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

[Maxperson]

Oh believe me, that's not a particularly long post for me. It's a tough choice which of us is worse, me or pemerton.

I'm going to go with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], if only because of all the indents he does. That's probably because he's an attorney, though and tons of pleadings require indenting portions of text.

 

[Lylandra]

And people complained I was off topic...

Back more toward target, and actually addressing the topic of the question, I don't miss attribute minimums or maximums by gender or race, but I did miss them by class enough to actually bring them back for my 3.X homebrew.

For example, the homebrew hunter class had a minimum strength and dexterity of 7, while the fighter had a minimum strength of 9. And, in a nod to the old dual classing restrictions, each additional class you multi-classed into raised the ability score minimum to enter into a class of all classes by 2. So for example, a multi-classed fighter-hunter would need at least an 11 STR and at least a 9 DEX. That isn't a very hard requirement, but it did mean that you couldn't dump stat out of a class's prerequisites (as for example, trying to play a pixie fighter with basically no strength) and also there was a practical limit of 3 or 4 classes that you could multi-class into. Further, if you did try to front load, you'd soon be forced into multiple attribute dependency by the system, and MAD is a great balancing element in my opinion because what usually breaks balance is excessive depth of ability and not excessive breadth of ability. "jack of all trades, master of none" is usually balanced or even subpar, where as, "I have a big hammer, and every problem is a nail." is usually broken.

Those, combined with banning PrC's, stopped some of the front loading nonsense seen in standard 3.X that seemed to combine the worst elements of point buy (no balance, no breadth) and class systems (no flexibility, arbitrary restrictions) into one. And if I was converting to 5e, I'd probably bring similar ideas forward.

But I see no point in racial minimums - every race can have inept members. An elf could have arthritis and bed bound, or be born learning disabled. Indeed, I'd expect more handicapped elves than goblins (who'd just kill and eat anything that couldn't pull it's own weight). As a practical matter, the adventuring class, or 'heroic' class if you will, of all races would be presumably not be drawn from the least able members of the society. As for racial maximums, their is no reason to enforce them beyond the practical limits imposed by racial modifiers. Average pixies are more agile than average dwarves, and this comparison is likely to remain true of the most agile members of both races as well.

As for gender, now that things have calmed down a bit, I'll risk a few comments. If there is a game I would want to play where the capabilities of men and women are not equal, then it isn't D&D or anything like it. In D&D, I don't play a female character hoping to get a uniquely feminine perspective on life, or imagining that by my role-play I'll learn anything about real women. I've played relatively few female PC's and really none since junior high, when a I played in Gamma World what would now be a very stereotypical attractive kickbutt no-nonsense action girl Pure Strain Human with a sawed off shotgun and love of wanton violence (I was ahead of my time, even Tank Girl wasn't published until 1988). But again, even then this was pure escapism of the 'imaginary girlfriend' sort, and had nothing to do with real women nor was it intended to be commentary on real women.

Generally speaking, any game that I would want to play where men and women were really different straight out of chargen, would be very much about 'who you are' and not 'what can you do', so that attributes reflecting who you are were more important than ones reflecting what you could do. Actually doing that well might be impossible, and my expectation would be that it would be done wrong more often than not and an endless source of table arguments about whether its assumptions were truly realistic and not merely socio-cultural stereotypes. Regardless, I think there comes a point where you are trying to explore a serious setting or concept where playing a stereotypical kick-butt fantasy female who is stronger than any man is being as goofy as insisting on playing Luke Skywalker, Green Lantern, or Mickey Mouse in 11th century Japan where everyone else is trying as hard as they can to play someone who actually might have lived in 11th century Japan - right character, wrong setting, wrong game.

Do we really want to insist that Pendragon's 'Book of Knights and Ladies' (or Pendragon generally) is a sexist document, and that it's creator is to be denounced, or that anyone that actually wanted to explore a sexist setting like Arthurian Romance was themselves sexist (and hence immoral)? Even if we move the game to another fantasy setting like Tamora Pierce's 'Protector of the Small', so that Knights and Ladies aren't implicitly different categories, part of what makes 'Protector of the Small' more compelling than similar works is while it's protagonist is as large and as strong as believable for a woman (six foot tall, athletic and muscular), the very fact that she's not effortlessly stronger than typical for her sex and has to approach problems differently than a man overflowing with muscles would is what makes Kelandra such a compelling character - especially compared to more obvious wish fulfillment characters like Alanna. Had the author attempted to convince us Kel was just stronger than everyone she met, it would diminish the story. The point was that she could do the job, not that she was better than everyone else, or even had the same capabilities. If men and women were actually equal in all capabilities, one wonders why sexism exists in the setting at all? It's not social pressure or the patriarchy keeping women from being pro linebackers. You can't explain sexism with 'othering' alone, nor can you explore it deeply simply by postulating a fantasy woman who really is stronger than any man.

