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

[schnee]

Your LOTR analysis is a ultrafunny, the halflings got their ass saved multipletimes by Aragorn borumir Gandalf and whomever I forgot was it the elfin wife in the movie

Thank you for agreeing with me when I said 'the Hobbits only got 'balance' in their story influence when the parties split up, so they could make do in their own clever, make-do ways and stop being saved all the time'.

Since you basically backed up what I said, how was it 'ultra funny'?

The only time in the book when your analysis really hits the point is in the end phase were Frodo and Sam and Gollum really are the only ones to cross the area unseen by the eye.

...and Merry/Pippin rousing TreeBeard and the Ents to attack Sauruman, fighting with the Riders of Rohan, joining in the assault at the Black Gate of Mordor, Merry striking one of the killing blows on the Witch-king, and the Scouring of the Shire, and, and...

Concerning your other post I lolled on myself because first I mistook it for the post of some youngster trying to show it to those old grogs but then I realized it was a grog himself rambling.

I'm laughing at everything you write too.

 

[MechaPilot]

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)

None of the caster classes in 5e use spell points; they are printed as an option in the DMG.

 

[Coroc]

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.

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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

If you're putting the DM into the position of saying that certain races are not allowed, or certain race/class combinations are bad, then you're setting the DM up to be the bad guy. It establishes a baseline where players can expect to do anything, and any DM who tries to insert reasonable limits is seen as getting in their way.

If you say that monster races are considered monsters by default, and only humans can be paladins, then you instead set the DM up to be the good guy by letting players play something unusual if they really want to. From what I've heard, it wasn't uncommon for DMs to waive the level caps for non-human characters in AD&D, and even if they required double XP from that point (as mine did) they were still being cool by letting you do something that you wouldn't otherwise expect.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION]

It was so funny because it was LOTR which is source for many tropes, was characterised by you as if these tropes had existed before LOTR, like if D&D came first and then LOTR.
Like I know how to play D&D then read the book, and my first thought on the Hobbits going sideways is "Oh noes they are splitting the party"

But you are right -now that I think again on it - the endgame (trope lol) was dominated by the Halflings on more than only Frodo's front.

 

[Yaarel]

This is, I think, in fact part of the problem - 5e allows too much stat advancement as a result of level-ups. It doesn't really matter what you put in your prime stat, because sooner or later it's going to get to 20 anyway.

Suggestion: really slow down stat increments.

The speed of ability improvement across levels doesnt bother me. But I know it bothers some players, and I sympathize because I like the design philosophy of bounded accuracy. It is easy to slow down improvements by forcing the use of feats only, but including feats that improve one ability by 1.

Assuming, of course, one rolls the requisite stats. If I've decided to play a half-orc, for example, and don't roll anything higher than a 13 am I banned from playing a half-orc? (and I'm not asking this in any argumentative way as I'm quite cool with either a yes or no answer, I'm just wondering if you thought of this aspect) Ditto for the hobbit - if all my rolls are 12 am I banned from Hobbiton because I don't have a low enough stat?

I always use arrays (with a choice between equally valuable arrays), so qualification is never a problem.

Heh, if you are going to roll like old school, then it has to hurt like old school. No Paladin, sorry. No sympathy.

This brings up yet another question: how exceptional are the PCs vs. the general population of the game world? Some obviously think very special, others (like me) prefer that they at least start out pretty much just like everyone else and then become special through the run of play.

Thus, if you're playing a hobbit then the baseline assumption is that it grew up as a hobbit, in hobbit culture and with hobbit sensibilities. And that its stats show hobbit tendencies - high dex, high con, and low str.

Same for part-orcs - the tendencies will be high str, high con, low int and low cha.

But for some insane reason 5e doesn't like penalties, so the "low" aspects here aren't reflected in the rules, only the bonuses...and that to me is poor design.

