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

[Lanefan]

But, it does miss the point that I was making though. The AVERAGE half orc and dragonborn is bigger by quite a lot than the largest humans. So, they get a +2 Str modifier. Ok, fair enough, that makes sense. Give someone 50 or so pounds on another person, and yup, they're most likely going to be a fair bit stronger. Presuming, of course, similar levels of fitness.

But, how much of a difference are we talking about between a female fighter (say) and a male fighter? 50 pounds again? Not really. It's not that unusual to see a woman tipping in around 160, 170 pounds. She's built like a Valkyrie, sure, but, fair enough. So, what's the point spread here? Should we be capping her strength? We don't cap his even though he's giving up 50 or 60 pounds on the next bigger guy.

Never minding the elf that tops in at about 100 pounds. Or the halfling that is pushing maybe 40. If female humans are being capped at 2 less than male humans, (for that actual effect on the Strength table), how much do we have to cap those guys? Do we really want a game where halflings are limited to a 10 Strength?

To put this in perspective, what strength range do giants (12+ feet tall, weigh a ton) get in 5e? Or ogres (9+ feet tall, weigh half a ton)?

Like I said, the game simply isn't granular enough for sexual differences to make a difference stat wise.

As currently designed this is almost certainly true; mostly because with auto-stat-advancement by level and many people using non-randomized starting stat generation the bell curve simply isn't a bell curve any more, particularly among that small sub-population who are adventurers. Every fighter will end up with strength 20, every wizard will end up with int 20, and so on...nope, no bell curve there.

Were everything truly random, and were stat enhancement by level stopped or sharply curtailed, then enough granularity returns to the outer fringes of the bell curve that racial (and in some cases gender) minima and maxima can legitimately come into play. Then it's just a question of making them fair - and that's where the human gender business gets messy enough that for design purposes it's probably best swept under the rug and ignored. (the door's still open for gender differences within other races, however)

I've been a physical adult for 80 years (or so). What the heck have I been doing for the past TWO human generations.

The forum rules prevent me from giving my answer to this question.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Even back in ADnD, Giants capped at 24 Str. But then, stats didn't advance linearly. In 5e, they have similar caps. With linear progression. Again, lack of granularity.

Gender caps don't make a lot of sense in that system.

 

[Helldritch]

Although I am for race/class min/max. I am not for gender discrimination. This never did any good around any game table that I have ever seen. I have 3 women playing in my two groups, I would never do such a thing to any of them.

The basics of D&D is to give a sense of heroic story telling. I got rid of sex related min/max as soon as I have had a women play at my table and it was in 81. Right in my first year as a GM. This is the first rule I have ever abolished.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Now, there are several reasons that male players typically make male PCs. But, you can bet that one of them is a male player making a fighter character doesn't want to deal with the Str cap.

In my experience, character creation in AD&D starts with rolling dice and ends with picking a name. With female humans capped at 18/50, I could easily imagine the player (regardless of gender) making the character male if they rolled over that. I could also imagine a player specifically making the character female if they happened to roll exactly 18/50, because it's such a rare roll.

I'm having more trouble imagining a player who rolls 18/00, and then consciously chooses to make the character female, with full knowledge of what they're giving up.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and, just as an added issue, why are we arguing for gender max's for humans only? Shouldn't this apply to every playable race? Gee, great, let's add a mountain of complexity to character generation. No thanks. I mean, are halfing females less or more dextrous than males? How about elves? Are elven women smarter than men? More or less charismatic? Or, are we insisting that this only applies to physical stats? Are orc women stronger or weaker than orc men?

Yeah, there's a nerd rage just waiting to happen.

 

[Helldritch]

I really don't know why the debate went on gender min/max requirements. This is not what the trend was about. Class and Racial min/max requirement are more than enough.

