D&D 5E Please Cap the Ability Scores in 5E

One of the things that bothers me about newer editions of the game is ability scores. Specifically, how there is no limit or "cap" to them. This means that a person can eventually attain a Strength score higher than the gods themselves through the proper application of perks, gadgets, and magic. Which is fine, I suppose, for wuxia-style games where heroes are expected to be able to leap over trees and smash walls with their fists.

This thread isn't about a preferred play style, though. At least, not directly.

The biggest issue I have with uncapped ability scores, though, is the impact they have on other game mechanics. I'm not sure if it is the same in 4E, but in 3.x it is assumed that characters will spend all of their hard-earned gold on "buff" items and spells. If a 12th-level fighter isn't carrying around tens of thousands of goldpieces worth of gear, he isn't a "true" 12th level fighter (the challenge ratings, encounter levels, and so forth will become unbalanced.) Are you saving up to buy a castle? Do you give your gold to the poor? Want to raise an army? You had better hope your DM is generous, or merciful, or both.

So I hope the designers cap the ability scores in 5E. And make it a SOLID cap, not the squishy one in 3.x (like how they limit the type of bonuses, but not the bonuses themselves). Once a cap is met, no amount of magical enhancement, divine intervention, or wishing should be able to bring it any higher. I think this would go a long way to making characters more versatile and balanced, and it would give the "Christmas tree" a much-needed pruning.

A good cap, IMO, would be 20 + racial modifier. Dwarves could have a Con score of up to 22, for example, but could never have a Charisma score higher than 18. Dragons, with their awesome racial modifiers, could have ability scores into the 30s. And so on.

I disagree with an arbitrary cap like that. If there are means to raise stats, then they should simply be designed to have a natural cap to them (so limited stacking), and to naturally get harder and harder to raise those stats (again, accomplished by limited stacking). 4E is a good example of a "naturally capped" system, although it did do it by eliminating a lot of the stat bonuses in previous editions.

If a mortal is stronger than a god, then either it's a system where that's intentional (gods are intentionally not untouchable), or the gods' stats are poorly designed. To me, a god shouldn't have stats, unless there's an intention that a PC very well could rise to their level, and punch them in the nose. Supremely powerful gods shouldn't have stats.

As for your examples? If a character wants a castle, there should be reasons why a castle is potentially more advantageous than maxing their personal stats. Same with an army. If the intent is to have a campaign where a castle/army/personal advancement are all viable goals, then there should be mechanics in place to support all of those options. Or the DM can decide on a world where adventurers have little reason to want a castle or army, in which case it's OK that spending on those things is mechanically disadvantageous. And if a character wants to donate to the poor, it should cost them something, or it's a meaningless act. Or, perhaps, if the DM so desires, such donations could have a benefit of their own. Maybe there's a strong tie between donations, and favor granted from the gods.

Ultimately, ability scores are just (at least in previous editions) bonuses to various other stats. So if there's a problem with having a high STR, then there's also a problem with bonuses to damage, attack, and special combat maneuver DCs.

EDIT: as for your poll, "the sky's the limit" isn't quite what I want to see. There should be a limit. It's just that it should be a natural product of the available bonuses (like in 4E). There should absolutely not be ways to increase abilities arbitrarily high, as there were in 3.5. But that should be true of all stats, not just ability scores.

I voted for fairly low. Ability scores should be hard capped, just like 1e where 25 was pretty much it. Technically it was pretty difficult to even raise scores in 1e, but i dont recall anything that allowed scores above 25, or even anything that had scores above 25 (including the gods).

I disagree. Doing this locks everyone into your preferred playstyle; but those whose preferred playstyle doesn't match yours are out of luck.

Not doing it means you can still play your way, but those other people can still play Hercules or whoever if that's their preference.

Options, not restrictions. Perhaps the core rules could have a few different "modes" of play, and you pick one. A gritty one, a heroic one, a superheroic one.

dkyle said:

I disagree with an arbitrary cap like that. If there are means to raise stats, then they should simply be designed to have a natural cap to them (so limited stacking), and to naturally get harder and harder to raise those stats (again, accomplished by limited stacking). 4E is a good example of a "naturally capped" system, although it did do it by eliminating a lot of the stat bonuses in previous editions.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you. (I don't play 4E.) Regardless of whether the cap is arbitrary or natural, it's still a cap...right?

I want all ability scores to "go to 11!"

CleverNickName said:

I'm not sure I follow you. (I don't play 4E.) Regardless of whether the cap is arbitrary or natural, it's still a cap...right?

Click to expand...

In 4E, there are limited means to raise ability scores. There's starting stats, racial bonuses, levelups, and Epic Destinies. And that's basically it. There's not "cap", but rather those bonuses are just naturally limited. If you want the absolute highest stat, it takes some sacrifice to get there.

The differences are:

1. With a hard cap, there is a point where further bonuses that would otherwise be useful become completely useless. This eliminates possible options to weigh in character building.

2. A natural cap has a smoother progression of difficulty of raising a stat. It gets naturally harder and harder to get closer to the cap. It ends up tending to feel like there is no cap, because it's so hard to actually hit the cap. A Hard cap instead simply makes it impossible to progress, and is usually at a point that isn't so difficult to get to.

3. A Hard cap means that ability score bonuses are more useful for making characters more similar, instead of more special. That Fighter's high STR becomes less special when a Rogue with a starting 12 can end up matching it with gear, and the Fighter has no means to be any better.

Ultimately, I think hard caps are just easy patches to cover up more fundamental design problems. If there are too many ability score bonuses, then that's what should be addressed. Don't pick an arbitrary point where the bonuses stop being useful.

No.

Down with enforcing stereotypes!
Down with limiting heroes to reality!

All caps do is enforce sameness. Caps encourage best build powergaming. All epic fighters will be Str 18, Dex 18, Con 18.


Plus how is my hero supposed to choke a giant with 20 Str.

dkyle said:

1. With a hard cap, there is a point where further bonuses that would otherwise be useful become completely useless. This eliminates possible options to weigh in character building.

<snip>

Ultimately, I think hard caps are just easy patches to cover up more fundamental design problems. If there are too many ability score bonuses, then that's what should be addressed. Don't pick an arbitrary point where the bonuses stop being useful.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't see any problem with having a hard cap (I'd say about 24-25) but have multiple ways to get there. I think that allows for options in character building rather than eliminates them. One character could get to the strength cap with his level increases on top of natural ability, another could get there by the use of a magical belt and gauntlets, a third could get there because he found some magical tomes of exceptional exercise. They'd all have the same net effect - hitting the strength cap as a very strong character - but they'd have different mojo and narratives behind them.

I think having fewer routes to get to the cap (basically taking all enhancement options to get there) is what reduces options. The main option there is the order in which they are pursued. Everyone who gets there has gotten there with the same tools.

dkyle said:

In 4E, there are limited means to raise ability scores. There's starting stats, racial bonuses, levelups, and Epic Destinies. And that's basically it. There's not "cap", but rather those bonuses are just naturally limited. If you want the absolute highest stat, it takes some sacrifice to get there.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. And thanks for the tutorial.

This is more or less the way it is in 3.x, except that there are more categories. You can have a racial bonus, an inherent bonus, and an enhancement bonus. That is pretty much it, unless you make your own gear--in which case, you can also add a luck bonus, a sacred/profane bonus, and whatever else you are willing to spend the gold on.

By that point, your character is kind of irrelevant...the body exists just to carry all of its gear around.