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

[MechaPilot]

Well, we discussed about that. I think it's, in the end, a false promisse.
Long story short: in many occasions, if the DM has to impose restrictions, s/he is the bad guy, spoiling the player's fun. If s/he takes out restrictions, s/he is the cool guy; the one that "breaks" the rules so you can "have fun".
Doing such changes (imposing restrictions) between long time friends is easy - you can do almost anything in this case. But with some people you met not long ago, and have the "everything goes" mode activated, this can have serious impacts. You may even lose players.
I even admit it took a while for me to appreciate limits like this. I wish I don't have to convince all new players of that before they begin playing at my games; that's a lot of energy hahaha.

I disagree that it's a false promise.

My most recent group did not consist of long-time friends when it came together. However, they have accepted my ban on long-range teleportation magic, my ban on multiclassing without appropriate in-game justification for it (even if it's just something from the character's history or background), my ban on halflings, my refusal to hand out +X magic items, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, we discussed about that. I think it's, in the end, a false promisse.
Long story short: in many occasions, if the DM has to impose restrictions, s/he is the bad guy, spoiling the player's fun. If s/he takes out restrictions, s/he is the cool guy; the one that "breaks" the rules so you can "have fun".

It's not a false premise, it's a timing issue. If the player comes to the DM with Dragonborn and then the DM says that Dragonborn are not allowed, the DM is spoiling the player's fun. If the DM says prior to PC creation that there are no Dragonborn and the player tries or asks to make one, the player is a douche.

 

[Shasarak]

Also, where is this mechanical focus coming from when considering quality RP? Characters, apparently, are nothing but their stats, feats, etc. I can make two characters of exactly the same stats, race, class, and build and make them both into very different and well-rounded people.

That is strange, I could have sworn there was a rule that said all characters of a Class had to be played the same way?

 

[MechaPilot]

That is strange, I could have sworn there was a rule that said all characters of a Class had to be played the same way?

From the way some people talk about it, you'd think that was written in the rules somewhere.

 

[Igwilly]

I disagree that it's a false promise.

My most recent group did not consist of long-time friends when it came together. However, they have accepted my ban on long-range teleportation magic, my ban on multiclassing without appropriate in-game justification for it (even if it's just something from the character's history or background), my ban on halflings, my refusal to hand out +X magic items, etc.

Good for you. It's not my experience.

Let's just say that: once, in the WotC's forums, some user told about his friend/relative DMing. One of the restrictions was: Paladins must be LG-only and Human-only.
The number of people who suddenly were worried about how this game was "restrictive" and how s/he was "spoiling the fun" was incredible.
You see, many people who said about how DMs can impose restrictions showed their other sides.
That was not the only case I've seen.
Also: 1) no one really cares about long-range teleportation magic, or which magic items they'll get (as in it's not something that would make them fight over it). 2) everyone is annoyed by 3e-style multiclass. 3) The halfling thing is really impressive, but it's very far from the reality I actually see happening. What about limiting which races get which classes or making Paladins LG-only (some old-school limitations)?

 

[Shasarak]

From the way some people talk about it, you'd think that was written in the rules somewhere.

The thing about attributes that really annoys me, much more then attribute minimums or maximums, is attribute requirements for multiclassing which we are still stuck with now.

I would happily throw Halflings under the bus with a negative to Strength to get rid of that requirement.

 

[MechaPilot]

The thing about attributes that really annoys me, much more then attribute minimums or maximums, is attribute requirements for multiclassing which we are still stuck with now.

I would happily throw Halflings under the bus with a negative to Strength to get rid of that requirement.

Yeah, the attribute requirements for multiclassing are stupid to me as well. It'd be much better to put an in-game story requirement instead (which I already do when I DM).

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, the attribute requirements for multiclassing are stupid to me as well. It'd be much better to put an in-game story requirement instead (which I already do when I DM).

I was happy with the favored class mechanic from 3e. One class could go higher in level than the rest, but the rest had to stay within 1 level of each other or there was a large penalty. I'm not fond of stat or race requirements to multiclass.



@Igwilly 1) I care about long range teleportation as a DM. I find it annoying. 2) I don't mind the 3e multiclassing rules at all.

