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

[Caliban]

What you describe, is a conscious choice. Not an obligation. You do not have to do it because it is not mandatory. .

I think it is preferable for it to be a choice, rather than have it forced upon you. But it's clearly a matter of preference - I usually have a clear idea about the character I want, and absolutely hate having choices made for me, or having choices taken away by random chance.

Other people like seeing what the dice give them and then building a character based on that.

I do have a new character I started playing that is a Halfling Sorcerer(wild mage)/Wizard(Diviner) - he has a talent for magic, but can't control it. (He was struck on the head as a child and has a mis-colored eye and shock of white hair as a result, and may also have some damage to the part of the brain that lets you cast spells.)

His family sent him to a wizard academy to learn control. It failed spectacularly. He partied and drank away the money his family sent him until they cut him off - he was expelled from the wizard academy soon after. He did eventually master a few basic spells and rituals in the battered and stained spellbook that is his only souvenir from wizard school (mage armor, shield, absorb elements), but it was long after he left.

His sorcerer magic is barely controlled at the best of times, and so far he really only knows a single spell - fire bolt. But his attempts to cast it often produce effects far different than what he intends - mispronouncing the spell so that it becomes "fire blot" (bonfire cantrip) instead. Or he uses way to much arcane power and the cantrip explodes into fire (burning hands) or manifests as a different element altogether (chromatic orb).

Between Tides of Chaos, Halfling Luck, Portent, and Wild Surges, incredibly improbable things tend to occur to or around him, as his magic unconsciously warps reality.

 

[MechaPilot]

What you describe, is a counscious choice. Not an obligation. You do not have to do it because it is not mandatory.

I know. That's the part that makes it good; that you can choose to make unique and interesting characters to your design instead of having things foisted upon you.

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.

Yes, no one is born mature. And, people often start hobbies like D&D at a point in time where they still lack maturity. So what? Let them get it out of their system and then they can make intriguing, well-rounded characters and legitimately enjoy playing them.

A min/max racial/class stat can give you a nudge in that direction.

It can also make people frustrated they can't just choose to play a wizard (or whatever) in a fantasy game about magic and dragons.

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.

If a person in a game played for recreation wants to play a warlock with a 10 Charisma, let them play one. Geez. It's their recreation time, and the character will not be at an advantage for doing so (quite the contrary).

"You have to have fun on my terms" sounds woefully unreasonable.

The min/max racial/class stat opens some doorways to good RP experience.

It does not "open some doorways to good rp experience." It puts an impediment in your path. Now, you can say that such an obstacle gives someone an opportunity for growth, but all it really does is force you to pick something other than what you wanted. Whether you integrate the desire for your original choice into the character that was forced by minimums and die rolls to be your second, third, or fourth place class choice is entirely an option of the player, and is no way assured or made more likely by the attribute minimums.

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...

Making lemonade out of lemons is a good life skill. It's even a good thing in D&D. But, it should come about from the progress of play (i.e. in game problems you have to solve or overcome) and not from the roll of the dice preventing you from playing a wizard (or whatever) in your weekly imagination playtime.

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

Maybe. Fortunately, that's still one of the options in the PHB. And, even if it weren't, it could still be done.

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

With 2e, setting aside the class minimum, you didn't need a high charisma. It was exceptionally beneficial, but you were already getting a more powerful class just for lucking into stats high enough to play a paladin.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

With 2e, setting aside the class minimum, you didn't need a high charisma. It was exceptionally beneficial, but you were already getting a more powerful class just for lucking into stats high enough to play a paladin.

Right, which makes it even less likely that I would choose to play my paladin with high Charisma, if it wasn't forced on me.

Borrowing language from a related topic, one way of looking at this is in terms of character hooks. What makes this character unique and interesting? Being incredibly charismatic is a hook. As is having good eyesight, or not knowing how to swim, or having a particularity in the way you apply your persuasion. Each of these is a thing that the player can grab onto and help them figure out how to play and enjoy their character.