Would I want to try that in D&D with the average group of beer and pretzel players? Heck, no. But on the other hand, don't tell me either that only fantasy women are worth thinking about or role-playing.

Yep, that's an interesting point. To me, D&D is a very "vanilla" RPG system that can be spiced up by adding 3rd party cream or homebrew almond liquor or rainbow crumble settings. It can and maybe should offer you a fair "fits all" basis that can be experimented upon.

Now, if I compare this to a system which is set in a specific setting, like ASOIAF or LOTR or even Harry Potter, then I consciously would throw away a lot of choice I had in D&D. Because as you said, a Green lantern in feudal Japan wouldn't make much sense. Unless you want to play the whole Justice League/Superhero RPG game and abridged it to feudal Japan, but... that's a bit off (and yes, even a "low magic gritty system" like Rolemaster allowed you to play some sort of Superhero if your GM allowed it. But I'm getting OT...)

What I would expect in a setting-specific game where not every hero was equal would be "equal participation". Which means that for, say, feudal Japan, skills like court etiquette or Ikebana or dressing up or conversation or poetry would be as important as swordsmanship or knowledge (Bushido). Or equal skills in a ASOIAF setting where we all know that half of the important characters are basically noncombatants who outwit, out-power, out-pay or out-talk their opponents. Combat in such settings would play not that big of a role as it does in "everyone can fight" systems like D&D. And there would be big reasons to avoid it.

And I wouldn't want to limit these setting specific or niche RPGs to real world parallels. Maybe you'd want to play in an Amazonian society? Or in a setting with very different "racial" (as in species) or gender roles. Or in a setting where everyone is a pony (No, you CAN'T play your Green Lantern here either).

I wouldn't even mind to play in a specific game which features such differences. Even if it would try to "simulate" eras that were touched by RL sexism (even if such simulations are almost always simplifications of often false historical premises. Because history books sucked in portraying actual history.). But I would need a sensible group for that. I would, as a player who'd play a more "vulnerable" character, make sure to 1) have a part to play and 2) to not have that character exploited by immature players. My reasons for playing in such a setting would be really different from what I've done in D&D or DSA or FF. Exploring the boundaries, finding the niches where such a character can succeed (and others not), and especially finding different solutions than "I hit it with my sword until it's dead".

(And then again, I'm currently playing a "high elf woman" from a matriarchal society thrown into a quasi-victorian (but more or less equal) society who's living with the knowledge that some rich folk of the neighboring countries like taking people like her as trophies/slaves. Yeah, I'm happy to have a mature group )

 

[Celebrim]

What I would expect in a setting-specific game where not every hero was equal would be "equal participation". Which means that for, say, feudal Japan, skills like court etiquette or Ikebana or dressing up or conversation or poetry would be as important as swordsmanship or knowledge (Bushido). Or equal skills in a ASOIAF setting where we all know that half of the important characters are basically noncombatants who outwit, out-power, out-pay or out-talk their opponents. Combat in such settings would play not that big of a role as it does in "everyone can fight" systems like D&D. And there would be big reasons to avoid it.

Yes. Because, regardless, a game were some players couldn't contribute isn't much fun.

Fundamentally, most RPGs - and D&D especially - have a certain 'spirit of Conan' assumption to their game, owing to their origins in wargaming and pulp fantasy. And that spirit can be summed up by the line from the movie, "What is best in life... to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women." Most RPGs are built with the assumption that the measure of a person is their ability to kick butt and impose their wills on others. But what we see from life, if we are honest, is (I hope) that that's not what life is really about. Most of us don't go around finding violence at every corner, and if we do, we are probably bringing it with us. So if we have a game that is more life-like, their might be some value in physical strength and martial prowess, but even a warrior will find most of his life isn't about that and most of his struggles aren't intimate violent combat - or if it is, he'll probably die young.

