Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bob_the_great 01-03-07, 08:35 PM	My new DM believes that ability modifiers max out at +5, and points to page 7 of the PHB which states: "Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5." I understand how he reads it, that this is a maximum that always applies. I read it as applying at PHB character creation, because it is impossible using PHB races to get a bonus greater than +5. I see it as stating the obvious, not a rule. I have never heard of anyone reading it as a maximum, and I refuse to believe that this rule exists yet is mentioned nowhere else in the entire game, and in the one spot he reads it it isn't even definitively stated. So I assume that he's just misreading it. If I'm wrong let me know. Beyond that, what can I present him as proof? I can make a logical argument but I would just love some example or something from either the PHB or DMG which contradicts his view. Thanks for reading this, I'm off to scour the books.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-03-07, 08:49 PM	It's right there on page 8 of your PHB. Average strength(and other) scores with their respective modifiers. Your Dm is very wrong, mock him.
Morwen 01-03-07, 08:49 PM	He's misreading it (although he's allowed to rule that that is the case for his campaign). An example: The page after the one you referred to has a table for bonus spells per ability score. If a +5 bonus (ability score 20) was the maximum allowed, why would the table go past that and all the way to 45 (and hint at going further)? Since the PHB/DMG don't stat out NPCs, it's a bit difficult to give examples tied only to those books. If you have access to any of the Complete series of books (Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, etc), take a look at the example NPCs for the Prestige Classes there. I'm pretty sure some of those have ability scores above 20 (and thus ability modifiers above +5).
bob_the_great 01-03-07, 09:04 PM	Einvaldurinn_mikli - I'm trying to avoid using that table because I know he's played 2e and in 2e the tables extended beyond what was available to PCs. It's also a reason why I understand why he reads it that way. Morwen - we think alike. the first place a I went was the PrCs in the DMG, and I was dismayed to see they don't stat out sample characters. He doesn't allow the completes in his game but maybe he'll let me use them as an example. And I probably should have mentioned this earier. Please everyone don't insult my DM for his interpretation. I know that sometimes people are quick to jump on DMs in here. Besides, I may end up linking him to this thread.
ressurrector 01-03-07, 09:13 PM	Ask him why a PC with the same streingth score as a red dragon would have less of a modifier? Also ask him why they bothered to make ability increasing items if the bonus tops off at +5 (an 18 str fighter would be a waste of a girdle of giant's streingth +6)
Sphyre 01-04-07, 12:30 AM	"Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5." So bulls strength is worthless. Cloaks of charisma are worthless. In fact every way to enhance your stats are completely worthless. That's an example of a PhB race with normal stat aquisition methods. There are no +4 stats on PhB races so you cannot get 22 str, which is +6 without the aid of items or leveling up. :rolleyes: Seriously, I honestly wouldn't play with a DM who thought this. Just stand up and walk out. This is such a basic concept to D&D that it's only a sign for future trouble.
Hakar_Kerarmor 01-04-07, 12:44 AM	Also ask him why they bothered to make ability increasing items if the bonus tops off at +5 (an 18 str fighter would be a waste of a girdle of giant's streingth +6) Well, he could say that's for pc's with a natural attribute lower than 10.
KurenaiYami 01-04-07, 02:32 AM	It's right there on page 8 of your PHB. Average strength(and other) scores with their respective modifiers. Your Dm is very wrong, mock him. Emphasis mine.
Roivas 01-04-07, 02:40 AM	Now you don't really need to do very much to solve this problem, just start playing a polymorphing specialist wizard, and refuse to adventure outside of humaniod areas. After the GM has run the 30th session of you ritualistically slaying all the cities in his game since the town guards can't actually stop you he'll be sure to cave. Honestly though why can't this guy read? Even after a few chapters within the books it is rather clear that your stats were made to surpass 20. Tell him that he needs to read the whole book not just the section that suits his illogical conclusion.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-04-07, 03:27 AM	"Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5."Wow, out of context. It says that because it's talking about 1st-level, base race characters. If you're making a 1st-level character using only the races in the PHB, then all your ability scores will be between 1 and 20. You roll for stats that are between 3 and 18, and you get racial mods that are -2, +2, or +0. That makes the range 1 to 20. If you were to make a 4th level character, or a character from some other race, you could indeed get a base ability score higher than 20. Hell, a 1st-level orc barbarian starting can have a Strength of 26 when he rages. You telling me he gets a +8 Strength bonus as an NPC, but as soon as he joins the party he loses 3 points of attack bonus? I really can't fathom how to change this person's mind without violence. He's just plain wrong. This is right up there with those people that think you lose your entire attack bonus when you use Whirlwind Attack. Not every word in the PHB is a decree from on high, people.
