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

[Satyrn]

Give me an example of what you mean?

I believe he's suggesting that a race's description could, while describing the average height and weight of an african swallow lightfoot halfling, simply say their average strength measures a 7. Or while saying that both male and female dwarves have beards, they are also exceptionally stronger than other player character races, measuring in with an average Strength of 13.

And then just let the players decide how close to average they want to make their halfling or dwarf.

 

[Yaarel]

So, in other words, the Players Handbook says something like?



A Lightfoot Halfling with a heroic array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) is typically:

Strength 8
Dexterity 17 ( = 15 + 2)
Constitution 10

Intelligence 12
Wisdom 13
Charisma 15 ( = 14 + 1).

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, something like that, too. There's lots of ways it could work, but the heart of the suggestion seemed to be to describe an average, a baseline for the player to deviate from as they desire.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, something like that, too. There's lots of ways it could work, but the heart of the suggestion seemed to be to describe an average, a baseline for the player to deviate from as they desire.

Say they do choose to diverge from expected stats?

The Halfling, even whose heroes are Strength 8, suddenly has one oddball with a 20?

That take esplainin!

Almost by definition, the Halfling can no longer Small.

Does the Halfling have Giant ancestry?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Say they do choose to diverge from expected stats?

A Halfling whose heroes are even Strength 8, suddenly has one oddball with a 20?

That take esplainin!

Almost by definition, the Halfling can no longer Small.

Does the Halfling have Giant ancestry?

Wouldn't a giant halfling by definition be a regular human?

 

[Satyrn]

Say they do choose to diverge from expected stats?

A Halfling whose heroes are even Strength 8, suddenly has one oddball with a 20?

That take esplainin!

Almost by definition, the Halfling can no longer Small.

Does the Halfling have Giant ancestry?

It all depends on how you decide to view these things. I'm not looking at the stats as a world simulator. To me, the only thing that halfling's 20 Strength really means is that he's stronger than a halfling with 12 Strength.

If I was comparing him to a 20 Strength human in sheer lifting power, I'd rule that the human is actually stronger. But the halfling can use his strength in combat, in athletics, and in other practical situations just as effectively as the human.

This was more how 3e modeled it, actually. The halfling had the same bonuses, but it's carrying/lifting capacity was lowered because of it's size.

Mostly, I'm happy to say a 20 doesn't always mean exactly the same thing to every character.

 

[Lord Twig]

Even though D&D is a fantasy game, it uses our own world as a starting point. In the real world men are stronger than women. Significantly so. This is a fact.

So if we want to model human men and women in a fantasy game then on average men should be physically stronger than women there as well. That would be the baseline. But there is no reason to limit character abilities according to gender based on reality.

Back when my group still rolled stats we had different modifiers for male and female characters, but if you wanted you could roll the male stats for a female character or vise versa. It was really no big deal. It did mean that females were generally smaller and weaker than men in general, but they had other physical advantages (usually a bonus to Con or Dex).

I think the same goes for races. There are no Halflings or gnomes in our world, but small people are, obviously, not as strong as bigger people. So since they are small, why should they be as strong as humans? Why shouldn't elves be more fragile and dwarves slower? At least on average. Sure dragons can fly in D&D and according to physics they shouldn't be able to, but why does that mean that halflings should be as strong as dwarves?

Now while I have seen strong women and intellectual half orcs played strait, I have honestly never seen a halfling with an 18 or higher strength that wasn't a joke. The entire game the character would be laughed at as they lifted heavy things or did other improbable feats of strength. Now if you are playing a beer and pretzels type game where nothing is serious, that is fine. But it really detracts from a desperate, save-the-world campaign if Heman the Halfling stops to hit on the Marilith by flexing his muscles at her.

All that said, currently I don't place any restrictions on characters. But I do keep default assumptions in place. Generally human men will be stronger than human women, with notable exceptions. Small races are weaker than big races and races with specific stat bonuses are superior in those areas. Then I just rely on players to keep those things in mind. If they want to defy those expectations I just ask them to put it into their backstory. If the reason is simply, "because I thought it would be funny" I make sure the rest of the group is on board. The whole point of the game is for everyone to have fun (including me), not so one person can have fun at everyone else's expense.

tldr: Hard min/max rules are a thing of the past for good reason, but they can still be good guidelines to represent the norm.

 

[Morrus]

Even though D&D is a fantasy game, it uses our own world as a starting point. In the real world men are stronger than women. Significantly so. This is a fact.

So what?

You can play an orc or an elf, but not a woman with muscles?

If somebody wants to play a heroic woman who is stronger than everybody else, what possible reason is there to prevent them from doing so?

Worst campaign setting ever.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It all depends on how you decide to view these things. I'm not looking at the stats as a world simulator. To me, the only thing that halfling's 20 Strength really means is that he's stronger than a halfling with 12 Strength.

Stats reflect the world, but they don't define it. What a halfling's 20 Strength means is that it's exactly as strong as a human with 20 Strength, and stronger than an ogre, when it comes to those things that the Strength stat is supposed to reflect. Carrying capacity isn't just a matter of Strength, though; it's also a matter of weight ratios.

When a rock is flying toward you, it doesn't matter whether it was thrown by a halfling or an ogre. The only thing that matters is how fast it's going, which is a direct function of how much force was imparted by the thrower, and this statistical model - this reflection of the underlying reality - is saying that the halfling imparts more force than the ogre.

 

[Lord Twig]

So what?

You can play an orc or an elf, but not a woman with muscles?

If somebody wants to play a heroic woman who is stronger than everybody else, what possible reason is there to prevent them from doing so?

Worst campaign setting ever.

What? No. I didn't say that at all. I guess I was a little too long winded and it got lost in the wall of text.

What I said: "That would be the baseline. But there is no reason to limit character abilities according to gender based on reality."

And: "Back when my group still rolled stats we had different modifiers for male and female characters, but if you wanted you could roll the male stats for a female character or vise versa. It was really no big deal."

We had both players that switched stats to create smaller male characters that were quick and nimble and players that used the "male" stats to make really strong female characters. We use point buy now so the whole male/female stats are gone now.

As I said here: "All that said, currently I don't place any restrictions on characters."

All of that is quoted from my post above.

Now I do have some assumptions about the average. Halflings are small, weak and dexterous. Dwarves are tough and disagreeable. And yes, human women are generally weaker than human men. But those are guidelines, not limitations.