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

[Arilyn]

Well, congratulations on missing the point again, I guess. I didn't make stuff up. Look at what modern day women are lifting, and compare it to the mid 70s of what men were. It's not near as far apart as modern day woman vs. modern day man. Which was the point. I.e., back then, it was "no way a woman can be this strong" because no one was then, but time travel a modern day woman to the 70s and she would blow their assumptions away. The whole point was that the rules were created on assumptions of the time that aren't as accurate anymore, so to stick with the same rules they came up with in the 70s because "super realism" is flawed.





Firstly, having a class like the MU weak at low levels and powerful at high levels is not averaging by any definition of the word. We're not looking at the average power of the MU across all levels. We're looking at the power disparity individually, and saying that being weak at lower levels balances out with the great power they get at upper levels. In fact, that's the opposite of average because you need to intentionally avoid the average but look at each individual level independently. Again, you're stuck in this micro analysis when you need to look at the big picture of the game as a whole over an entire typical campaign run---as it was designed.

Secondly, Gary didn't limit people's choices to punish them. The game was designed to be human centric, so the rules supported that. It's his freaking game, so he can design it the way he wants. No one is getting punished. If you don't like it, then ignore that rule like so many others did. To quote me, "that's entitlement talk".

I just don't see how "balance" over levels could possibly be a good idea. Gygax was creating a new kind of game, so there was bound to be some wonkiness. Since game designers quickly abandoned this idea,I think we can assume it's a poor design choice.

Limiting players levels based on their race/class combo causes problems in the game, and yes, it is punishing the player. Once again, this was the first rpg, and designers learned, modified game philosophy, and added tools to their tool box, so to speak.

Of course, I can play the game any way I want. We were, however discussing the racial limitations in the old ADD. I don't miss them because it squashed player choice, and didn't work well from a game design perspective.

 

[Satyrn]

Now you're inferring information that isn't there.

Sure. But I'm also only explaining how I view these things.

And hey! 20 Strength halflings fit in my view quite comfortably, while they clash with the way some others view it. If this was a science, my theory would probably be stronger than theirs because mine shapes itself to the observable facts (20 Strength halflings exist) while they seeks to shape the observable facts, by denying 20 Strength halflings, to fit their theory.


But this ain't a science. It ain't a religion, either.

It's a work of art, and I will see in it what I see in it, and you will see in it what you see in it, and we are both right.

 

[Satyrn]

. Even with all of that being equal, though, a horse with Intelligence 10 is still a horse. That's why a character who has been polymorphed into a horse is still a playable character, even when an actual horse is not; you still have the mind of a person while your Int is reduced to 2.

But here, aye. This is just exactly what I was saying, too. Or trying to, anyway.

 

[JonM]

Firstly, having a class like the MU weak at low levels and powerful at high levels is not averaging by any definition of the word. We're not looking at the average power of the MU across all levels. We're looking at the power disparity individually, and saying that being weak at lower levels balances out with the great power they get at upper levels. In fact, that's the opposite of average because you need to intentionally avoid the average but look at each individual level independently. Again, you're stuck in this micro analysis when you need to look at the big picture of the game as a whole over an entire typical campaign run---as it was designed.

Hmmm.... Seems to me that you're kind of disproving your own point. The averaging idea is implicit in your own statement, i.e. you are effectively saying that, on the average, "being weak at lower levels balances out with the great power they get at upper levels" (your words, not mine). Read without that clause or in any other context, you are effectively saying that the class is balanced because it is unbalanced at 1st level (too weak), unbalanced at 2nd level (too weak) ... unbalanced but in a different way at 14th level (too strong), unbalanced but in a different way at 15th level (too strong), etc. That makes no sense at all. In fact, MUs are really only balanced - kind of - for a couple of levels somewhere in the middle, unless you do look at it as some kind of average across all levels. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

And none of this addresses the fact that the MU may never even make it to a higher level, because of death, retirement or whatever. What is balancing out your low level wimpiness, then? Unless you subscribe to the notion that it is "balanced" on a sort of macro level by all the other NPC MUs who will get past that point. If so, then Arilyn nailed it with her demographics comment. Or do you assume that it's "balanced" because the player's next character might do better? (Assuming she plays again. And she plays an MU. And gets further next time.) 'Cause, if so, well.... ugh. Just... ugh. That is truly absurd game design.

