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

[rabindranath72]

As long as players aren't strongly mechanically incentivized to play nonhuman over human, and your campaign setting provides some interesting human cultures and history to provide character hooks for them, I don't think it's necessary to give nonhuman characters the hose to accomplish this.

But the mechanical incentives are considered strong by many players. My sister for example always plays a elf fighter/magic-user, and no other race can do this better than elves (also taking into account the elves' other specialties.)
In 2e the option was given to raise the maximum levels based on ability scores, and of requiring 2x and 3x XP to unlimited advancement; this works well in my experience. In particular 2x XP from level 1, and 3x XP from maximum level, makes level limits relevant at all levels of play.

 

[Sadras]

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 is called tinkering. DMs have through the game's history attempted to change and model reality throughout the editions, including the the topic of Hit Points. You remember the monthly thread that pops up regarding Vitality Points and its derivatives Damage Resistance from the wearing of armour?

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.

And that is fine, but it might not be everyone's cup of tea. I still don't think a poster should be calling out other posters racists and/or sexists because of others in-game preferences in an attempt to simulate reality. I think you're forgetting about that line.

"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!"

Talking to badgers requires magic, the other issue doesn't. Similar to why many feel halflings should be inherently weaker than half-orcs.

 

[Lylandra]

It is called tinkering. DMs have through the game's history attempted to change and model reality throughout the editions, including the the topic of Hit Points. You remember the monthly thread that pops up regarding Vitality Points and its derivatives Damage Resistance from the wearing of armour?



And that is fine, but it might not be everyone's cup of tea. I still don't think a poster should be calling out other posters racists and/or sexists because of others in-game preferences in an attempt to simulate reality. I think you're forgetting about that line.



Talking to badgers requires magic, the other issue doesn't. Similar to why many feel halflings should be inherently weaker than half-orcs.

Heh, but what if the women in D&D are just inherently as strong as men? There is no reason to even have a distinction here. There is *nothing* in the fluff text which might lead to the conclusion that there is a difference in the STR distribution curve between the two. In my games, I always assume this as a basis and portray my human societies with physical equality in mind. I can see why halflings are too far-fetched for some (not for me, I can and do make up my own science), but M-F are no different races...

If you'd want to, you can houserule differences into your genders, sure. But unless you balance the two out and just say "okay men get +2 STR and +2 STR max because realism" and give the other gender nothing equivalent in return, then your model blatantly says "men are better then women". And that is meta-sexism. I guess this is what was meant...

 

[Sadras]

Heh, but what if the women in D&D are just inherently as strong as men? There is no reason to even have a distinction here. There is *nothing* in the fluff text which might lead to the conclusion that there is a difference in the STR distribution curve between the two. In my games, I always assume this as a basis and portray my human societies with physical equality in mind. I can see why halflings are too far-fetched for some (not for me, I can and do make up my own science), but M-F are no different races...

No issue whatsoever. I could also even see that as part of a particular setting where women are as strong as men, and maybe even stronger. Cool ideas forming!

If you'd want to, you can houserule differences into your genders, sure. But unless you balance the two out and just say "okay men get +2 STR and +2 STR max because realism" and give the other gender nothing equivalent in return, then your model blatantly says "men are better then women". And that is meta-sexism. I guess this is what was meant...

I don't believe anyone here is putting that on the table. Both my posts which dealt with changing it up between the sexes included a substitute benefit for female characters. I have not implemented any changes in the sexes in my own campaign, because I'm too busy tinkering elsewhere and time these days is so limited and I'm as slow as GRRM
I'm currently tinkering with Weapons and Armour! And this initiative thread with the numerous variant ideas is quite interesting.

 

[JonnyP71]

I'm toying with 'females of all races get -1 strength, +1 wisdom when stats are generated', similarly all races will get +1 in up to 2 stats, with -1 in an equal number of stats. Humans get no racial stat modifiers.

And in order to further push the idea of races favouring certain stats, I like the idea of a 'favoured stat' - at the point of character generation, the player must assign 1 of the highest 3 dice rolls to a favoured stat (or maybe 2 favoured stats, eg Half Orcs must put 1 of the highest 3 into strength, another into constitution)

 

[Lanefan]

Talking to badgers requires magic....

Not strictly true in-game: at least in some older editions Gnomes had the ability to converse with burrowing animals as a straight-up feature of their race, similar to Elves and Dwarves having some variant of darkvision. No magic or spell required.

 

[Sadras]

Not strictly true in-game: at least in some older editions Gnomes had the ability to converse with burrowing animals as a straight-up feature of their race, similar to Elves and Dwarves having some variant of darkvision. No magic or spell required.

Fair enough, but if we are talking about previous/those editions and not 5e, then we are talking about editions that had differences between the sexes (abilities, height, weight).

 

[Lanefan]

I'm toying with 'females of all races get -1 strength, +1 wisdom when stats are generated'

If you're going that route...and I'm not at all sure it's either necessary or required, but...then I'd suggest -1 strength and +1 constitution. That way at least you're swapping a physical stat for a physical stat.

And in order to further push the idea of races favouring certain stats, I like the idea of a 'favoured stat' - at the point of character generation, the player must assign 1 of the highest 3 dice rolls to a favoured stat (or maybe 2 favoured stats, eg Half Orcs must put 1 of the highest 3 into strength, another into constitution)

I posted upthread (not sure how far, now) the idea of just bell-curving the stats into the relevant ranges for each class. It's simpler, once you've done some heavy lifting to set it up in the first place (and I've tables that can help you there, if interested).

Lan-"here's another related thing from older editions that no longer exists - stat changes up/down due to a character's age"-efan

 

[JonnyP71]

Wisdom fits better for me, as a crude attempt to simulate superior female 'empathy' and 'common sense'

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not strictly true in-game: at least in some older editions Gnomes had the ability to converse with burrowing animals as a straight-up feature of their race, similar to Elves and Dwarves having some variant of darkvision. No magic or spell required.

AD&D didn't make a formal distinction between mundane and magical abilities. When it was translated into 3E, it was a spell-like ability which ceased to function within an anti-magic field.

That was also the reason I never built a campaign setting that featured gnomes, and why I wouldn't hold gnomes to the same physical standards as halflings - gnomes are an innately magical race with innate magical powers, much like the Eladrin of 4E. (I didn't DM during 2E.)