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

[Coroc]

Just being honest.




Have you considered that the people who are likely to have no issue with the restrictions might simply be less vocal about their acceptance or enjoyment of them? Isn't it something of a known aphorism that people are generally more prone to complaining than praise?




May I remind you that I do have two powergamers at my table? I know they'd just love the number porn of getting those +Xs to hit, damage, and AC.




Lord knows I am, but, again, I have a couple powergamers at my table. One of them takes a self-confessed joy in trying to find broken class combinations (a habit he picked up when he played 3e). I'm sure he probably misses it.




I don't see the halfling ban as being all that impressive. I've just replaced them with human little people. That way I don't have to worry about changing the sizing too much. Plus, it creates some more diversity among the humans in the world.




When it's setting appropriate I do limit classes based on race. In my Tenesia setting, Dwarves can't be bards, sorcerers, warlocks, or wizards. They REALLY offended the goddess of magic, and she stripped them of the ability to cast arcane spells. They can still craft magic items using a kind of runic magic, but no arcane spells.

Only the Darve can be crystal mages (a kind of wizard who stores spells in crystals and uses special crystals to alter or augment their spells).

Only humans can be mage-hunters (a kind of paladin that specializes in resisting and dispelling arcane magic and slaying arcane spellcasters).

Also in that setting, you can't raise the dead without a humanoid sacrifice. The gods are greedy for souls, and you have to give someone if you expect to take someone back. That said, elves in that setting just flat out can't be raised. They're more like fey than regular elves, and their souls go back to nature when they die (bringing one back from the dead would be like pouring a glass of water in the ocean and trying to take back just the water that was in the glass).

Wow, now that one is absolutely cool. XP for that. and see this is how to introduce dwarven wizards not the retcon them into every and all as if they were always there method.

 

[Lanefan]

The one thing I am proud to see however is the removal of race ban on certain class.

I'm not, in large part due to...

Now we can see dwarven wizards

...this. Dwarves should not be wizards. In fact, back in the day Dwarves had a built-in chance of magic devices (mostly rings, I think) outright failing to function for them due to their innate racial magic resistance.

elven bards and elven cleric going into high levels, gnome paladins (got one in one my groups, he's a blast to see) and many other things that were unimaginable back then.

I don't mind any of these in theory, though in practice a Gnome Paladin should probably be struck dead just on principle.

Lan-"there's some other race-class combinations that don't sit well with me, but Dwarf wizards are the worst offenders"-efan

 

[cbwjm]

I like that dwarves can be wizards now. Around the same time I got into d&d I was reading Norse myths. Dwarves and magic go hand in hand there where they would craft magical items for the gods. I always felt that they should be some kind of mage.

 

[Lanefan]

... my ban on halflings ...

You ban halflings? You don't mention gnomes, so I assume you allow those? That's going to have a negative effect on your alignment audit, you know.

I was happy with the favored class mechanic from 3e. One class could go higher in level than the rest, but the rest had to stay within 1 level of each other or there was a large penalty. I'm not fond of stat or race requirements to multiclass.

As far as I'm concerned, in general the harder it is to multiclass the better. You could even ban it outright and I wouldn't shed any tears.

3e's version of multiclassing was, in my own experience having tried it, rather awful; particularly if one or both classes was a caster.

I care about long range teleportation as a DM. I find it annoying.

I don't mind it at all, for a few reasons:

- it allows me to more easily run adventures in vastly different climates and settings (desert, arctic, jungle, etc.) now and then without having to DM weeks or months of travel
- in my game teleportation has risks (this is an important balancer!); in that in most cases every time you use it there's a small chance you'll end up in solid rock or something similar: dead
- it gives parties more choices as to what to do next and how to go about it
- it requires a lot of resource use to be able to take an entire party along on a teleport

The one I did have to rein in was Planeshift, as even in 1e it has no risk and can take more people; what I did (to quite good effect thus far) was restrict the arrival points to one of a) your first point of entry to a given plane*, or b) a previously-visited temple to your own deity. The only exception is when going to your own deity's home plane your arrival point is predetermined (though always safe).

* - on anyone's home world this would, of course, be their birthplace

Lan-"if the Great Serpent of the Norse was just a bit bigger it'd be 'planes on a snake'"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Around the same time I got into d&d I was reading Norse myths. Dwarves and magic go hand in hand there where they would craft magical items for the gods. I always felt that they should be some kind of mage.

Building magic items and using them is not the same. In those myths the Dwarves are crafting the items for other to use; ditto for example Hephaestus of the Greeks, who builds all kinds of magic items for others but rarely if ever for himself.

And in the Norse myths did the Dwarves in fact enchant the items, or did they just craft the beyond-masterwork items themselves and leave it to the gods to do the enchanting?