Without pre-requisites, the game doesn't give you as many hooks. It makes every class and every race more generic and boring. If you read a description of what a paladin is, or a druid, then there's nothing very inspiring in there. With a minimum Charisma requirement, or an alignment requirement, that at least gives you something to grab onto.

Of course, if you already had a strong inspiration for your character, then you don't need the mechanics to provide additional ones - especially where those might conflict with your original idea! Hooks are much more useful to new players, who otherwise are left without any hooks, and might find themselves floundering to "find" their character. They're also useful for world-building, to distinguish the paladins in this world from other paladins you might be familiar with. And in that case, you probably don't want to come into it with any outside hooks, because it detracts from the flavor of the setting; using the hooks that they give you makes the character more a part of the world.

 

[Lanefan]

Likewise, I'm more likely to play my druid as Neutral if the rules force all druids to be Neutral ...

side note

Since day 1 that is one rule from 1e that I neither like nor see any decent rationale for; and so I scrapped it the day I decided to become a DM. Druids (i.e. Nature Clerics) can be any alignment, as can Clerics (pure N opened up to them).

/side note

 

[Lanefan]

I think it is preferable for it to be a choice, rather than have it forced upon you. But it's clearly a matter of preference - I usually have a clear idea about the character I want, and absolutely hate having choices made for me, or having choices taken away by random chance.

Other people like seeing what the dice give them and then building a character based on that.

Gave you XP for the Hobbit - it's brilliant! - but I'm one of those who, while I might have some vague character idea going in, an more than willing to be bound by the dice and make what I can from what I'm given. (and given the usual survival rate of my characters, if I can't squeeze my idea in this time odds are another chance at it will come around soon enough )

Lanefan

 

[MechaPilot]

Right, which makes it even less likely that I would choose to play my paladin with high Charisma, if it wasn't forced on me.

Borrowing language from a related topic, one way of looking at this is in terms of character hooks. What makes this character unique and interesting? Being incredibly charismatic is a hook. As is having good eyesight, or not knowing how to swim, or having a particularity in the way you apply your persuasion. Each of these is a thing that the player can grab onto and help them figure out how to play and enjoy their character.

Without pre-requisites, the game doesn't give you as many hooks. It makes every class and every race more generic and boring. If you read a description of what a paladin is, or a druid, then there's nothing very inspiring in there. With a minimum Charisma requirement, or an alignment requirement, that at least gives you something to grab onto.

Of course, if you already had a strong inspiration for your character, then you don't need the mechanics to provide additional ones - especially where those might conflict with your original idea! Hooks are much more useful to new players, who otherwise are left without any hooks, and might find themselves floundering to "find" their character. They're also useful for world-building, to distinguish the paladins in this world from other paladins you might be familiar with. And in that case, you probably don't want to come into it with any outside hooks, because it detracts from the flavor of the setting; using the hooks that they give you makes the character more a part of the world.

There are other, better ways to provide hooks than attribute prereqs. I recall a table of personality quirks from a prior edition (as well from D20 Modern) that works just as well, but it comes off being even better than the prereqs because it works regardless of the class you choose, and it doesn't limit class choice (which is probably the single most important choice a player will make about her character, mechanically speaking).

 

[Helldritch]

What we have here are two completely opposite point of view.

The first wants freedom to do whatever they want. Not a bad way to see things. It promotes versatility and unrestricted access to some classes. Here the choice is: I can do whatever I want. I have the choice, I can decide, I can make it work.
The draw back? One great weapon master fighter will look exactly like an other great weapon master fighter. Both in stats and in feats that will be chosen. (and you can put any class in there, blade lock, sorcerer, wizards etc...)

The second wants a bit more realism. Not a bad way either to see things either. It does promotes versatility but this time not in amount of classes but in the classes themselves.
Here the choice is: I'll do whatever I can with what I have. I may not be able to do everything, but god will I try.
The draw back? It restricts some classe's access with requirements, this makes some classes a wee bit stronger or more appealing than others.

