D&D 5E Why do ability scores cap at 20 instead of 18?

[OneRedRook]

instead of the dice maximum of 18 (which was the non-magical maximum in AD&D and earlier).

I think I prefer 20 as the cap, as it keeps character creation somewhat more streamlined, but I wanted to pick up on this part here. For AD&D 1st edition ability score limits were, if you'll forgive the technical term, a complete dog's breakfast.

Firstly, for maximums: dwarves, halflings and half-orcs could reach a total of 19 for Constitution, while elves could reach 19 in Dexterity; these are in line with the relevant racial bonus. However, some races has maximums of less than 18 for other abilities, and these don't necessarily track with their relevant racial penalty. Half-orcs, for example, receive a -2 penalty to their Charisma score, but also may not start with a score higher than 12.

There are also racial ability score minimums which are higher than 3, and this is where things get just weird. Strength score maximums in 1e were generally different for male and female characters, which leads to this mess: male halflings have a maximum of 17 Str, and female halflings have a maximum of 14 Str, but both have a minimum Str score of 6. The "standard" 3-18 range for all abilities was really only relevant for humans.

After this, of course, there were class-based ability limits...

For reference, a brief look at the 2e PHB suggests these sorts of inconsistencies have been reined in a bit, but are still present; in particular, 19s are still possible if you choose the right race for your 18 stat.

Back on to the topic at hand, I think it would be interesting to know what method of ability generation people prefer when suggesting ability limits. A limit of 18 plays differently, I think, in a game with 4d6(drop lowest) as compared to one that only uses the standard array. For myself, I like rolling stats, but have reluctantly come to accept that most people I game with these days prefer arrays or point-buy to keep starting characters roughly within parity.

 

[Horwath]

God it would be nice to feel free to take the fun feats at 8 instead of 12.

1. Add bonus feats for all at levels 1&4.

2. Ban certain feats that actually are competing with +2 to primary. We all know what only few of them are.

3. Profit

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not at all!

It just happens that statistically more parents choose to send their kids to Wizard school so they can have a better life in their culture.

Hence, on average, a higher frequency of the population is training for higher Intelligence performance.


It is just like improving an ability score while leveling, except it happens while growing up, and more kids happen to be choosing the same ability score.

That’s too bad. I was hoping this involved euthanizing gnomes.

 

[jgsugden]

Why do ability scores cap at 20? Because the game works just fine when you're using an ability bonus between +2 to +5. While +5 is better, it is not 'too good'.

Remember: PCs are supposed to be the heroes of the story. Them being effective is not a bad thing - it is a good thing. It only falls apart when PCs don't have a place to shine and be a significant part of the experience. When that happens, the DM can address it by boosting the PC that is not shining with RP opportunities in the storyline, a magic item, or something else that gives them a bigger role.

Regardless, the game does not break with a +5 to an ability score, even at first level.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I like 20 as max. 20 is on brand with d20s and 20 character levels, so it's an easy rule to remember even if it doesn't really directly correlate to those things in any way. It also creates a symmetry with 10 as average, even if scores of 0 are not actually achievable by normal means. When I'm teaching the game to little kids at summer camp and tell them 10 is average and they ask what the highest possible is and I say 20 that makes intuitive sense to them.

I don't like 18 because it just creates an additional pitfall when setting up stats for people who rolled a 17 or 18, and any other number is just another arbitrary thing to have to remember.

 

[jmartkdr2]

To the original question, I think there are two reasons: it looks better and a rolled 18 +2 racial mod = 20.

But I'd play in a game where the cap was 18. It would mean getting to feats or secondary abilities earlier in the campaign.

 

[d24454_modern]

To the original question, I think there are two reasons: it looks better and a rolled 18 +2 racial mod = 20.

But I'd play in a game where the cap was 18. It would mean getting to feats or secondary abilities earlier in the campaign.

I forget. Why would having a lower stat cap mean getting feats earlier in the campaign?

 

[CleverNickName]

I forget. Why would having a lower stat cap mean getting feats earlier in the campaign?

Some players prioritize getting a score of 20 in at least one stat before they select feats instead of ASIs. (And most of the feats that don't have a bonus to an ability score tend to have more interesting secondary abilities instead.)

Not all players do this at my table, but there is one player who absolutely must have that all-important maximum possible score in Whatever, as quickly as possible.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I like cap of 20

 

[MoonSong]

Yes, because it is outdated. There are strong hints that they soon go the way of the dodo and rightfully so.

I'm not buying the same set of books again... particularly since only very recently I finished it, so...