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

[Lylandra]

This is deep into the realm of subjective preferences, but I like my fantasy races more... restrained... than my SF races. In my mind, fantasy echoes the familiar and illuminates aspects of the human experience. It's not just that elves and dwarves are peoples we've been telling stories about for thousands of years: it's that they have characters and cultures which are recognizable to us as humans, simply idealized. For big, radical, speculative "what-ifs" like extreme sexual dimorphism or a hive mind or a parasitic life cycle or whatever, that's when you turn to SF, which strives for the novel and alien just as fantasy strives for the resonant and familiar.

Oh, but you got Aaracockras now and these are avians. If you'd like to play by RL experiences, then at least aaracockra ladies should be the bigger ones

 

[Igwilly]

Oh, but you got Aaracockras now and these are avians. If you'd like to play by RL experiences, then at least aaracockra ladies should be the bigger ones

Hahahaha I guess so.
I think we're discussing primarily humans here.
Although having this sort of difference would be easier in other races. But it's also pointless for this discussion hahahaha.

 

[Lanefan]

(Also, AD&D had these, and it was kind of a nightmare. Totally optimal to make elderly wizards with all those Int bonuses.)

Also totally impossible per RAW, as starting age ranges were given - can't remember offhand whether in the PH or DMG - and all fell into either the young-adult (-1 Wisdom) or mature (no stat changes) category for any given race.

The stat changes by age were there, I think, mostly to handle aging effects e.g. ghosts and what they'd do to the PCs, and to give guidance when designing NPCs or opposition.

Because PCs are individuals, and population averages matter little unless you have literally picked the PC randomly out of the population. "It is likely that Sally would be weaker than Gutboy Barrelhouse" is not relevant, because we have their stats and can see the reality of the situation.

However without seeing their stats it's still a valid statement...particularly if Sally is a Human and Gutboy is a Dwarf (which he is, where first presented).

I don't have any gender-related stat changes in my game - I've bigger fish to fry in the design-side cookpot.

That said, I could sort-of see an argument for having them as long as for every bonus there's a roughly-equal penalty (e.g. 1- str, +1 con) to stats that are of relatively equal importance. But any straight penalty without a corresponding bonus, or straight bonus without a corresponding penalty, is right out.

(And for real, quit with the XP police thing. If you have a problem with their post, take it up with them.)

Well, giving xp kinda does imply support for the position taken, so being called to defend said position shouldn't then be any big surprise.

Lan-"one of those fish, in some non-Human game cultures such as Elves and Dwarves, is whether one gender is more likely to adventure than the other"-efan

 

[Obryn]

Well, giving xp kinda does imply support for the position taken, so being called to defend said position shouldn't then be any big surprise.

What's xp mean? I agree? I'm glad they spoke up and gave their opinion? Hey, nice avatar? Universal acclaim for that post with no disagreement?

If you have a problem with a post, bring it up with the poster instead of reading the tea leaves and asking a third party to defend it.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Sadras]

Oh, but you got Aaracockras now and these are avians. If you'd like to play by RL experiences, then at least aaracockra ladies should be the bigger ones

Excellent point, given the size dimorphism which exists between the sexes in RL birds of prey! I actually like this kind of detail. Consider my female aaracockra larger at my table (when I introduce them ofcouse).

 

[MoonSong]

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)

There is a nuanced -though not exhaustive- analysis by Gradine here. Just to add that Sorcery points aren't exactly spell points. They have lossy conversion rates and are needed for metamagic and class features. There's too much pressure on them as a resource. A sorcerer could easily run out of spells far before anybody else.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...f-posters-who-think-the-sorcerer-needs-fixing

Oh you are right, I am not native English speaker, so apologies from me if that leads to misunderstandings. But I take pride in that I can think in English if need be.

Suuuureee you are... n_n

Wait, you're arguing that men are better than women in real life, because we are stronger? I disagree with that. If you aren't arguing that men are better than women in real life due to us being stronger, then it is not sexist in D&D to only give men the strength bonus. It's not sexist to model fact.

That said, you could give women a con bonus. Women deal with pain better, survive longer without water, etc.

And just that? Aren't men like more likely to be aggressive/violent because testosterone and more likely to suffer from schizophrenia/dementia/etc? that sure warrants a wis penalty. And why stop there? there's more infant mortality among men and more susceptibility to disease -con penalty! And less communicative! -cha penalty! Why do we have to model this one difference when there's tons of these more?

I'd rather not go there... like at all. It might be balanced in the end, but the net message is still "the people making/playing this game thinks women are less than men". At least I get that message, though I care a lot about symbolic and token gestures. It doesn't matter if this pie/cupcake is more delicious that birthday cake, you choosing to get it for my birthday party will still piss me off.

This is deep into the realm of subjective preferences, but I like my fantasy races more... restrained... than my SF races. In my mind, fantasy echoes the familiar and illuminates aspects of the human experience. It's not just that elves and dwarves are peoples we've been telling stories about for thousands of years: it's that they have characters and cultures which are recognizable to us as humans, simply idealized. For big, radical, speculative "what-ifs" like extreme sexual dimorphism or a hive mind or a parasitic life cycle or whatever, that's when you turn to SF, which strives for the novel and alien just as fantasy strives for the resonant and familiar.

One reason I don't really like SF... I just want to play some escapist fantasy. Just that...

 

[Sadras]

Why do we have to model this one difference when there's tons of these more?

We don't have to model this one difference, but for the sake of debate.
Given the game revolves around combat - dementia, heart disease and lack of communicating one's emotions is not central to the game. Combat is, of which strength is a dominant factor.

I'd rather not go there... like at all. It might be balanced in the end, but the net message is still "the people making/playing this game thinks women are less than men".

Fair enough, each draw their own lines of what they wish to draw from RL into their house rules.
But I strongly disagree with your statement that people think women are less than men. Seriously get over yourself.

EDIT: All the posters questioning this RL reasoning seem to forget there was a fan-guide made in 2e which dealt with cleanliness, and this was in particular important for adventuring Paladins (LG) who needed to appear and be pristine at all times. This is the level of RL some gamers were incorporating into their games. People need to stop this "you hate women" rhetoric.

 

[Caliban]

But I strongly disagree with your statement that people think women are less than men. Seriously get over yourself.

Not to open a whole new can of worms, but...have you been on the internet long? There are absolutely people out there that think that women are worth less than men. And an unfortunately high percentage of them are gamers (maybe it's mainly computer gamers, I haven't done an in depth survey, but still).

 

[MechaPilot]

We don't have to model this one difference, but for the sake of debate.
Given the game revolves around combat - dementia, heart disease and lack of communicating one's emotions is not central to the game. Combat is of which strength is is dominant factor.

And because the game revolves around combat there are no things in it that affect the mind (like illusion or enchantment spells) or that cause disease (that's why there's no remove disease ability or spell in the game), and there is definitely nothing like a Diplomacy or an Insight skill to deal with PCs getting into social encounters of any kind.

 

[Sadras]

Not to open a whole new can of worms, but...have you been on the internet long? There are absolutely people out there that think that women are worth less than men. And an unfortunately high percentage of them are gamers (maybe it's mainly computer gamers, I haven't done an in depth survey, but still).

Caliban no one in this thread, that I have seen, has even inferred that. Instead I have only seen suggestions which have been made to counter/balance the adjustment made to STR for female characters. I'm not really concerned with this issue - but I really dislike this automated PC-police response because some gamer would like to include this level of detail in their campaign.
I mean if someone was being obnoxiously or rude - sure, but I don't get that from posters in this thread. We really should stop judging posters because of what happens on the interwebs (outside of Enworld or even this thread).