D&D 5E Variable stat caps. Anyone ever used?

From an optimization perspective - everything. Consider a level 1 fighter with the following stats

16 str
14 dex
12 con
13 wisdom
8 int
11 cha

Lets say he rolls a cap on str of 16. A cap on dex of 14. A cap of con of 20. Let's ignore the mental stats for now.

Now instead of optimizing said character by maxing strength like every other fighter (or dex if an archer) - he instead is able to optimize by maxing con. In other words, optimization becomes unique to your individual character instead being generalized to every character you ever make. I find that a much more interesting form of optimization. However, even more important than that, this system change encourages players to play non-cookie cutter characters and I think we need a lot more of that.



As with any rolling system - if values are unplayably bad then rerolling the caps are in order.



yes

If I were playing with that system and got a character who could never increase the most important stats for his class, I would just throw that character out and start over.

To do something like this, I would rather there be a set modifier for the cap, say +4 across the board is the max any of the stats can ever be increased. So your example character here could max out those stats at 20, 18, 16, 17, 12, or 15.

Maybe use an array of 10, 10, 12, 12, 14, 14 before race bonuses. Then use generic bonuses, instead of the normal ones, that the player can apply to the stats they want, say a +2 to one stat and a +1 to two other stats. Then with the stat cap, a character could still reach 20 in one stat and 19 in another.

And I am also sometimes not a fan of race-specific stat bonuses, unless there is a very good setting and story-based reason for it. After all, the PCs are the exception to the rule, not the norm, so a 20 Int half-orc or a 20 Str halfling or a 20 Dex dwarf should be possible without min-maxing the system to get there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

5ekyu

Hero
From an optimization perspective - everything. Consider a level 1 fighter with the following stats

16 str
14 dex
12 con
13 wisdom
8 int
11 cha

Lets say he rolls a cap on str of 16. A cap on dex of 14. A cap of con of 20. Let's ignore the mental stats for now.

Now instead of optimizing said character by maxing strength like every other fighter (or dex if an archer) - he instead is able to optimize by maxing con. In other words, optimization becomes unique to your individual character instead being generalized to every character you ever make. I find that a much more interesting form of optimization. However, even more important than that, this system change encourages players to play non-cookie cutter characters and I think we need a lot more of that.



As with any rolling system - if values are unplayably bad then rerolling the caps are in order.



yes
It's always interesting how when extolling the virtues of random rolls one chooses a good and interesting random result, isnt it.

So you optimize for Con but that PC barbarian does too.

Whst if the roll limited all to 16? Or your top stat was Wis? Or maybe it was a decent combo but just not in line with your desired objectives? Or what is several different fighters got very similar tops and bottoms?

Or really, what if it wasnt just fun?
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
From an optimization perspective - everything. Consider a level 1 fighter with the following stats

16 str
14 dex
12 con
13 wisdom
8 int
11 cha

Lets say he rolls a cap on str of 16. A cap on dex of 14. A cap of con of 20. Let's ignore the mental stats for now.

So you would want to implement a stat cap system where you could be capped at your starting ability scores? I am not sure that would be a lot of fun for many players. Any way for me, with this build, I would boost CON at least once, maybe twice, before I worried about STR or DEX.

However, maybe instead an increased cost once the cap is reached? In your example perhaps an ASI boosts STR or DEX only +1 instead of +2 since the cap is already hit? This way a player who REALLY wants that stronger fighter can slowly boost STR, but at the trade off of increasing a non-capped stat more quickly.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
It's always interesting how when extolling the virtues of random rolls one chooses a good and interesting random result, isnt it.

So you optimize for Con but that PC barbarian does too.

Whst if the roll limited all to 16? Or your top stat was Wis? Or maybe it was a decent combo but just not in line with your desired objectives? Or what is several different fighters got very similar tops and bottoms?

Or really, what if it wasnt just fun?

It's a modular system. You can easily replace random cap with set 20 cap.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
So you would want to implement a stat cap system where you could be capped at your starting ability scores? I am not sure that would be a lot of fun for many players. Any way for me, with this build, I would boost CON at least once, maybe twice, before I worried about STR or DEX.

I'm not suggesting your starting scores be capped. The cap doesn't affect character generation stats, just what can be added afterwards.

However, maybe instead an increased cost once the cap is reached?

I like that a lot.

In your example perhaps an ASI boosts STR or DEX only +1 instead of +2 since the cap is already hit? This way a player who REALLY wants that stronger fighter can slowly boost STR, but at the trade off of increasing a non-capped stat more quickly.

Great idea!
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
I'm not suggesting your starting scores be capped. The cap doesn't affect character generation stats, just what can be added afterwards.

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote.

Your example that I quoted had a STR 16 and DEX 14, and later you said those were (by chance) also the caps at 16 and 14, respectively, that were generated after the character is complete. This implies whatever method you have to generate the caps happened to result in zero room for improvement in STR and DEX but happened to allow CON to go from 12 to a cap of 20.

So, my point was I wouldn't like a cap system that could result in less than 2 points of improvement over my initial scores (thus allowing at least a +1 modifier improvement).

I like that a lot.

Great idea!

Cool! I hope it helps somehow in getting you where you want to be.
 

dave2008

Legend
Right now for every pc ever all stats are capped at 20. What if during character creation we rolled some dice to determine the max a stat could be?

