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

[TheCosmicKid]

Can player characters wield them?

Only with magical assistance. So far.

 

[Caliban]

Only with magical assistance. So far.

Exactly.

 

[Coroc]

Exactly.

Atm if I had to make an ds campaign I would not allow halfgiants for pc since I see no reasonable way to adapt them to 5E. Even the kreen could be modelled easier though with them I am also not so sure. Maybe I need to look at the dragonborn to get some inspiration on how one could model them properly.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's just funny to see where different people draw their lines when it comes to "playability" or "abstraction". To me, mixing up different kinds of strength or dexterity is the same level of abstraction as hand-waving or explaining a super strong halfling.

It's the difference between how broad of a world the mechanics are capable of describing, and how well it describes those things which it has decided to describe. If the system can't adequately describe a particular body type, then that body type just doesn't show up in the world and we don't have to worry about it. Halflings definitely show up in the world, though, so it's important that they behave the way we expect them to behave.

Likewise, if there are no rules for guns, then there are no guns in the setting and we don't have to worry about them. If there are crossbows, then how well the rules model a crossbow is a thing we need to worry about, and it's noticeable if they get that wrong.

 

[Lylandra]

Everyone is different.

For example, I simply cannot stand it that elves are the only creature in D&D with a constitution penalty and that far from +0 being average, the vast majority of creatures have a CON bonus. The vast majority of creatures in D&D that are not elves have vastly inflated constitution. A good example is an ordinary rat. An ordinary rat should have a constitution of between 4 and 7. Yet, when you say that, people are like, "Look how much stamina it has! Look how much disease resistance it (presumably) has!" Sure, but Constitution itself measure multiple things, and nothing with low body mass should have high constitution. Look how small of a dose of poison is necessary to kill a low body mass animal. Look how fragile that they are. If you want to have a high endurance, disease resistant low mass creature, just give it a racial bonus against disease and to acts of endurance. (In 3.X there is even a feat for that.). Don't bump up the entire stat of Constitution to unrealistic levels. A house cat weighs like 10lbs and has a CON of 10! You probably wouldn't need 1/2 HD much of the time if you just gave small creatures realistic CON. Don't bump Constitution just because you are trying to make a monster a higher challenge rating and need to give it hit points. Again, if it for some reason can absorb damage, unless all of its attributes indicate a high constitution, just give it racial bonus hit points (as an ooze for example).

Does all this matter? Probably not. But it bugs me to the extent that I'm usually willing to rewrite the stat block of a monster whenever I use one. It just annoys the heck out of me that having low mass is not reflected realistically in the rules. It bugs me beyond my capacity to endure if the farmer has no advantages relative to this cat. I'm perfectly ok with you laughing at me about that as silly.

Conversely, I often reduce the arbitrarily high DEX of massive creatures assigned apparently only to reach some target AC monsters of this CR 'needed'.

(Clearly I'm biased against little people, right? That sizist; discriminating against people with growth disorders. There is no other possible explanation for such a disproportionate insistence on realistic mechanics for size.)

And yet there are limits where I throw up my hands and just leave it be, knowing that it is incoherent, but knowing that a 'fix' would probably have its own problems and add complexity to the game. How do bow hunters take large game in D&D? *shrug* Hit points are game abstractions; they don't have to be realistic. I see the hypocrisy of that statement quite clearly, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to have a 10 CON house cat in my game with no magic involved! 'Realistically' cats have a CON of no more than about 4! It's obvious I tell you!

Even funnier: The average scored elven commoner has a CON of 8 and a d4 HD in 3.x. This means 1 HP at level 1 (NPC classes didn't get max HP). Which means... that the damage of a highly dextrous house cat can easily kill a commoner. A large dog I can understand. But a freaking cat?

 

[Lylandra]

It's the difference between how broad of a world the mechanics are capable of describing, and how well it describes those things which it has decided to describe. If the system can't adequately describe a particular body type, then that body type just doesn't show up in the world and we don't have to worry about it. Halflings definitely show up in the world, though, so it's important that they behave the way we expect them to behave.

Likewise, if there are no rules for guns, then there are no guns in the setting and we don't have to worry about them. If there are crossbows, then how well the rules model a crossbow is a thing we need to worry about, and it's noticeable if they get that wrong.

Yeah, but even bows and other medieval weapons which really exist in the real world, and are therefore possibly subject to our own experiences, (contrary to Halflings, unless you count the homo florensis) are not really well modeled. Doesn't bother me too much though

I can also understand the "arcane magic does not heal in my world" approach, even if in my own logic some sort of reverse-necromancy could totally heal people. At least if you tried to mix magic with physics/biology to explain its resulting effects (tissue decay vs tissue growth).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, but even bows and other medieval weapons which really exist in the real world, and are therefore possibly subject to our own experiences, (contrary to Halflings, unless you count the homo florensis) are not really well modeled. Doesn't bother me too much though

Eh, it's close enough for practical purposes, at least before you get into how badly they bungled HP and healing in this edition. If you can point a bow at someone, and they die when an arrow gets past their armor, then that's not even unrealistic. It's simplistic, but basically true to life.

 

[Igwilly]

I can also understand the "arcane magic does not heal in my world" approach, even if in my own logic some sort of reverse-necromancy could totally heal people. At least if you tried to mix magic with physics/biology to explain its resulting effects (tissue decay vs tissue growth).

Healing spells are of the necromancy school in older editions; but they are limited to clerics, priests, etc. Not available to wizards.

 

[Lanefan]

More defined, sure. But having tried it, I'd say it was pretty terrible.

I'll second the question posed by [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - how was it terrible?

I ask because I might one day look at trying something like this - a 12-stat game - and hearing others' experiences with such, be they good or bad, would be helpful.

Lanefan

 

[billd91]

I'll second the question posed by [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - how was it terrible?

I ask because I might one day look at trying something like this - a 12-stat game - and hearing others' experiences with such, be they good or bad, would be helpful.

Lanefan

There might be ways to have a decent 12-stat game (Mutants and Masterminds does a fantastic job of doing it with 8 instead of six - Strength and Dexterity are each broken into 2 stats), but the method in Players Option: Skills and Powers wasn't going to get you there.

For each stat, you rolled the dice. And from that base number you established your two sub-stats by, effectively, bumping one of the up by as many as two from that base while dumping the other substat by the same amount. It was basically a stat-dumping, min-maxer's wet dream. Strength was divided between Stamina and Muscle. Stamina determined your carrying capacity while Muscle governed all of the other Strength-based characteristics like hit bonus, damage bonus, bending bars, and opening doors. Guess which of the two got dumped all the time?

It wasn't that there were no interesting ideas - Charisma was broken down into Leadership and Appearance - the former drove loyalty and number of henchmen while the latter drove reaction adjustment. But too many of the choices of boosting/dumping were foregone conclusions. It was almost like every PC got a free +2 on nearly all of the stats that mattered most to them. There were few choices to agonize over when agonizing over choices is one of the hallmarks of a well-designed game where options are well-balanced and few are dominant.