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

[Maxperson]

For the general races, sure. But players aren't playing all halflings or half-orcs. They're playing PCs, exceptional individuals within the game. It doesn't matter than halflings are generally weaker than half-orcs in the broader population. The game is about this halfling PC being played by this player at the table and the PCs should not be so limited. That's why there are no stat minima or maxima for any PCs.

The PHB race write ups ARE the PC characters. It's the PLAYERS handbook

There is also no fluff reason for PC halflings, or any other race for that matter, to be different from the general population.

 

[Maxperson]

I talk about the hobbit Halfling, and in AD&D 2nd he had high poison resistance like Bilbo in that children's tale. Also LOTR Frodo took a strike from the Nazguls weapon and survived. You cannot do that without high Con.

He only survived because Elrond saved him.

 

[tuxedoraptor]

removed to stop arguements

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Modeling a fact of reality is not sexism, unless you're going to call evolution sexist. You could I suppose, but it seems really silly to me.

 

[Obryn]

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.

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

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.

A third option, of course, is that the ability scores don't line up to precisely what you're expecting, or cast a broader net than you're implying. Frex, Strength is "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force."

Apart from attack and damage bonuses, you mostly use it to climb, swim, and jump. Climbing and swimming are no big thing for halflings, and their speed is already slower than a human or half-orc when it comes to jumping - but let's face it, there's less of them to push with a jump, you know?

Yeah, carrying capacity might be a thing if you're using it, and I'd have zero problems if the write-up said they can only carry 1/2 the weight or something. It doesn't, but that's not also much to hang a hat on. I'm no fan of 5e game design myself, but I look at this and shrug.

And since combat is so fluffy and abstract, I give precisely zero flumphs if they can eke out some extra attack and damage bonuses. Just trained as a halfling for 'athletic training' and 'exerting [their] raw physical force."

A fourth option, of course, is "long hair, don't care" and I'm okay with that too. There were no caps in BECMI/RC after all, and somehow everyone got on with their lives.

 

[Obryn]

Modeling a fact of reality is not sexism, unless you're going to call evolution sexist. You could I suppose, but it seems really silly to me.

It's about what you make a conscious decision to model in your abstract elfgame. It's deciding what's important enough to you that you elect to write it up, spend ink and pagespace on it, and codify it as a default rule of a game which will probably also include such nonsense as hit points.

It's also about where you allow your fantasy game to depart from real life - that maybe it's okay for elves, dwarves, and wizards to exist, but not particularly strong women. That's a line the designers and players choose to draw exactly where they draw it. "In my game, gnomes can talk to badgers, but women are physically weaker than men because if they were just as strong in our 3-18 scale, that is a bridge too far!"

 

[Maxperson]

A third option, of course, is that the ability scores don't line up to precisely what you're expecting, or cast a broader net than you're implying. Frex, Strength is "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force."

Apart from attack and damage bonuses, you mostly use it to climb, swim, and jump. Climbing and swimming are no big thing for halflings, and their speed is already slower than a human or half-orc when it comes to jumping - but let's face it, there's less of them to push with a jump, you know?

Yeah, carrying capacity might be a thing if you're using it, and I'd have zero problems if the write-up said they can only carry 1/2 the weight or something. It doesn't, but that's not also much to hang a hat on. I'm no fan of 5e game design myself, but I look at this and shrug.

And since combat is so fluffy and abstract, I give precisely zero flumphs if they can eke out some extra attack and damage bonuses. Just trained as a halfling for 'athletic training' and 'exerting [their] raw physical force."

A fourth option, of course, is "long hair, don't care" and I'm okay with that too. There were no caps in BECMI/RC after all, and somehow everyone got on with their lives.

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.

 

[Caliban]

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.

#NotAllPeople

 

[Maxperson]

It's about what you make a conscious decision to model in your abstract elfgame. It's deciding what's important enough to you that you elect to write it up, spend ink and pagespace on it, and codify it as a default rule of a game which will probably also include such nonsense as hit points.

It's also about where you allow your fantasy game to depart from real life - that maybe it's okay for elves, dwarves, and wizards to exist, but not particularly strong women. That's a line the designers and players choose to draw exactly where they draw it. "In my game, gnomes can talk to badgers, but women are physically weaker than men because if they were just as strong in our 3-18 scale, that is a bridge too far!"

Well, as I said in my first post in this thread, I don't really care for gender limitations. That's too much reality for me and I wouldn't use it if it were part of 5e. However, racial differences I'm all for. I like that there is stat variation among the races. I want the strongest halfling to be weaker than the strongest half orc. I want the most agile halfling to be more agile than the most agile half orc.

In 1e and 2e the min/max for the races made sense. It was hard to get high stats and stat raises were very rare, so the stat bonuses combined with the min/max for races differentiated them. In 3e the maximums were done away with, but since there was no cap on stats the strongest half orc would be stronger than the strongest halfling, all other things being equal. With 5e we have this problem due to lots of stat bonuses, and a very low cap on stats(compared to 4e and 5e).

 

[Maxperson]

#NotAllPeople

I said "people", not "all people" for a reason.