Ability Scores - Should they increase?

[Stalker0]

Quick, crazy idea.

What if ability scores had a cap. You get ability bumps, but they can't push a score past a certain point.

So if I'm a human fighter with 16 strength, I can put up to 2 points into strength, for an 18.

But if I have an 18th strength, those points have to go elsewhere, like con.


In this scenario, ability bumps actually curb specialization instead of aggravate it.

 

[A'koss]

I also like ability score increases and implementing a +1 to *all* ability scores / x levels will keep the disparities from getting out of hand. As an adventurer it's fairly easy to rationalize improving across the board...

 

[Keldryn]

Quick, crazy idea.

What if ability scores had a cap. You get ability bumps, but they can't push a score past a certain point.

So if I'm a human fighter with 16 strength, I can put up to 2 points into strength, for an 18.

But if I have an 18th strength, those points have to go elsewhere, like con.


In this scenario, ability bumps actually curb specialization instead of aggravate it.

I could go for that. If your primary stat is already reasonably high then players can feel free to improve other areas without optimization-minded players looking at them like they're stupid.

I'd XP you, but apparently I need to spread it around first.

 

[Kaodi]

I will always be a fan of point buy. Within this, I also like the idea of reaching maximum potential.

So here is what I propose. It borrows from some other ideas.

1. The maximum bonus possible in each ability without extraordinary augmentation is 18 + racial modifiers.
2. Any character can train an ability up to 14 + racial modifiers, no matter their starting score.
3. To increase your potential beyond 14 + racial modifiers, you must expend points from a potential pool. You do not need to decide what your maximum potential in every ability is at 1st level, though you do need to spend potential points if any of your abilities at 1st level are above 14 + racial modifiers.
4. Starting abilities are generated by a combination of standard array plus a small number of points in an ability pool. While most people are likely to assign their initial ability points at 1st level, the option to not do so exists primarily for roleplaying purposes (apprentice or out of shape characters, et cetera). At each level you gain more points in your ability pool and you may expend them at level up or at any time during gameplay the DM feels would be appropriate to allow it. You do not get racial bonuses to your abilities directly.

 

[nnms]

I'd rather ability scores only increased under special circumstances.

The only real reason they increase in 4E is because the encounter math dealing with defenses, skill DCs, to hit numbers, etc., assumes a certain rate and stat increases are one source of it.

Also to give the players the illusion that they are getting better when they are actually just keeping up with how monsters, DCs, etc., are scaling as they level up.

 

[MerricB]

Stat increases should be very uncommon or extremely slow or both.

The percentile increment system that 1e Cavaliers had works well for all classes - you get to roll some dice each level-up (and IME people love rolling dice!) but you're only likely to have a stat or two go up by one point during your career due to it.

On average, you gained +11% to each stat every level. Given you were having three stats going up, that meant you had a stat increase (on average) every 3 levels!

Cheers!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Quick, crazy idea.

What if ability scores had a cap. You get ability bumps, but they can't push a score past a certain point.

So if I'm a human fighter with 16 strength, I can put up to 2 points into strength, for an 18.

But if I have an 18th strength, those points have to go elsewhere, like con.


In this scenario, ability bumps actually curb specialization instead of aggravate it.

I dislike caps on principle as always an inelegant kludge used when the real, underlying problem is not handled. I can never quite shake the thought that something more elegant would have worked better. That said, sometimes kludges are necessary, and if there has to be a cap, I like that version of it.

 

[Mika]

Editions before 3E got by fine without automatic ability score increases, so why can't 5E? If ability scores are understood as raw talent, then they should actually matter less as you gain levels but give you a big boost at lower levels.

Here is one idea: Set attack bonus equal to a formula that is mostly based on your level, with no bonus for the ability score modifier. If your relevant ability score bonus is higher, use that instead. Even with special magic items (the most likely way that you could still improve abilitiy scores), your level should eventually outstrip your ability score modifier to the point that the original ability score is useful mainly for things outside of your area of expertise.

This approach could demonstrate just how dangerous a character like Cohen the Barbarian really is, even with the hit he would have taken in 3E for being in the Venerable age category.

 

[Hassassin]

A simple way to get diminishing returns to ability scores would be to instead of automatic +1 allow a new ability roll: if you roll over your current ability, add 1. No need to count partial ability points.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think ability scores have to be a lot less powerful. Now, with counting for so much having a high score is just indispensible, especially in 3.x where you plain could not reach high level spells without a stupidly high ability.

I do not mind ability scores counting for skills and maybe saves, but not much else. Other things should be more on levels.