Sphyre 01-04-07, 03:52 AM	This is right up there with those people that think you lose your entire attack bonus when you use Whirlwind Attack. Wow. Wow. Wow. There are people that think you just roll a d20 when WW attacking? Where does that come from? Oh yeah. I guess it must be their ass.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-04-07, 03:58 AM	It says right there in plain english, "you forfeit any bonus." Let's hear it for selective reading. I'm trying to avoid using that table because I know he's played 2e and in 2e the tables extended beyond what was available to PCs.Try reminding him that he isn't playing 2e anymore. This edition doesn't do that.
Sphyre 01-04-07, 04:10 AM	It says right there in plain english, "you forfeit any bonus." Let's hear it for selective reading. Yep. Putting a period mid-sentence can do that. I missed that because it's exactly that, selective reading.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-04-07, 04:25 AM	Well that period marked the end of my sentence, not the end of theirs. When you end a sentence with a quote, you're supposed to put the period in the quotation marks. I guess I could've terminated it with an elipsis...
Sphyre 01-04-07, 04:38 AM	Yes, I'm quite aware of the grammatical rules of english, although I didn't notice that that was the reason you put it there at that time. But that pretty much explains the thought process of those who play some weird D&D where nothing makes sense and swords of true striking are plentiful.
dfavre 01-04-07, 09:40 AM	It says right there in plain english, "you forfeit any bonus." Let's hear it for selective reading. Try reminding him that he isn't playing 2e anymore. This edition doesn't do that. When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. It specifically states that you get full BAB. However, it does state that you loose bonuses granted by abilities. Unless I am reading the description totally wrong, that means no STR bonus when doing a Whirlwind.
Matthew77 01-04-07, 10:23 AM	When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. The phrase "bonus or extra attacks" should be read "any (bonus or extra) attacks", not "(any bonus) or (any extra attacks)." In fact, the entire phrase should be replaced with "you also forfeit any additional attacks granted..." It means you don't get additional attacks from flurry of blows or weapons of haste, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with bonuses to your attack roll.
Zherog 01-04-07, 10:48 AM	The DMG has NPCs of all the classes at varying levels. I would have to assume that those NPCs eventually get stats higher than 20. Rather than using a Complete book as an example (since your DM doesn't use 'em), flip open the DMG to this section and point to one of the 20th level NPCs. Or find any of the dozens of NPCs posted on the website in the various sections. "Fight Club" might be an easy place to find an example quickly. Or find a copy of Dungeon magazine, and show him the NPCs in there.
someonelse812 01-04-07, 12:23 PM	My new DM believes that ability modifiers max out at +5, and points to page 7 of the PHB which states: "Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5." I understand how he reads it, that this is a maximum that always applies. I read it as applying at PHB character creation, because it is impossible using PHB races to get a bonus greater than +5. I see it as stating the obvious, not a rule. I have never heard of anyone reading it as a maximum, and I refuse to believe that this rule exists yet is mentioned nowhere else in the entire game, and in the one spot he reads it it isn't even definitively stated. So I assume that he's just misreading it. If I'm wrong let me know. Beyond that, what can I present him as proof? I can make a logical argument but I would just love some example or something from either the PHB or DMG which contradicts his view. Thanks for reading this, I'm off to scour the books. ok first, get the DM screen and show him the chart for ability scores that goes up to 30 or 40. then grab a monster manual and show him the total attack bonus for all monsters with a strength score of 22 or higher.
dfavre 01-04-07, 12:36 PM	The phrase "bonus or extra attacks" should be read "any (bonus or extra) attacks", not "(any bonus) or (any extra attacks)." In fact, the entire phrase should be replaced with "you also forfeit any additional attacks granted..." It means you don't get additional attacks from flurry of blows or weapons of haste, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with bonuses to your attack roll. Ah, that makes much more sense. Thank you for disambiguating that rule.
bob_the_great 01-04-07, 12:53 PM	Thank you all for your help. Zherog - Thank you. I was not aware there were sample high-level NPCs in the DMG.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-04-07, 02:05 PM	Nevermind. Nothing to see here.
kardock 01-04-07, 02:42 PM	no more than +5? then why would a great wyrm had a str of 37? uh? (MM 3.5 page 70). thanks!
Zherog 01-04-07, 04:14 PM	no more than +5? then why would a great wyrm had a str of 37? uh? (MM 3.5 page 70). thanks! As he already said, the DM believes the table extends beyond +5 for entities other than the PCs (such as the great wyrn you mention).
