D&D 5E (2014) Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Caliban]

For example - put a cap (or penalty) on Wisdom for human males, because they are generally more reckless and prone to risk taking than females.

(I really don't think any gender based caps or penalties are helpful. Just saying.)

 

[Pauln6]

For a character with a Strength dependent class, a Strength cap is a Strength penalty because it directly limits the things at which they are supposed to excel.




I wasn't aware that the barbarian class, the paladin class, and any fighter using a non-finesse melee weapon were considered niche builds.




So, the issues are that they disincentivise player choice and they promote stereotypes so we see more of the same kinds of characters again and again. Sounds like a bad idea to include it in the base game to me.




There is when "because realism" is only being applied to act as a limit to one sex, to stereotype and pigeon-hole one sex. If realism is that important, give proper "reality-reflecting" penalties to male PCs as well.

None of the classes you cite require strength 20 to work. Most male versions will not have 20 so the niche builds is that upper strength. We have a group of 14th level characters and none of the warrior classes have 20 strength. Tell a lie, there is a Female thri kreen.

 

[MechaPilot]

None of the classes you cite require strength 20 to work. Most male versions will not have 20 so the niche builds is that upper strength. We have a group of 14th level characters and none of the warrior classes have 20 strength. Tell a lie, there is a Female thri kreen.

No class requires a 20 in any stat to "work."

Or an 18, really.

Or, for that matter, a 16.

Might as well cap all stats at 14 then.

Maybe a 10 or 12, just to be safe.

 

[Pauln6]

No class requires a 20 in any stat to "work."

Or an 18, really.

Or, for that matter, a 16.

Might as well cap all stats at 14 then.

Maybe a 10 or 12, just to be safe.

Your hyperbole is not logical.

My warlock/rogue has 15 dex and 14 cha and works just fine. Doesn't mean I begrudge others having higher stats. They just aren't necessary and you can spend your points elsewhere. She has 17 int.

 

[MechaPilot]

Your hyperbole is not logical.

Hyperbole is typically intended for humor more than logic.

My warlock/rogue has 15 dex and 14 cha and works just fine. Doesn't mean I begrudge others having higher stats. They just aren't necessary and you can spend your points elsewhere. She has 17 int.

Not everyone uses points.

Also, just because no class needs a 20 in any given stat, that doesn't mean that characters of one sex should be prohibited from having a 20 in a specific stat while members of the other sex have no limits applied to them at all. Imposing limits on one sex because "realism," while ignoring the effects of realism on the other sex is by its very nature biased and inequitable.

 

[Pauln6]

Hyperbole is typically intended for humor more than logic.

Not everyone uses points.

Also, just because no class needs a 20 in any given stat, that doesn't mean that characters of one sex should be prohibited from having a 20 in a specific stat while members of the other sex have no limits applied to them at all. Imposing limits on one sex because "realism," while ignoring the effects of realism on the other sex is by its very nature biased and inequitable.

Paraphrasing Spock is also intended to invoke a humorous response. Humour is a difficult concept.

I don't really disagree with your perspective but at the same time, I've never been a min-maxer. Even in 1e, I played several fighters and rangers with 13 or14 strength and I played one character, a female elf fighter-thief whose strength was downgraded from 17 to 16. I'm not an advocate in favour but I wouldn't lose any sleep if there were racial and sexual maximums in 5e. There aren't any.

The bonuses in 5E don't work like 1e so if anybody wanted to re-introduce them you would be ill advised to set half orc max wisdom at 14.

As for other sexual differences, on average straight men are better at map reading than straight women and gay women are better at map reading than gay men. However, the best straight female map reader is just as good as the best straight male map reader. The distinction between a cap and an average is important. The only stat where real world women cannot be as good as men is physical strength. But in a fantasy game, something as simple as being blessed or Cursed by a faerie at birth could change that reality.

Yes, I think the notion of a Dwarf with 20 dex is silly but since we have no such dwarves in our campaign, I don't need to think about it.

BTW - promoting maxing strength could do more to promote Fighter monoculture that forcing people to look at other more varied options. In my experience, my players don't want to repeat themselves.

 

[Caliban]

BTW - promoting maxing strength could do more to promote Fighter monoculture that forcing people to look at other more varied options. In my experience, my players don't want to repeat themselves.

I fail to see what this has to do with the idea of only allowing males being able to reach max Str.

Forcing women to be weaker than men doesn't change that, it just means if you want a max strength character, you won't choose to make the character female.

In my experience "forcing people to look at other more varied options" rarely works out well. This is a hobby, people play it for entertainment. Forcing people to do things they don't actually want to do just means they'll find someone else to play with. Or stop playing altogether because it's no longer enjoyable.

 

[Pauln6]

I fail to see what this has to do with the idea of only allowing males being able to reach max Str.

Forcing women to be weaker than men doesn't change that, it just means if you want a max strength character, you won't choose to make the character female.

In my experience "forcing people to look at other more varied options" rarely works out well. This is a hobby, people play it for entertainment. Forcing people to do things they don't actually want to do just means they'll find someone else to play with. Or stop playing altogether because it's no longer enjoyable.

In my experience it works out just fine and I've played with a lot of people. I can recall whining to my brother about having more racially varied groups in 1983. I don't recall any problems since reaching adulthood. Tell a lie, one player showed up with a half celestial whose stats were mostly 20+ in 3e and the DM asked him to try again but he did and it was fine. He still plays with us today.

 

[Caliban]

In my experience it works out just fine and I've played with a lot of people. I can recall whining to my brother about having more racially varied groups in 1983. I don't recall any problems since reaching adulthood. Tell a lie, one player showed up with a half celestial whose stats were mostly 20+ in 3e and the DM asked him to try again but he did and it was fine. He still plays with us today.

That...doesn't seem to actually relate to what I said.

 

[Celebrim]

So, if I understand Celebrim's stance on this: Because real women are physically weaker than real men, and physical strength should never, ever be used as a measure of a woman's worth (because that's sexist), wanting a fantasy woman in a fantasy game to be as strong as a fantasy man is also sexist?

Very close, but not quite. Simplified, it would look more like this:

"Because real women are physically weaker than real men, and because physical strength should never be used as the measure of a person's worth (because it isn't), then demanding that all RPGs provide for fantasy women who are as strong as men, because if they do not, then you say that they are sexist because in the game women would be inferior to men, is itself sexist, because by that standard, real women really are inferior to men."

I'm not saying that it is wrong to create a fantasy RPG where female characters can be as strong as men. I run such a game right now, which should have been the first clue that your statement of my position was wrong!

I am saying that if you claim a universal standard that any portrayal of women as on average physically weaker than men is sexist, then there is something very strange about how you are viewing real women that does not add up to what I'd consider a healthy and affirming view.

Because you are devaluing real women by having fantasy women who can compete with fantasy men on equal terms in areas that rely on physical strength in your fantasy game?

No, because you would then be literally saying that if women can't compete with men on equal terms in physical strength, then that women are of less value.

And I confess, owing to the reoccurrence of them, that I'm having a certain difficulty believing that these strawmen you are throwing up to describe my position are actually based off of sincere misunderstandings, and not being offered out of ill will.