As you put it, most of time in life we don't solve problems by hitting things with a sword until they are dead. And that's been true even in historical periods where violence was more common. And, a person that solves their problems that way is objectively a horrible person. Sometimes I wonder about D&D PCs and how they are usually played...

And I wouldn't want to limit these setting specific or niche RPGs to real world parallels. Maybe you'd want to play in an Amazonian society? Or in a setting with very different "racial" (as in species) or gender roles. Or in a setting where everyone is a pony (No, you CAN'T play your Green Lantern here either).

Of course not. I think that the general idea that your character should fit the game and the setting is universally applicable. Indeed, it's applicable to D&D in that you as a player are implicitly expected to play a character that is willing to take risks, and is capable of defending themselves and contributing to group of violent mercenaries engaged in violent struggle. What you want to explore in a character in D&D at least, is secondary to fulfilling a role on a team. Playing Elizabeth Bennett as a realistic character in D&D is not advisable. Playing Elizabeth Bennett as she appears in Pride & Prejudice & Zombies on the other hand is perfectly valid.

I think some posters are stuck on the idea that some hypothetical sexist wants women to only play 'weak' characters and have the rules enforce that, and that men are to play the 'strong' important characters that can do the important things like kick butt and impose their will on others. And sure, that hypothetical sexist is out there somewhere. But implicit in their assumption and the assumption of that sexist are several notions, one of which is that we are fundamentally only interested in playing idealized fantasy versions of ourselves. That is to say, we only identify with a protagonist if the protagonist looks like we do. And granted, there is nothing wrong with that, and the majority of players I've met mainly do play idealized or extreme or fantasy versions of themselves. But I'm mainly a DM, and I have a very writerly/literary bent, so I play 'everyone else' in my normal game, and even on the rare cases where I'm allowed to be a player, I'm not interested in playing myself but in some sort of writerly/literary character. Most of my characters start from philosophical musings about the setting and how it 'works'. And while bending gender expectations is a very interesting thing to explore in a setting, doing so with 'kick butt action girl' is frankly one of the least imaginative and mature ways of doing that.

Again, my 7th graders kick butt action girl with her in your face attitude wasn't motivated by a disrespect for women (or 'girls', I was a seventh grader), but it wasn't really motivated by healthy respect for them either. It was just as much wish fulfillment for me the seventh grader as would be for a woman wanting to feel empowered. But I have a bit of skepticism about the pervasive presentation of 'empowered women' as kick butt action girl, because that is actually a very comfortable (and comforting) archetype that fundamentally comes down to "girls are just like boys, right?" Well, yes, and no. And as someone that has seen been married 20+ years, and has two daughters, and has had many female colleagues, and who already explored kick but action girl in my mental space as a 7th grader, and who has ran lots of female NPCs since, if I ever did feel the need explore gender constructs and so forth, it sure as heck wouldn't be endless clones of Tank Girl, Laura Croft, Buffy Mara Jade, reboot Starbuck, Vin the Mistborn, Angua von Uberwald, etc. etc. etc. And hey, do you notice that most of these are created by men? Makes me wonder just how much beyond my 7th grade self's motives all these supposedly empowered women really are. Don't even research the origins of Wonder Woman. It ruins the character, and the further she gets from her origins the better AFAIC.

 

[Sadras]

Most RPGs are built with the assumption that the measure of a person is their ability to kick butt and impose their wills on others. But what we see from life, if we are honest, is (I hope) that that's not what life is really about. Most of us don't go around finding violence at every corner, and if we do, we are probably bringing it with us. So if we have a game that is more life-like, their might be some value in physical strength and martial prowess, but even a warrior will find most of his life isn't about that and most of his struggles aren't intimate violent combat - or if it is, he'll probably die young.

As you put it, most of time in life we don't solve problems by hitting things with a sword until they are dead. And that's been true even in historical periods where violence was more common. And, a person that solves their problems that way is objectively a horrible person. Sometimes I wonder about D&D PCs and how they are usually played...

That is because in RL Gul'dan hasn't found a way to open up a portal from Draenor to bring through the Horde, Vlaakith CLVII and her Githyanki army haven't left the Astral Realm to open up slave training centres on earth and our protective phlogiston has not been breached by the Far Realm with its beholder denizens.