Sphyre 01-04-07, 04:25 PM	no more than +5? then why would a great wyrm had a str of 37? uh? (MM 3.5 page 70). thanks! Well, see... the DM in question thinks that it applies only to limit PCs. Not monsters. (At least that's what I think the DM in question would say) Like I said... this is only a warning sign for future problems. If I thought mocking him relentlessly would actually start making him think rationally, I'd try it, but I'd more likely be prone to leave because what other kind of stupid stuff is he going to try to pull?
Merestil Haye 01-04-07, 04:27 PM	I'd suggest two things. Firstly, reading pages 7 and 8 of the PHB shows that the problem sentence ("Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from –5 to +5") is in a section devoted to generating the character's ability scores. It starts with the instructions on how to roll the dice and finishes with how to determine if you may reroll. Therefore that entire passage relates strictly to ability score generation. Secondly, on page 10 (under CHANGING ABILITY SCORES) the second sentence reads "Ability scores can increase with no limit." This is in context of a discussion of character abilities.
Zherog 01-04-07, 04:45 PM	Secondly, on page 10 (under CHANGING ABILITY SCORES) the second sentence reads "Ability scores can increase with no limit." This is in context of a discussion of character abilities. Well, sure. But that doesn't say the bonus increases with it. :P :P :P
Kobold_Avenger 01-04-07, 04:56 PM	Well, sure. But that doesn't say the bonus increases with it. :P :P :P That the bonus increases is a given.
Sphyre 01-04-07, 05:43 PM	That the bonus increases is a given. And that's the problem. The DM thinks it's not based on the stupid out of context reference to the phrase on page 8. Don't convince us. We know it's a given. It's the DM that has to be convinced.
bob_the_great 01-04-07, 06:04 PM	thank you guys for the help and for understanding the disagreement. I have yet to play a game with him so i assume he feels that monster modifiers can extend beyond +5. otherwise he'd have to recalculate every high-level baddie. The high-level sample NPCs in the DMG give me the exact proof I was looking for. If he rejects my initial attempt to clear things up then I'll direct him to those. As for the sentiment of refusing to play his game, I feel that how a DM deals with misunderstandings and whether or not he is open to the idea that he may be wrong is much more important than whether or not he misinterprets things. But yes, if he refuses to listen to the notion that he may be wrong then I'd know to avoid his game. I've met him though and he's a nice guy. I don't see an issue here. This does lead to an interesting question though. Let's assume he sees that he has been reading it wrong, BUT the game has already been going for a few sessions and he's used to his -5 +5 rule and therefore decides to houserule it in: would you guys play? Assume that you can't easily replace the game. I adjusted to 2e for my last game, so I'm willing to deal with bizarre rules (or lack of rules). I feel like I might be able to deal with it, it would just change the way characters work. It'd be annoying dealing with CRs calculated for more powerful characters though. I know my half-orc barbarian with a 20 strength would need to be redone. What's the point of raging if your strength is already topped out? My fiance will have to recreate her pixie, as the stat bonuses don't pack much punch anymore. As previously mentioned, polymorph and wild shape become more powerful if monsters/animals are allowed to break the rule. Casters would get resisted more if their mod added to DCs tops out at +5. eh, maybe i should just wait to hear back from him.
Morwen 01-04-07, 06:07 PM	This does lead to an interesting question though. Let's assume he sees that he has been reading it wrong, BUT the game has already been going for a few sessions and he's used to his -5 +5 rule and therefore decides to houserule it in: would you guys play? Assume that you can't easily replace the game. I wouldn't necessarily leave the game just because of that one house rule (although it would be a big point against it). I'd probably choose to play a Paladin or Monk with that system though (they tend to be dependent on multiple ability scores being moderately high, which is especially suited to a game where no ability score can be very high) :)
green_yawgmoth 01-05-07, 12:49 AM	There's houserules, and then there's mucking with fundamental aspects of the game itself because you can't read worth half a damn. This is an example of the latter. I agree with Sphyre in that if the DM understand the most basic aspect of the game, he shouldn't be DMing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
ShadowDragon8685 01-05-07, 01:08 AM	There's houserules, and then there's mucking with fundamental aspects of the game itself because you can't read worth half a damn. This is an example of the latter. I agree with Sphyre in that if the DM understand the most basic aspect of the game, he shouldn't be DMing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif I'm pretty sure this isen't worth an eighth of a damn, let along a whole half a damn.
