer, so the capping to me is not an issue, I would just replace the higher STR with with a different bonus - like additional proficiencies (weapons/armour, tools, languages, skill).

Seems like SJW's are crying BadWrongFun