Li Shenron
Legend
Yes, but you're not limited to those. At 1st level, Sleep, Magic Missile and Fog Cloud do not depend on Int.
D&D 5E (2014) Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?
- Thread starter Carlsen Chris
- Start date
Yes, but you're not limited to those. At 1st level, Sleep, Magic Missile and Fog Cloud do not depend on Int.
Satyrn
First Post
I feel no shame!
I do & oddly enough I miss 18/01-18/00. It added a great amount of depth to the strength score. It allowed for strong versions of elves, dwarves, half-orcs & humans but no pc race in 1E original PHB could be stronger than a human. It also was an elegant way of addressing strength differences between men & also men and women because they do exist. I do find gnomes, halflings & women with 18 strength scores to be a bit off putting. (I know people will slam me for the women comment but oh well... When I see women competing with men in professional sports at the elite levels and beating them often I will be happy to eat my words.)
Snarky, irrelevant troll post that gets liked and is totally fine with admins. Awesome work. You well know how to game the system.
Sacrosanct
Legend
How is that irrelevant? You said you playing an 8 INT wizard is idiotic. I'm pointing out how you are not forced to play a class you find idiotic. That's totally relevant to your comment.
Miladoon
First Post
I remember those days. IMO those rules dissolved in an attempt to bring less tension between players. PCs are generally different then commoners so it is plausible for a female PC to have an exception. Because there is always one.
People will argue with you for days about it but be okay with:
small races with 20 strength wield heavy weapons with disadvantage. Wut?
Armor fits all. Whatever?
Entering a creatures house, killing it, and taking their shyte. Hurray!
Carrying about the weight of a small house on your back without penalties. Cuz we aint puny!
A never ending supply of ammo. Blau, Blau, Blau
Realism is fine in a game because it is not really real.
Ganymede81
First Post
I do not miss them.
They were a part of 1e's Sisyphean goal of using the PC character generation rules as a model for the socioeconomics of the game world. It was a misguided endeavor.
Just give us fun and exciting ways for our PCs to create stories and leave the "socioeconomics of the game world" to the adventure modules or the DMs themselves.
***
For the rest following along with the Forum Drinking Game: While multiple people have come very close to saying it, you don't actually drink until someone says the exact words, "Let's throw the cheerleaders into the football game and see what happens."
They were a part of 1e's Sisyphean goal of using the PC character generation rules as a model for the socioeconomics of the game world. It was a misguided endeavor.
Just give us fun and exciting ways for our PCs to create stories and leave the "socioeconomics of the game world" to the adventure modules or the DMs themselves.
***
For the rest following along with the Forum Drinking Game: While multiple people have come very close to saying it, you don't actually drink until someone says the exact words, "Let's throw the cheerleaders into the football game and see what happens."
Last edited:
I miss that one as well. Also Ogres were stronger than PCs now not so much. A 10 foot tall ogre can be weaker than a gnome. On the women in sports... lets just have an equal playing field meaning men and women compete against each other and see how it plays out.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that men are stronger than women in general. There seems to be a bit of strawmanning going on. Rather, the point is, is what's the point in a fantasy game of heroes to cap the strength of a woman at 16 or so? Seriously? I think that would be way more harmful to the game and the community by doing that than what is gained by enforcing such a rule. And if you're dead set on doing it, then you are more then welcome to do that at your table. Which is probably all males...
Mouseferatu
Hero
1) No, the gender differences in the rules weren't elegant. They were clumsy and sexist. Whatever their intentions, all they did was penalize female character who wanted to be warrior types.
2) In the current era, PCs are expected to raise their stats, or at least a few of them, beyond natural human maximums. At that point, whether it's "realistic" for one gender to be a tiny bit stronger than the other goes right out the window. Plus, even if there were a solid argument for it being true for humans, the game applied it across the board. Why are we arguing "realistic" gender strength differences for dwarves?
3) Not only would I not play in a game that brought back gender-related penalties, I would not even play in a group with a player who wanted them brought back. There's more than enough sexism in the real world, and no matter what your reasons or intent are in bringing back such rules, the result is a women-only penalty. No thank you to that, and no thank you to any player who's okay with that.
2) In the current era, PCs are expected to raise their stats, or at least a few of them, beyond natural human maximums. At that point, whether it's "realistic" for one gender to be a tiny bit stronger than the other goes right out the window. Plus, even if there were a solid argument for it being true for humans, the game applied it across the board. Why are we arguing "realistic" gender strength differences for dwarves?
3) Not only would I not play in a game that brought back gender-related penalties, I would not even play in a group with a player who wanted them brought back. There's more than enough sexism in the real world, and no matter what your reasons or intent are in bringing back such rules, the result is a women-only penalty. No thank you to that, and no thank you to any player who's okay with that.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Requesting Advice on FR Pantheon