Lan-"exceptions can, of course, occasionally and rarely happen - but they should be just that: exceptional and unusual even when compared to other PCs"-efan

Penalties hurt the math. So I am cool with bonuses to score only. Min-maxes as prereqs work well. I generally want to see, characters roughly representative of how the campaign setting understands each race. If a player wants to do something idiosyncratic, the player and the DM need to figure out how it can fit in.

 

[Igwilly]

If you're putting the DM into the position of saying that certain races are not allowed, or certain race/class combinations are bad, then you're setting the DM up to be the bad guy. It establishes a baseline where players can expect to do anything, and any DM who tries to insert reasonable limits is seen as getting in their way.

If you say that monster races are considered monsters by default, and only humans can be paladins, then you instead set the DM up to be the good guy by letting players play something unusual if they really want to. From what I've heard, it wasn't uncommon for DMs to waive the level caps for non-human characters in AD&D, and even if they required double XP from that point (as mine did) they were still being cool by letting you do something that you wouldn't otherwise expect.

There's much truth in that.
If you are playing with long-time friends, you can get away with such restrictions.
If you are playing with people you knew like, two weeks ago, then this won't be so simple. I would say a number of players will even leave the group.

I allow Buster Swords in my game, but if they become a core rule, my coolness drops. Part of my charm is being "crazy". Moreoever, I didn't even start talking about overall DM's rejection against such a core rule.
There are differences between basic rules, official optional rules, and house-rules.

 

[Obryn]

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

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

I'm not much bothered by the specifics of the differences. I'm perfectly content with substantial gaps and even completely different rule sets. As I see it, the game mechanics aren't about chandlers, bookbinders, and farmers, so I'm not concerned one bit if they use their own vague stuff or barely have stats at all. Stats are for the game.

But I'm also fine with games that do it the other way, depending on genre and tone. Both DCC and SotDL have 0-level characters. In DCC they're extremely fragile - but have a gigantic jump in competence at 1st level, well beyond, say, 1st to 2nd in D&D.

 

[Lylandra]

There's much truth in that.
If you are playing with long-time friends, you can get away with such restrictions.
If you are playing with people you knew like, two weeks ago, then this won't be so simple. I would say a number of players will even leave the group.

I allow Buster Swords in my game, but if they become a core rule, my coolness drops. Part of my charm is being "crazy". Moreoever, I didn't even start talking about overall DM's rejection against such a core rule.
There are differences between basic rules, official optional rules, and house-rules.

I was not trying to imply that the GM has to be the bad partent who ruins the fun. It was just my intention to explain that limits can be fun and reasonable as well - depending on campaign and setting. I, as GM, would never force any limits on my players without discussing them first. For example, there might be a world with a different cosmology where certain spells don't work or work differently. For story reasons. Or where divine classes don't exist as all the gods are dead.

That's what session 0 (or rather -1 to 0) is for. To discuss whether my players would like to play in such a setting, whether they'd like the themes and which kind of characters they'd like to play. And yes, this works well because I know my fellows and they've been my friends for years. With complete strangers, I'd go for a very vanilla route first.

 

[Maxperson]

Then that's an entirely different argument, don't you think?

No. It's directly the point of this. People are having an issue with the halfling being as strong as a half-orc because of the disconnect between fluff and crunch.

You can have your own opinions on whether or not you miss the racial and gender stat maximums, but you can't say that the text of the 5e rulebook supports your conclusions when it does nothing of the sort.

Yes it does. It also supports your conclusions. That's the freaking problem. The fluff supports me. The rule supports you.

FWIW, this is not horrible game design, unless you are equating "game design" with "rigid simulation." And boy howdy, if it's simulation that you're looking for, are you looking at the wrong game.

This is wrong. The fluff needing to match the crunch has nothing to do with simulation at all. You can match the fluff to the crunch by making halflings weaker, which would be more simulationist, OR you could match the fluff to the crunch by adding a line to halflings like, "Despite their small size, halflings are almost ant like with their musculature.". That would not be simulationist.

It's god awful game design to have the fluff not match the crunch.