Unlike you sometimes I wonder if our D&D PCs are better behaved than our RL politicians And that is as far as I can go, considering board rules.

 

[Helldritch]

Sooo many different points of view.

I for myself, miss the racial min/max but not the gender ones.
I also miss the class min/max too.

I would've liked to see humans capped at 18 for stats where a demi-human would caped at 20 in their main stat. But would see the max stat attainable in certain stats lowered.

I would also have liked to see a stats requirement for some classes. I know that nowadays, this is not a popular idea. But Paladins and Monk shouldn't be so common or easy to get into. Back in the "old" days, saying that you were playing a monk, paladin or even a druid (and I'm not talking about a bard) was quite impressive. Now, it's just a choice you made.

I have seen a fighter with a 16 charisma striving to be a paladin, respecting their code of conduct but with none of their powers. It was a truly great RP time. And when he finaly raised his charisma to 17, he used a wish to be allowed to dual class into the paladin class. Everyone at the table cheered for him. It had been a two year trek; role playing Kalian to the utmost of what was possible.

I do not see racial and class min/max as a way to impede players, it is just a way to spur some role play and logic into a world of imagination. These, make you imagine ways around to explain why your character is such and such instead of something else. The: " I wanted to be a wizard, but I was lacking the intelligence required. So I became a warlock/sorcerer or whatever else." Is not really doable in these days where the point buy, or set stats rule the game. You can always do what you want. So if you want such a character, it is just for the fun of it. Nothing to strive to attain. And you can always switch class if necessary...

 

[MechaPilot]

The: " I wanted to be a wizard, but I was lacking the intelligence required. So I became a warlock/sorcerer or whatever else." Is not really doable in these days where the point buy, or set stats rule the game. You can always do what you want. So if you want such a character, it is just for the fun of it. Nothing to strive to attain. And you can always switch class if necessary...

Of course it's doable these days. Point buy and no class minimums doesn't prevent that kind of characterization, it just makes it a conscious choice by the player. Which is cool, because it's easier to get into that kind of thing when it's your decision to do it instead of having it foisted on your by system rules colluding with unfortunate die rolls.

In a like manner, I can always opt to have a skill bonus (or even skill & ability score bonus) apply to only parts of a skill:

• My highly perceptive character could be vision-impaired, getting the proficiency bonus only on perception checks with her other senses. Or, she could have a very keen sense of smell, and all of her other senses go without a bonus.
• My highly athletic character could be from an environment where she wouldn't have logically learned how to swim, and won't get her proficiency bonus to Athletics checks made to swim.
• My highly charismatic character could rely too heavily on her sexuality, getting her bonus only against targets who would find her sexually desirable. Or, she could be incredibly persuasive but have atrocious manners, failing to get her bonus in situations where manners are important (like at a fancy dinner party).

It all comes down to coming up with interesting character traits and quirks, and finding reasonable ways to implement them (and having a DM willing to work with you, of course).

 

[BookBarbarian]

I could see class minimums working. In fact it never made much sense to me that you could be a 8 Strength Barbarian, but not a 12 Strength 14 Dex Barbarian/Rogue. I prefer to play with no stat mins for multiclass, or having multiclass stat mins applying to single class too.

Of course what makes sense to me doesn't have to make sense for anyone else.

 

[Helldritch]

Of course it's doable these days. Point buy and no class minimums doesn't prevent that kind of characterization, it just makes it a conscious choice by the player. Which is cool, because it's easier to get into that kind of thing when it's your decision to do it instead of having it foisted on your by system rules colluding with unfortunate die rolls.

In a like manner, I can always opt to have a skill bonus (or even skill & ability score bonus) apply to only parts of a skill:

• My highly perceptive character could be vision-impaired, getting the proficiency bonus only on perception checks with her other senses. Or, she could have a very keen sense of smell, and all of her other senses go without a bonus.
• My highly athletic character could be from an environment where she wouldn't have logically learned how to swim, and won't get her proficiency bonus to Athletics checks made to swim.
• My highly charismatic character could rely too heavily on her sexuality, getting her bonus only against targets who would find her sexually desirable. Or, she could be incredibly persuasive but have atrocious manners, failing to get her bonus in situations where manners are important (like at a fancy dinner party).