And, as Arilyn pointed out, what about the poor halfling fighter? How can being stuck at 4th level possibly be considered balanced, when the rest of the group is, say, 12th level? There will never be any point in the halfling's career that he will be terrifyingly powerful enough to balance that out. And, even if there was, it would only be through the very averaging process you were denying. And it would still be terrible game design.

At the end of the day, I just don't get your argument. How can having classes/levels/whatever that are unbalanced for some portion of the game and then unbalanced in the opposite direction for another portion ever equal balance on the grand scale and good game design? And if you are looking at it on some sort of macro scale, involving thousands of other similar non-player characters... Well... why? The players are using their own characters, not those faceless hordes, so that's where any balance mechanics should focus. That's just common sense game design. Otherwise, as Arilyn said, you're talking demographics, not balance.

As for the "if you don't like it, ignore it" comment... Well, obviously. But I got the impression that this conversation is about the RAW, not somebody's house rules. That, too, seemed to be implicit.

 

[Satyrn]

Which makes sense for equipment, but falls apart when you have to lift or move something extremely heavy that can't be handwaved as "having been smaller all along". Lifting a heavy portcullis or rock, etc. Both the 20 str gnome and the 20 str human can lift 600 lbs. (Goliaths and Large creatures double that, Tiny creatures halve that.)

I think Small creatures get lumped in with Medium creatures for this (i.e. they can carry the same amount) simply because there are Small player races and the designers wanted to avoid extra math.

oh yeah, I kinda handwaved that away as the "and the like" when I said "I find the weight and carrying capacity rules and the like to be kind of awkward" and then neglected to address it.

I would say that's where a DM can choose where to draw the line on what's possible. If the table doesn't think a halfling should be able to lift the same sized boulder as a human then the halfling's player should accept that ruling. But for most things, like bending bars and lifting a broken wagon off a comrade's leg, I see no reason not to let the strongling be just as capable, in a heroic game, as the human.

For me, it's just the edge cases where there might be an issue with this, and I'm good with DM/table rulings for that

 

[Caliban]

oh yeah, I kinda handwaved that away as the "and the like" when I said "I find the weight and carrying capacity rules and the like to be kind of awkward" and then neglected to address it.

I would say that's where a DM can choose where to draw the line on what's possible. If the table doesn't think a halfling should be able to lift the same sized boulder as a human then the halfling's player should accept that ruling. But for most things, like bending bars and lifting a broken wagon off a comrade's leg, I see no reason not to let the strongling be just as capable, in a heroic game, as the human.

For me, it's just the edge cases where there might be an issue with this, and I'm good with DM/table rulings for that

Oh, I have absolutely no problem with 20 strength halflings and gnomes. I find their ant-like strength amusing, but the idea of a fantasy race being super strong (relative to their size) poses no problems to me.

In fact, I don't the rules go far enough - Small races can't take advantage of feats like Great Weapon Master due to the Heavy quality giving them disadvantage on all attacks. I've been giving serious thought to adding a house rule that allows Small Races to treat Versatile weapons as if they had the Heavy property when wielding them in two hands. Possibly adding it as a rider to Great Weapon Style, or just as it's own rule.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hmmm.... Seems to me that you're kind of disproving your own point. The averaging idea is implicit in your own statement, i.e. you are effectively saying that, on the average, "being weak at lower levels balances out with the great power they get at upper levels" (your words, not mine). Read without that clause or in any other context, you are effectively saying that the class is balanced because it is unbalanced at 1st level (too weak), unbalanced at 2nd level (too weak) ... unbalanced but in a different way at 14th level (too strong), unbalanced but in a different way at 15th level (too strong), etc. That makes no sense at all. In fact, MUs are really only balanced - kind of - for a couple of levels somewhere in the middle, unless you do look at it as some kind of average across all levels. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I'm not disproving my point at all. Again, the flaw in your argument is that you're looking at the MU levels as a pool of stats thrown together and then averaged out. My argument is that since the game is not played with an average (you spend time playing at every level individually), averaging is the opposite of what you should be doing. I.e., if a class is weaker 50% of the time, and stronger 50% of the time, it's flawed to say the average is balanced (which seems to be the argument you're ascribing to me) because at no point are you really playing that theoretical average character. You're either one or the other. And in the end result, after an entire campaign, it all works out in the end, then it would be what I consider a balanced class. And I think they were in AD&D, otherwise you wouldn't have each class played often.

