D&D (2024) 1D&D; new ability cap at 18?

[Horwath]

I'm initially agnostic about the idea - I can see pros and cons - but it seems like a non-starter because backwards compatibility is the linchpin of the whole OneD&D thing and this proposed change would complicate every existing character and text.

how is this non backwards compatible?

 

[Clint_L]

Millions of existing characters would need to have stats lowered, which players would hate. Millions of existing texts would no longer be accurate in a fundamental way.

Edit: I take the whole purpose of moving D&D away from the "editions" model as being to prevent obvious jumping off points for players, and prevent schisms in the community. This proposed change alters basic character generation and progression as printed in millions of books, makes an untold number of creature and NPC stats inaccurate, and means that almost every existing character would need to be altered. It would leap across the line from evolution to "new edition," IMO.

 

[tetrasodium]

EDIT: sorry, got angry there for a minute. I hate when I hear about some D&D players mistreating others over a game.

That's the worst part, the player(Bob) doesn't need to mistreat anyone & can use the social contract as a shield that makes it look like the GM(Alice) is railroading them or denying them agency if the GM steps in to end the hostage situation in any way other than giving Bob the item bob alone has decided he must have so Alice can get the game back on track for the other players at the table. If Alice doesn't relent then her prep workload goes up in an ever escalating trajectory & the she gets blamed for building so much of the game on the fly till the whole mess collapses under the weight of servicing Bob's regular kneecapping of prep with "my character wants to../thinks we should.../lets go somewhere else".

 

[Azzy]

I swear, posts like this are setting the OPs up for disappointment. All this wishlisting is nice and all, but it doesn't reflect anything that will happen in the actual playtests.

 

[Amrûnril]

One possible complication to consider: If feats include ASIs to specific stats, lowering the cap from 18 to 20 makes it much easier for these ASIs to be wasted, which may deter players from taking feats that would otherwise fit their characters well (personally, I favor getting rid of the fixed ASIs as part of a merging the level 1 and 4 feat lists, but who knows what the developers will end up doing).

 

[tetrasodium]

One possible complication to consider: If feats include ASIs to specific stats, lowering the cap from 18 to 20 makes it much easier for these ASIs to be wasted, which may deter players from taking feats that would otherwise fit their characters well (personally, I favor getting rid of the fixed ASIs as part of a merging the level 1 and 4 feat lists, but who knows what the developers will end up doing).

And? Why is this a concern?

If the thing that goes along with the +1 to $X-attrib isn't worth taking for the thing itself after hitting the cap by taking the +2 ability score improvement one or more times for $X-attrib or taking a bunch of other feats that also give +1 to $X-attrib, take some other feat. Maybe even note somewhere that starting with your primary attribute too high at the expense of other attributes can lead to wasted points when the character quickly maxes out that attrib & needs to scrounge for feats tied to a secondary attrib tertiary attrib or even ones tied to a dump stat.

Suddenly instead of every player starting with 16 or better in their primary attrib then 12-14ish in dex/con or whatever they might start with 14ish in two or three attribs instead of starting out as something closer to rainman's attribute distribution style

 

[DEFCON 1]

In my opinion, the game has so many ways to get bonuses across the entire game system that I do not see any reason why a single -1 reduction from an ability score modifier serves the game in any meaningful way.

When you are gaining +1d4s from Guidance or Bless and +1d6 from Bardic Inspiration and upwards of +3 bonuses from magic items and weapons and +2s from the Archery fighting style etc. etc. etc... that +1 from having a 20 rather than an 18 is just one minor bonus in a large sea of possible advancements.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I would not mind a version of 5e/5.5/6e where the stats were 3-18. We had it in BECMI and it worked well. Reinforced the idea that that the span of options (and thus things you needed to feel like you had to shoot for) was that limited span. In PB/array 5.5 where you start at 17 or less (and thus can put at least three feats with a boost to that stat without overflow issues), it seems reasonable (if you really wanted 4 strength half-feats on your barbarian, start with a 16 in that spot). However, I don't really see that happening. 5.5 seems to be about updating clearly and consistent problems (across the gamer base). I don't know that stats capping above 18 falls into that category.

 

[Pauln6]

that is the belt, it gives part of giants strength, hence +2 STR or reasonably high STR for average human(15).

Yeah I hate stat boost items in 5e. They were poorly designed in 3e too. Gauntlets of Ogre Power should be +2 strength (max 19), wearer is treated as a large creature for pushing, tripping, grappling, carrying etc.

Girdles should be +4 strength (max based on type of giant), wearer is treated as a huge creature for pushing, tripping, grappling, carrying etc.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Yeah I hate stat boost items in 5e. They were poorly designed in 3e too. Gauntlets of Ogre Power should be +2 strength (max 19), wearer is treated as a large creature for pushing, tripping, grappling, carrying etc.

Girdles should be +4 strength (max based on type of giant), wearer is treated as a huge creature for pushing, tripping, grappling, carrying etc.

I would not mind a perma-Enlarge + advantage on STR checks and saves. That'd be cooler than a simple stat boost, IMHO.