Sphyre 01-05-07, 02:24 AM	Hey green_yawgmoth, I give you the honors of shooting this DM with my hammer *hands his hammer over* http://www.geocities.com/sphyre_san/smile/shoothammer.txt
pedro2112 01-05-07, 02:42 PM	The phrase "bonus or extra attacks" should be read "any (bonus or extra) attacks", not "(any bonus) or (any extra attacks)." In fact, the entire phrase should be replaced with "you also forfeit any additional attacks granted..." It means you don't get additional attacks from flurry of blows or weapons of haste, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with bonuses to your attack roll. Matthew, has that been confirmed in Errata yet?
Matthew77 01-05-07, 02:54 PM	Dunno about errata, but using the guidelines of common sense and english grammar it seems pretty clear to me. Obviously, this feat is not intended to negate the benefit of feats such as weapons focus, weapons specialization, or spells such as bulls strength or divine favor. That line is included specifically to disallow people saying "okay, I whirlwind attack with my on hand, and then I get my extra attack from my weapon of speed, and then I attack with my off-hand using improved two-weapon fighting"
Zherog 01-05-07, 03:00 PM	Matthew, has that been confirmed in Errata yet? Errata is used to correct mistakes. There's no mistake to correct here, so there's no errata. Matthew is correct.
pedro2112 01-06-07, 02:05 AM	Errata is used to correct mistakes. There's no mistake to correct here, so there's no errata. Matthew is correct. I have no doubt he is correct, it's just that the text is worded poorly.
Sphyre 01-06-07, 02:33 AM	I have no doubt he is correct, it's just that the text is worded poorly. Welcome to 50% of the rules. It sucks. We deal with it. Things like this post happen because the rules are written colloquially as opposed to definitely. It almost makes me wonder if people would prefer a complete rewrite of the rules where it's a full separation of mechanics and flavor.
green_yawgmoth 01-06-07, 09:54 AM	Hey green_yawgmoth, I give you the honors of shooting this DM with my hammer *hands his hammer over* http://www.geocities.com/sphyre_san/smile/shoothammer.txtI have this in convienent .gif format! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/smileys/shoothammer.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
pedro2112 01-06-07, 12:40 PM	Welcome to 50% of the rules. It sucks. We deal with it. Things like this post happen because the rules are written colloquially as opposed to definitely. Yes, I've noticed that. They don't look so bad when you first read them, but when it comes down to implementing them.. Oi!
Always-Late 01-06-07, 03:09 PM	In D&D, there was a chart! And this chart was full of modifiers! And the scores went really really high! And the chart said, "PCs can't go higher than +5! The rest are for mosnters!" And it was good. But then a NEW edition came out! And there was a chart full of modifiers! And the scores went really really high! But it didn't say, "+5 is the max a PC can hit!" But the DM had never before seen a PC with higher than +5, only monsters! So he thought that the rule was still in effect! ... ... Then hundreds of people came to his front door, revoked his DMing license and incinerated it, while berating him for being unable to read and a dumbass, and then shot him in the face with a hammer! Thus ended the sad tale of bob_the_great's DM, and it was sad.
Sphyre 01-06-07, 06:09 PM	I have this in convienent .gif format! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/smileys/shoothammer.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif :D Well to host it on geocities I had to have it hosted that way. It doesn't make a difference with the way the boards work. I mean I made it in gif, and just renamed it to txt to get it be usable on the forums. I'm sure what you did is simply renamed it a .gif again.
athynz 01-06-07, 11:22 PM	In D&D, there was a chart! And this chart was full of modifiers! And the scores went really really high! And the chart said, "PCs can't go higher than +5! The rest are for mosnters!" And it was good. But then a NEW edition came out! And there was a chart full of modifiers! And the scores went really really high! But it didn't say, "+5 is the max a PC can hit!" But the DM had never before seen a PC with higher than +5, only monsters! So he thought that the rule was still in effect! ... ... Then hundreds of people came to his front door, revoked his DMing license and incinerated it, while berating him for being unable to read and a dumbass, and then shot him in the face with a hammer! Thus ended the sad tale of bob_the_great's DM, and it was sad. Peers at the gory remains and takes off his helm in respect. "The DM is dead! Long live the DM!":cool: So Bob, have you had a chance to get this straight yet? I'm curious as to the outcome.
bob_the_great 01-07-07, 12:17 AM	The DM is sick and cancelled the game this week, and he didn't want to deal with this when he's sick, so there's no resolution yet. he told me he'd take a look at it when he starts feeling better. He's a nice guy and seemed open to the idea that his interpretation may be wrong. he said that other players have questioned him but then backed down when he showed then page 7 of the PHB. i don't know how they could accept it: it just didn't pass the smell test. anyway, I'm joining an ongoing campaign so I don't know if I can expect him to change his interpretation mid-game. I can only assume it affected how other guys created their characters. I'm thinking my barbarian could easily become a ranger if he needed to become one. It doesn't really fit the character as well as barb but there's no point in taking a class whose signature ability would be worthless.