 

[MechaPilot]

Good for you. It's not my experience.

Just being honest.

Let's just say that: once, in the WotC's forums, some user told about his friend/relative DMing. One of the restrictions was: Paladins must be LG-only and Human-only.
The number of people who suddenly were worried about how this game was "restrictive" and how s/he was "spoiling the fun" was incredible.
You see, many people who said about how DMs can impose restrictions showed their other sides.
That was not the only case I've seen.

Have you considered that the people who are likely to have no issue with the restrictions might simply be less vocal about their acceptance or enjoyment of them? Isn't it something of a known aphorism that people are generally more prone to complaining than praise?

Also: 1) no one really cares about long-range teleportation magic, or which magic items they'll get (as in it's not something that would make them fight over it).

May I remind you that I do have two powergamers at my table? I know they'd just love the number porn of getting those +Xs to hit, damage, and AC.

2) everyone is annoyed by 3e-style multiclass.

Lord knows I am, but, again, I have a couple powergamers at my table. One of them takes a self-confessed joy in trying to find broken class combinations (a habit he picked up when he played 3e). I'm sure he probably misses it.

3) The halfling thing is really impressive, but it's very far from the reality I actually see happening.

I don't see the halfling ban as being all that impressive. I've just replaced them with human little people. That way I don't have to worry about changing the sizing too much. Plus, it creates some more diversity among the humans in the world.

What about limiting which races get which classes or making Paladins LG-only (some old-school limitations)?

When it's setting appropriate I do limit classes based on race. In my Tenesia setting, Dwarves can't be bards, sorcerers, warlocks, or wizards. They REALLY offended the goddess of magic, and she stripped them of the ability to cast arcane spells. They can still craft magic items using a kind of runic magic, but no arcane spells.

Only the Darve can be crystal mages (a kind of wizard who stores spells in crystals and uses special crystals to alter or augment their spells).

Only humans can be mage-hunters (a kind of paladin that specializes in resisting and dispelling arcane magic and slaying arcane spellcasters).

Also in that setting, you can't raise the dead without a humanoid sacrifice. The gods are greedy for souls, and you have to give someone if you expect to take someone back. That said, elves in that setting just flat out can't be raised. They're more like fey than regular elves, and their souls go back to nature when they die (bringing one back from the dead would be like pouring a glass of water in the ocean and trying to take back just the water that was in the glass).

 

[Coroc]

<Snip>

The one thing I am proud to see however is the removal of race ban on certain class. Now we can see dwarven wizards, elven bards and elven cleric going into high levels, gnome paladins (got one in one my groups, he's a blast to see) and many other things that were unimaginable back then.

That is one thing I hate to see gone. A dwarf wizard gnome paladin or Halfling warlock, it just does not fit for me.

Argue about the mechanics in any way you want.

Do stat creation with dice rolling (I do not recommend that) or point buy (I very much recommend that)

Roll your hp after 1st (or entry level e.g. if you start 3rd, 4th and so on) I like it that way, or use average (that's boring imho)

I do not care, but do not enforce fluff on me. And dwarven wizards take away so much in defining dwarves being nonmagic by nature. For me that's just minmaxing it the bad way.

Do dwarven wizards in a special world, where everything is different like DS (Do not put dwarven wizards into DS either, I just meant a world apart from vanilla) But make these shenanigans OPTIONAL.

D&D is a game where you can play anything goes, but in vanilla worlds anything goes takes away even more from the unique features which are far harder to see and to point out for FR than for RL or DS e.g.

But retconning is a bad way to introduce things the worst method tbh.

I know that is not the fault of 5E but former editions , but still. I am no canon freak but this "ups now the FR has Dragonborn Sorcerer Bards and this is default "
instead of "You can do dragonborn ninja assassin sorcerer eldritch blast locks in your home setting" but in the FR they did never exist would have made the better approach.

It is sufficient that there are rules for dwarven wizards if you want to create one ,but do not enforce this fluff as to be agreed on for every official setting of future, presence and past. it just p... me of from ever buying new material and I just stick with my old grey box if I am to dm FR