Has anyone used such a method. Would you like this?

I give different stat caps to different races, but I've never done it arbitrarily.
 

Jacob Lewis

Ye Olde GM
You don't create "diversity" by taking away or limiting players' abilities to make choices.

You want players to play fighters who aren't focused on Strength? You need to figure out why they don't. The obvious answer is because the game is designed to mechanically support fighters with higher Strength scores. Period. If you limit their primary ability, you are effectively limiting the potential for that class they had chosen to play unless you provide the means for that character to fulfill its potential with a different ability score. Dexterity already does this because there are a number of options and features, like finesse and ranged attacks, to make it viable for that class (and others).

But suppose you create similar options for other characteristics, like Intelligence? 3/3.5 gave lots of incentives for fighters with at least 13 Int with feats like Expertise, Disarm, etc. In this proposed system, however, what incentive would a fighter have for raising his Int score to 18 or 20? If the only reason is because he is no longer able to invest in the stat that truly helps his character perform in his chosen role, that hardly seems fair to the player who chose that character in the first place.

The game is supposed to be about choices. If a player chooses to play a fighter who doesn't have the best strength, that is their choice. They can do that themselves. Having the dice or DM decide it for them is having someone else make the choice for you. I'm sure there are better ways to accomplish this, but D&D has never been very good at it, especially in early editions which unfortunately set the standards with similarly flawed logic.

All that said, if everyone in your group is onboard, go for it. Its no worse than rolling stats randomly to determine what you'll be playing for the rest of the campaign! ;)
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
You don't create "diversity" by taking away or limiting players' abilities to make choices.

You most definitely can create diversity by limiting players abilities to make a choice. You may dislike that method but it accomplishes the goal.

You want players to play fighters who aren't focused on Strength? You need to figure out why they don't. The obvious answer is because the game is designed to mechanically support fighters with higher Strength scores.

What if I think strength and con are the most important stats for a fighter and that they should be more important for any fighter than intelligence or charisma

Period. If you limit their primary ability, you are effectively limiting the potential for that class they had chosen to play unless you provide the means for that character to fulfill its potential with a different ability score.

If your point is that such characters wont be as strong as their 20 stat cap brethren then that's true. I'm failing to see why characters being slightly weaker than what's currently out there now is an argument for not doing this?

Dexterity already does this because there are a number of options and features, like finesse and ranged attacks, to make it viable for that class (and others).

All the stats have a use. Some stats are more important to some classes, but as long as you start with a 14 to 16 you can make do till you develop a different plan for one of those other stats. Maybe it's multiclassing into bard or sorcerer or warlock. Maybe it's making a really hardy con based fighter.

But suppose you create similar options for other characteristics, like Intelligence? 3/3.5 gave lots of incentives for fighters with at least 13 Int with feats like Expertise, Disarm, etc.

Same issues + others with that kind of method. Preqreqs based on stats totally spit in the face of what i'm trying to do. I don't want int fighters fighting just as well as strength fighters.

Besides it still pushes the same cookie cutter optimization methods for characters - albeit maybe the cookie cutter fighter needs 13 int in this game to pick up X and Y feats to be the most optimized. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

In this proposed system, however, what incentive would a fighter have for raising his Int score to 18 or 20? If the only reason is because he is no longer able to invest in the stat that truly helps his character perform in his chosen role, that hardly seems fair to the player who chose that character in the first place.

When you start arguing fair to the player I tune out. That's a boring and simply untrue argument than can be made about anything ever for all time. I mean what the heck does fair to the player even mean?

Anyways, the whole point is for players to play characters they wouldn't normally play because traditionally they aren't optimized enough. I'd say this accomplishes that with flying colors. I've still not seen an example of it not doing so.

The game is supposed to be about choices. If a player chooses to play a fighter who doesn't have the best strength, that is their choice. They can do that themselves.

In either case there will be plenty of choices

They don't do that now - and why would they? It results in an inferior character. So my proposal is to keep strength the most desirable stat for a fighter but to free the player from the cookie cutter optimization that is currently in the game and make optimizing each character an interesting endeavor.

Having the dice or DM decide it for them is having someone else make the choice for you. I'm sure there are better ways to accomplish this, but D&D has never been very good at it, especially in early editions which unfortunately set the standards with similarly flawed logic.

My problem with rolling stats for character generation is that it makes you worse for the whole game with no hope of changing. With random stat caps you at least start out on equal footing and can adjust your character as needed as you level to take into account those discreapencies.

All that said, if everyone in your group is onboard, go for it. Its no worse than rolling stats randomly to determine what you'll be playing for the rest of the campaign! ;)

My only issue with random stat generation is power discrepancy can be really high. random caps with point buy generation doesn't cause those big power discrepancies and can be planned for by the player in the leveling process.
 

Draegn

Explorer
My game does not have caps. Using "white room theory crafting" and the house rules we have it is possible for a player to raise one of their character's attributes from 18 to 30 by level 15. However, they would do this at the expense of improving nothing else. An illustrative example would be a wizard starting with intelligence 18 who raises it to 30 at level 15 but can only cast the same starting spells he had at first level and nothing else.

So I ask what is the point of having caps if it is the player's choice to "cripple" himself in some other way?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top