It all comes down to coming up with interesting character traits and quirks, and finding reasonable ways to implement them (and having a DM willing to work with you, of course).

What you describe, is a counscious choice. Not an obligation. You do not have to do it because it is not mandatory. No begining player will ever do such a thing. The player that played Kalian was an entirely new player with no experience in RPGs at all. HE wanted to play a paladin but didn't have the requirement. He made it a goal to become one. And he did; through hard work and a wonderful role play that players of that era still remember today.

What you describe is what a mature RPGamer will do after a while of doing Mr. Perfect. As you mature in RPG you start to want to see the "not so perfect" style and that is legitimate (and expected). But it takes time to get to that point.

A min/max racial/class stat can give you a nudge in that direction. Imagine a player making a fighter wanting to be a warlock but lacking the 12 in charisma necessary to make one. He has only a score of 10 in charisma. That fighter takes lessons in etiquette, manners and self confidence and put an ASI at 4th level to make that 12 in charisma to fulfill his dream. Wouldn't it be great? Now, with the trend we have nowadays, that player would just be a warlock straight of the bat. period.

The min/max racial/class stat opens some doorways to good RP experience. It is working with what life (or luck) gave you. With the set stats or point buy, you won't see the 18 St wizard (unless he wants to multi class at some point), The fighter with a charisma of 18 is not going to be seen. In fact, all you see is characters with the right stats at the right place. Ho damn, I wanted to be a rogue but I have a 16 both in strenght and dexterity. My 8 in intel is soooo bad. Can I reroll? A sorcerer from one campaing to the other will have 20 in charisma. That is to be expected now.

Come to think of it, maybe it's rolling stats that I am truly missing...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Of course it's doable these days. Point buy and no class minimums doesn't prevent that kind of characterization, it just makes it a conscious choice by the player. Which is cool, because it's easier to get into that kind of thing when it's your decision to do it instead of having it foisted on your by system rules colluding with unfortunate die rolls.

I'm not so sure about that. If I was a new player, and I wanted to play a paladin in 3E or 5E, then I would have to read the class pretty closely in order to figure out that Charisma is kind of a big deal if it wasn't part of my original concept.

With 2E, I know right off that bat that every paladin needs high Charisma, so I'm more likely to play a high-Charisma paladin in 2E than in 3E. The easiest characterization to get into is the characterization which the game mechanics force on you. Likewise, I'm more likely to play my druid as Neutral if the rules force all druids to be Neutral than if I have free reign to take it in any direction without guidance.

 

[Lylandra]

Yes. Because, regardless, a game were some players couldn't contribute isn't much fun.

Fundamentally, most RPGs - and D&D especially - have a certain 'spirit of Conan' assumption to their game, owing to their origins in wargaming and pulp fantasy. And that spirit can be summed up by the line from the movie, "What is best in life... to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women." Most RPGs are built with the assumption that the measure of a person is their ability to kick butt and impose their wills on others. But what we see from life, if we are honest, is (I hope) that that's not what life is really about. Most of us don't go around finding violence at every corner, and if we do, we are probably bringing it with us. So if we have a game that is more life-like, their might be some value in physical strength and martial prowess, but even a warrior will find most of his life isn't about that and most of his struggles aren't intimate violent combat - or if it is, he'll probably die young.

As you put it, most of time in life we don't solve problems by hitting things with a sword until they are dead. And that's been true even in historical periods where violence was more common. And, a person that solves their problems that way is objectively a horrible person. Sometimes I wonder about D&D PCs and how they are usually played...

Hah, my "campaign characters" were never based on violence. Dungeon crawl characters, yes. One wannabe Godslayer, or a Dragon Disciple sorcerer who wanted to become as powerful as a true dragon. But even my high STR high DEX dual blade Fighter/wandering knight saw herself as protector, counselor and adviser first, combatant second. Truth is, RPGs never had that wargamey or pulpy feeling for me. Maybe that's because I started with systemless, DM-less RPGs where every action you take has to be "okayed" by the other participants. And fights were rare. Maybe it was because skill-heavy DSA was my first RPG system.

And I like complex, sometimes grey characters who use their experiences and logic to determine their actions. I like moral dilemmas and unconventional solutions and mature themes. It is just that the pulpy side of the Sword&Sorcery Genre has nothing to do with D&D for me. And I'd never want to play that. But that's my personal taste.