Think of it like this. If you have a car that is slow off the start but has a high top end speed, and a car that is quick off the line but a lower top end, those are not the same as a car that is in fact average at both, even if all three reach the finish line at the same time. All three are in fact balanced in that end game context, regardless if one car was much better at first and not as good at the end, and it's very likely the average speed was never reached. An average, by it's very definition, is analysis only and not reflective of what's actually occurring.

And none of this addresses the fact that the MU may never even make it to a higher level, because of death, retirement or whatever. What is balancing out your low level wimpiness, then? Unless you subscribe to the notion that it is "balanced" on a sort of macro level by all the other NPC MUs who will get past that point. If so, then Arilyn nailed it with her demographics comment. Or do you assume that it's "balanced" because the player's next character might do better? (Assuming she plays again. And she plays an MU. And gets further next time.) 'Cause, if so, well.... ugh. Just... ugh. That is truly absurd game design.

It was addressing that. EVERY character may never make it to higher level in AD&D, and most did not. And even if MUs died at lower levels more often (not my experience in 35 years of playing AD&D, but whatever), putting in that work to get a more powerful class at the end game is in fact the same sort of balancing I'm talking about. Also, tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of gamers disagree with you and think it's just fine game design. I don't like every rule in AD&D, but the class design is just fine for what the game is supposed to be about. And I'm confident I'm not nearly the only one who thinks so.

And, as Arilyn pointed out, what about the poor halfling fighter? How can being stuck at 4th level possibly be considered balanced, when the rest of the group is, say, 12th level? There will never be any point in the halfling's career that he will be terrifyingly powerful enough to balance that out. And, even if there was, it would only be through the very averaging process you were denying. And it would still be terrible game design.

Well, halflings could get to 6th level, not 4th, but again the whole point of those was to emphasize a human centric world. I.e., most of the PCs were intended to be humans. That was a tool to motivate and incentive players to choose humans over other races. And in AD&D, 6th level was pretty high. 9th level was name level, and the end game for many players.

At the end of the day, I just don't get your argument. How can having classes/levels/whatever that are unbalanced for some portion of the game and then unbalanced in the opposite direction for another portion ever equal balance on the grand scale and good game design? And if you are looking at it on some sort of macro scale, involving thousands of other similar non-player characters... Well... why? The players are using their own characters, not those faceless hordes, so that's where any balance mechanics should focus. That's just common sense game design. Otherwise, as Arilyn said, you're talking demographics, not balance.

As for the "if you don't like it, ignore it" comment... Well, obviously. But I got the impression that this conversation is about the RAW, not somebody's house rules. That, too, seemed to be implicit.

I don't know anything about your gaming history, but I get the impression that you never played AD&D back then very much, if at all. Otherwise many of these things would seem pretty obvious. What I hear you saying, is the argument that is the same as the argument "unless every PC can be just as good as every other PC at every pillar and every task, then it's not balanced and horrible game design." That's the argument you're making when you're saying that unless a class is as effective as every other class at every level, then it's not balanced. And if you don't think every PC needs to be as effective as every other PC in every pillar and in every scenario, then it seems you're either holding a contradictory position, or you yourself are also drawing a line, just in a different place than me. In either case, it doesn't make the game horrible design to not fit exactly where you are drawing your own personal line.

And my position is that if you have a PC that is better at exploration, and one that is better at combat, and one that is better at interaction, and you play all equally, then the game is in fact balanced. You need to look at the entire game, in all pillars, for the typical duration of an entire campaign. If a player excels at certain points of the game but doesn't in others, that doesn't mean the game is not balanced as a whole.

 

[Staccat0]

It's beyond ridiculous that the strongest halfling is as strong as the strongest half-orc or strongest dwarf. The type of musculature required to fit that much power into a three-foot frame would render them incapable of fine manipulation.