Lanefan

 

[cbwjm]

Building magic items and using them is not the same. In those myths the Dwarves are crafting the items for other to use; ditto for example Hephaestus of the Greeks, who builds all kinds of magic items for others but rarely if ever for himself.

And in the Norse myths did the Dwarves in fact enchant the items, or did they just craft the beyond-masterwork items themselves and leave it to the gods to do the enchanting?

Lanefan

It's been a long time since I've read them, but as far as I recall they made the items as is. Back then, to me at least, dwarves seemed like magical creatures and crafters of powerful items of magic. I guess that impression has always stuck with me.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm not, in large part due to... ...this. Dwarves should not be wizards. In fact, back in the day Dwarves had a built-in chance of magic devices (mostly rings, I think) outright failing to function for them due to their innate racial magic resistance.

I don't mind any of these in theory, though in practice a Gnome Paladin should probably be struck dead just on principle.

Lan-"there's some other race-class combinations that don't sit well with me, but Dwarf wizards are the worst offenders"-efan

Dwarves always had wizards, from the norse mythos, to the korobokuru of oriental mythos. Even the romans suspected that dwarves could do magic. It is only on Tolkienesque fictions that dwarves lost their magic. Where would all their magic weapons and armor come from? Rune magic. Agreed we don't have real rune magic in 5ed yet. (the SKT isn't true rune magic imho). But who knows? But it is a moot point as in the point buy and set array, you won't see a lot of dwarven wizard, no bonuses to their important stats.

Gnomes, (especialy deep ones), Dwarves and Halflings, of all races, should have the easiest way for paladin hood. They are one of the few race that are basicaly "Lawfull Good" from the start. They might not have the kind of paladins that Humans have but they should have some. Again, you won't see a lot of these paladins, they don't have bonuses and it's not worth doing with the set array.

 

[Lanefan]

Gnomes, (especialy deep ones), Dwarves and Halflings, of all races, should have the easiest way for paladin hood. They are one of the few race that are basicaly "Lawfull Good" from the start. They might not have the kind of paladins that Humans have but they should have some. Again, you won't see a lot of these paladins, they don't have bonuses and it's not worth doing with the set array.

You see Gnomes far differently than I do. To me they're a race of tinkerers, inventors and part-time tricksters; and trend more chaotic than any other kindred race. (Dragonborn and Tieflings are not kindred and never will be)

Dwarven Paladins I'll give you, they're a lawful-trending race that does heavy warriors very well. Hobbit Paladins I have a harder time with, mostly because Hobbits just don't do heavy tank classes well and to me Paladin is a heavy tank class.

As for whether any of these work with point-buy or array: couldn't care less, as those will never be used here.

Lan-"still say they need to bring back Cavaliers, to allow for a heavy Knight-in-shining-armour class without the religious side...and the baggage"-efan

 

[Coroc]

You see Gnomes far differently than I do. To me they're a race of tinkerers, inventors and part-time tricksters; and trend more chaotic than any other kindred race. (Dragonborn and Tieflings are not kindred and never will be)

Dwarven Paladins I'll give you, they're a lawful-trending race that does heavy warriors very well. Hobbit Paladins I have a harder time with, mostly because Hobbits just don't do heavy tank classes well and to me Paladin is a heavy tank class.

As for whether any of these work with point-buy or array: couldn't care less, as those will never be used here.

Lan-"still say they need to bring back Cavaliers, to allow for a heavy Knight-in-shining-armour class without the religious side...and the baggage"-efan

I would rather give Halfling the paladin, Dwarves are normally heavy armoured warrior types LG aligned eventually that is true, but they lack the knightly qualities of a paladin.

Halflings can be very good tanks if built right, and some of the hobbits in LOTRO are kind of paladins by RP criteria (Sam / Merryn or was it Pippin I cannot quite remember):

Selfsacrifice and fearless vs. an invincible foe and still never loose their moral compass.

But in the end I would rather have the one Halfling, who has warrior qualities despite his small size, in my campaign then a shoehorned paladin.

 

[Maxperson]

You see Gnomes far differently than I do. To me they're a race of tinkerers, inventors and part-time tricksters; and trend more chaotic than any other kindred race. (Dragonborn and Tieflings are not kindred and never will be)

Dwarven Paladins I'll give you, they're a lawful-trending race that does heavy warriors very well. Hobbit Paladins I have a harder time with, mostly because Hobbits just don't do heavy tank classes well and to me Paladin is a heavy tank class.

As for whether any of these work with point-buy or array: couldn't care less, as those will never be used here.

Lan-"still say they need to bring back Cavaliers, to allow for a heavy Knight-in-shining-armour class without the religious side...and the baggage"-efan

I see gnomes differently than either of you. To me they are just smaller, more magical underground mining race, similar to dwarves.