Going back to sexist stereotype adds nothing to the game. Class and Racial min/max requirements do (at least in my opinion).
What min/max requirement would like to see for races?
For my self (min/max)
Dragon Born: ST: 12/22, Dex: -/18, Con: 8/20, int: -/20, Wis: 10/20, Cha: 11/21
Dwarf: ST: 12/21 or 22*, Dex: -/18 Con: 12/22, Int: -/20, Wis: 11/21*, Cha: -/18 or 19
Elves: ST: -/18, Dex: 12/22, Con: 9/19 int: 11/21*, wsd: 11/21* Cha: 11/21*
Half-Elves: No min max or as elves for minimums.
Half-Orcs: ST: 12/22, Dex: -/20, Con: 12/21, int: -/19, wis: -/20, cha: -/ 16
Halfling ST: -/16, Dex: 12/22, Cn: 10/20 or 22*, int: -/20, wis: -/20, Cha:11/20 or 22*
Gnomes: ST: -/16, Dex: 11/20 or 21*, Con: 11/20 or 21*, Int: 12/22, wis: -/20, cha -/20
Tieflings: ST: -/20, Dex: -/20, Con: -/20, Int: 11/21, wis: -/18, cha: 12/22.

That is just a sketch. What do you say?

 

[MechaPilot]

Because gay men are known for being especially interested in women, I guess.

If I had to guess, I would assume the unhinged logic of people calling male players gay for playing female characters would be this:

Player A is male.

Player A is playing a female PC.

Player A must be expecting to be treated, at least in game, as female.

If male Player A wants to be treated female, he must be gay.


A ridiculous and obviously flawed train of logic, but that's really the only path I could see someone taking to make the leap from "man playing a female character" to "he must be gay."

 

[Coroc]

I really don't know why the debate went on gender min/max requirements. This is not what the trend was about. Class and Racial min/max requirement are more than enough.

Going back to sexist stereotype adds nothing to the game. Class and Racial min/max requirements do (at least in my opinion).
What min/max requirement would like to see for races?
For my self (min/max)
Dragon Born: ST: 12/22, Dex: -/18, Con: 8/20, int: -/20, Wis: 10/20, Cha: 11/21
Dwarf: ST: 12/21 or 22*, Dex: -/18 Con: 12/22, Int: -/20, Wis: 11/21*, Cha: -/18 or 19
Elves: ST: -/18, Dex: 12/22, Con: 9/19 int: 11/21*, wsd: 11/21* Cha: 11/21*
Half-Elves: No min max or as elves for minimums.
Half-Orcs: ST: 12/22, Dex: -/20, Con: 12/21, int: -/19, wis: -/20, cha: -/ 16
Halfling ST: -/16, Dex: 12/22, Cn: 10/20 or 22*, int: -/20, wis: -/20, Cha:11/20 or 22*
Gnomes: ST: -/16, Dex: 11/20 or 21*, Con: 11/20 or 21*, Int: 12/22, wis: -/20, cha -/20
Tieflings: ST: -/20, Dex: -/20, Con: -/20, Int: 11/21, wis: -/18, cha: 12/22.

That is just a sketch. What do you say?

No way that dwarfes are stronger than human. They got more Con but are not stronger.

Halfling max wis 18
Elf max wis 19 max int 22 max con 18
Gnome max int 22 max cha 18
Tiefling max wis 20 max cha 20

But all odd numbers do not make much sense from a game mechanical POV

 

[Helldritch]

I went for attribute bonuses. If a race has a +2, it gets its min/max up by 2. If it has a bonus of 1, then its +1.

+1 might not be that much, and might not make sense for you. But what if a players gets a permanent bonus of +1 to this stat in particuliar? A boon from a god, or whatever could do it? Magical fountain? Then the +1 might become the famous +2 you were searching for. Some old adventure had such magical pools in them. Horror on the hills comes right to mind.

 

[Shasarak]

How about elves? Are elven women smarter than men? More or less charismatic?]

I think the real question is how do we tell which is which?