Gender variance is not worth modeling. The vast majority of humans are between five and seven feet tall, regardless of gender.

I see what you mean about the races, but at the same time the racial modifiers make it exceptionally harder/rarer for certain races to reach that peak and by the time they can, they are essentially superheroes anyway. Not to mention, most tables would let you make an unusually tall halfling or unusually short half-orc and nobody is gonna want to waste time modeling the hight variance within a race as it is.

For me, at the end of the day, all of the numbers are comically broad abstractions and I like em that way. If I wanted something more simulationist, I could play a different game or edition.

 

[MechaPilot]

Secondly, Gary didn't limit people's choices to punish them. The game was designed to be human centric, so the rules supported that. It's his freaking game, so he can design it the way he wants. No one is getting punished. If you don't like it, then ignore that rule like so many others did. To quote me, "that's entitlement talk".

All along DMs have been encouraged to ignore or alter rules to make the game their own. The game is everyone's game, not Gary's game. Frankly, if D&D were just Gary's game instead of our game, I probably wouldn't play it. I'd find another game to play, and believe me there are other games out there that are just as good at the fantasy genre as D&D. But, seeing as it is our game and not just Gary's game, I didn't have to do that.

 

[JonM]

Think of it like this. If you have a car that is slow off the start but has a high top end speed, and a car that is quick off the line but a lower top end, those are not the same as a car that is in fact average at both, even if all three reach the finish line at the same time. All three are in fact balanced in that end game context, regardless if one car was much better at first and not as good at the end, and it's very likely the average speed was never reached. An average, by it's very definition, is analysis only and not reflective of what's actually occurring.

But, according to your own analogy, there is never any point at which the cars are going the same speed = never any level at which the classes are actually balanced. Unless you are talking about the hypothetical end of the race (which, in this context, makes very little sense, since the "race" can have different end points for different characters), but, in that case, what matters is the cars' average speeds, not their speeds at any given moment. Which brings us right back to averages and demographics (you do get that a car's performance, by the end of a race, is based on its average speed, over the whole race, not its speed at any single point, right? That's just basic physics. Hey, it's your analogy...). And in any event, from a PC's point of view, this is a poor analogy, anyway, since what matters is how a given "car" is doing at this moment in time, in this race, not how cars of all sorts do, by the variable end of the race, over many races.

Also, tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of gamers disagree with you and think it's just fine game design. I don't like every rule in AD&D, but the class design is just fine for what the game is supposed to be about. And I'm confident I'm not nearly the only one who thinks so.

And just as many, if not manymore, would disagree with you, or 1st would still be just as popular as 5th. But that is a very poor sort of excuse for an argument, anyway, so I'll leave that one alone.

halflings could get to 6th level, not 4th, but again the whole point of those was to emphasize a human centric world. I.e., most of the PCs were intended to be humans. That was a tool to motivate and incentive players to choose humans over other races. And in AD&D, 6th level was pretty high. 9th level was name level, and the end game for many players.

True, halflings with ridiculously high Strength scores could get a bit higher, using AD&D's usual rich get richer logic. I'm sure that would be ample consolation for the 6th level halfling playing in the 12th+ level campaign (which, BTW, we reached several times).

I don't know anything about your gaming history, but I get the impression that you never played AD&D back then very much, if at all. Otherwise many of these things would seem pretty obvious.

Heh, heh... I was actually planning to leave this thread, since it seems to be devolving into circular arguments, but this comment drew me back. I first started playing D&D (too) many years ago, with the lil' brown books (actually, photocopies of them, at first, brought over from a Wisconsin campaign). When AD&D came out, I scooped that up and played (or, more often, judged) that for (too) many years, during which time I wrote semi-regularly from Dragon, during its double digit days. Did a couple of modules, as well, and some stuff for JG. And I have played and judged every version of D&D, since, including some offshoots, like Pathfinder and 13th Age. Are those good enough credentials to join your club?

Anyway, we used to have these arguments, all the time, in the day. And made just us much headway (well, actually that's not really true, or 5th would look more like 1st). Gary never convinced me that this was a good way to balance things, so I'm afraid your odds aren't great.