In the first, flawed characters are entirely reliant on the will of the player. He will choose whatever perks/quirks he wants (if any).
In the second, flawed characters are imposed on the player. He has to work around what he's been given.

I have a lot of experience as a DM, I litteraly introduced over a hundred person into the hobby and it takes quite a player to willfully make flawed characters. Most players will stick to the "perfect" character as much as possible. The min/maxers out there are legion and the point buy system encourages such a behavior. Again is it a bad thing? In my bood, not so.

I much prefer the second choice. Racial min/max and classes min/max are not a bad thing either. Not every starting great weapon fighter must have 16 st, 8 dext, 14 con and an 10 in intelligence. Couldn't some have a 14 st, 14 dex and 10 con and a whooping 14 in intel? One great weapon in master in chain mail armor and the second in scale mail? One would be clearly better than the other I agree. But now we can see why some people take a path and end up abandoning or succeed despite what the others said. It does have a secondary option of "forcing" a role play aspect into new players. The min/maxer will have a harder time doing their stuff, maybe converting them to the RP aspect of the game. I know it did in the old days.

Maybe down the road, one will be a full great weapon master champion where the other will become a great weapon master eldritch knight? Or maybe a Battle master? Who knows?

 

[Caliban]

What we have here are two completely opposite point of view.

The first wants freedom to do whatever they want. Not a bad way to see things. It promotes versatility and unrestricted access to some classes. Here the choice is: I can do whatever I want. I have the choice, I can decide, I can make it work.
The draw back? One great weapon master fighter will look exactly like an other great weapon master fighter. Both in stats and in feats that will be chosen. (and you can put any class in there, blade lock, sorcerer, wizards etc...)

Not necessarily. I've made 3 characters that are all Fighter X/Warlock X. All 3 had Great Weapon Master, and used a few similar spells (Armor of Agathys and Hex primarily) - but otherwise they were very different. Different builds, different feats, different personalities.

One was a Hill Dwarf exiled from his clan after he made a pact with dark powers to free him and siblings after they had been captured by Duergar. He is a gruff loner and keeps adventuring because he remains haunted by his past and can't bring himself to settle down. (Currently Fighter 8/Warlock 6)

Another was a Human mercenary who made his pact when his own hubris led him and and his squad to being captured by hobgoblins. He eventually helped lead a rebellion against a corrupt king and took the crown for himself. He was a Fighter 1/Warlock 10 when I retired him as King.

My current one is a Goliath (Fighter 1/Warlock 7) - his patron is "He Who Devours the Night Sky" and he wields a pact blade as dark as the night sky - with a new point of light appearing inside the blade every time he takes a life. Currently he has constellation of 30+ stars in the blade. He believes that his patron will eventually come to devour all the stars in the sky, but if he can store 1,000 souls in his blade (a thousand points of light) he can give it as tribute to his patron and our world will be spared. He is cutting a swathe of destruction across the land for the good of all sentient creatures. He may also be very gullible and his patron may just be a Fiend feeding him a pack of lies.

Great Weapon Master is a single feat, not your entire character - and sure, you are going to max Str if you are going for heavy weapons, but that's going to happen regardless of taking the feat. Your character should be more than a single feat and supporting build.

Optimal builds and feat combinations are just a foundation you can build your character on, not your entire character. The character's personality and history matter just as much. At least they do to me. Some people need something to get them started and random dice rolls help them. Others (like me) tend to have a very clear picture of the character in their minds from the very beginning and don't want random character generation to get in the way of their vision.

 

[Satyrn]

His sorcerer magic is barely controlled at the best of times, and so far he really only knows a single spell - fire bolt. But his attempts to cast it often produce effects far different than what he intends - mispronouncing the spell so that it becomes "fire blot" (bonfire cantrip) instead. Or he uses way to much arcane power and the cantrip explodes into fire (burning hands) or manifests as a different element altogether (chromatic orb).

That's hilariously awesome!

Do you randomly determine which spell he uses, or are you selecting them as your whim takes you?