Sylvaroth 01-07-07, 10:20 AM	The expression Shoot a DM with a Hammer, as well as Sphyre's ani.ico can also be found as an entry in the d0t (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=509001).
Ulorian 01-07-07, 08:48 PM	The expression Shoot a DM with a Hammer, as well as Sphyre's ani.ico can also be found as an entry in the d0t (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=509001). It's Shoot a DM in the face with a hammer.
starfire311 01-08-07, 12:05 AM	wait a sec, this is possibly the best thing ever for a player, if he says stats cap at 20 hold him to it, this goes for monsters too, monsters generally have much higher stats than players, so this can be to your advantage.
Sphyre 01-08-07, 02:03 AM	It's Shoot a DM in the face with a hammer. Read the dictionary of terms link. It's accurate. green_yawgmoth was the one who came up with the term. Sure there are people who thought they were witty by adding that "in the face' thing when they pay homage to green_yawgmoth, but it's originally without it.
starfire311 01-08-07, 09:37 AM	Read the dictionary of terms link. It's accurate. green_yawgmoth was the one who came up with the term. Sure there are people who thought they were witty by adding that "in the face' thing when they pay homage to green_yawgmoth, but it's originally without it. man, I will have to look it up sometime when I am not lazy, I thought I remembered the original post, and I thought it was, something to the effect,this is paraphrasing 'it is time to shoot your DM with a hammer... in the face'
Sylvaroth 01-08-07, 10:31 AM	As seen here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=106389&page=11&pp=10).:cool: Still I am always open for additions and suggestions, concerning the d0t. :D
Zherog 01-08-07, 11:08 AM	wait a sec, this is possibly the best thing ever for a player, if he says stats cap at 20 hold him to it, this goes for monsters too, monsters generally have much higher stats than players, so this can be to your advantage. You've not been paying attention. ;) Bob already said the DM believes the +5 limit only applies to PCs. Monsters can go as high as they need to.
Sylvaroth 01-08-07, 11:12 AM	What I find pretty funny is, that you cannot (apart from using common sense) actually prove, that the DM is wrong. Most Core things with that high stat scores are mostly monsters or NPCs. Still I'd say if all posters here were wrong and the DM were right, what point would the Epic Level Handbook have? Why having epic DCs if you cannot succeed with a max ability mod of +5? Also Table 1-1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells on page 8 of the PH should be in the MM if ability modifiers above +5 were restricted to monsters. I mean, what's the point in showing the players like: 'nanananananaaaah! can never have them' :P Since the PH is for everything concerning character creation, it SHOULD be obvious it is for all kinds of characters, PCs, NPCs and maybe even DMPCs :D
Tyler Do'Urden 01-08-07, 12:43 PM	Actually, DMPCs can't have an ability modifier less than +5. Or so it would seem.
Sylvaroth 01-08-07, 01:09 PM	And why's that?
Tyler Do'Urden 01-08-07, 01:31 PM	You'll have to ask a DM that does that.
Sylvaroth 01-08-07, 02:00 PM	A DM, who does what? Using DMPCs or a +5 ability mod cap for PCs?
Sphyre 01-08-07, 02:19 PM	As seen here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=106389&page=11&pp=10).:cool: Still I am always open for additions and suggestions, concerning the d0t. :D Perhaps you can add to it the part where "Since it's inception, people tend to use some varying term of it. A common saying now is "That DM needs to be shot. With a hammer. In the face." Makes it a bit clearer for those who don't know the origin.
Zherog 01-08-07, 02:20 PM	A DM, who does what? Using DMPCs or a +5 ability mod cap for PCs? A Dm who has a minimum +5 mod on an ability, as Tyler was joking about.
Sylvaroth 01-08-07, 02:49 PM	Oh, I see, I misread that. :D Funny :banghead:
bob_the_great 01-15-07, 09:26 PM	Just to give an update the DM told everyone that he has changed his view on ability modifiers having a maximum. My gf is really happy because she had decided she wanted to play her pixie regardless, and I'm psyched since i had decided to play my half-orc barbarian regardless (who would have never used rage unless hit with a strength debuff). See, no need to shoot hammers when people are open to other interpretations.
Zherog 01-16-07, 09:28 AM	Excellent. Glad we could help, and thanks for the update.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-16-07, 12:21 PM	When all you have is a hammer gun, every problem looks like a nail that's over there.