Hard Stat Cap of 18?
- Thread starter Charwoman Gene
- Start date
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
I would like to see a cap of 18 +/- racial modifiers. There could be other ways of raising your stats above the limit to reach demigod-like levels of prowess, such as magic items, wish spells, and the like. Having a cap on your "natural" ability score would serve to make such things more precious and amazing.
As for what good can come of capping it, I can think of primarily two things. First, it prevents players from min-maxing their stats to extremes. In 3rd and 4th edition, it is simply assumed that you will pump up your primary class stat(s) as high as possible. A wizard would be idiotic, for example, to not increase his Intelligence every chance he gets. By having a cap, you can make a more well-rounded character and not be "punished" for doing so. Your wizard might increase his low Strength or Charisma as he advances, and doing so would no longer be foolish. Likewise, you could make a wizard with a 14 Int at character creation and not be screwed over for doing so, since you will have the opportunity to catch up later. In a capless system, you will never catch up, ever. The result is that people can make a wider variety of viable characters, and can worry more about what they'd like their character to be for roleplaying reasons rather than being forced to follow the same cookie-cutter mold in order to be effective.
Second, and most importantly, the more players are allowed to put into a single stat, the more the gap widens between that stat and their other stats (and the lower stats of their opponents). This is particularly important in a system where every ability score is used to make saving throws. Imagine a wizard with an Int in the high 20s or even 30s, using that stat to set the save DC on a spell that targets Cha or Str or some other ability score that the target only had at 10 and has never increased with level. He will have little chance at all to succeed at the saving throw due to that huge difference in scores. Having a cap prevents such massive differences from accumulating. This was a particularly big problem in 4e, and resulted in what were, IMO, ridiculous feats that let players use different stats for attack rolls, and so forth. Why? Because the designers recognized this issue and made a band-aid fix for it in the form of feats. In a system with ability score caps, such things are unnecessary.
As for what good can come of capping it, I can think of primarily two things. First, it prevents players from min-maxing their stats to extremes. In 3rd and 4th edition, it is simply assumed that you will pump up your primary class stat(s) as high as possible. A wizard would be idiotic, for example, to not increase his Intelligence every chance he gets. By having a cap, you can make a more well-rounded character and not be "punished" for doing so. Your wizard might increase his low Strength or Charisma as he advances, and doing so would no longer be foolish. Likewise, you could make a wizard with a 14 Int at character creation and not be screwed over for doing so, since you will have the opportunity to catch up later. In a capless system, you will never catch up, ever. The result is that people can make a wider variety of viable characters, and can worry more about what they'd like their character to be for roleplaying reasons rather than being forced to follow the same cookie-cutter mold in order to be effective.
Second, and most importantly, the more players are allowed to put into a single stat, the more the gap widens between that stat and their other stats (and the lower stats of their opponents). This is particularly important in a system where every ability score is used to make saving throws. Imagine a wizard with an Int in the high 20s or even 30s, using that stat to set the save DC on a spell that targets Cha or Str or some other ability score that the target only had at 10 and has never increased with level. He will have little chance at all to succeed at the saving throw due to that huge difference in scores. Having a cap prevents such massive differences from accumulating. This was a particularly big problem in 4e, and resulted in what were, IMO, ridiculous feats that let players use different stats for attack rolls, and so forth. Why? Because the designers recognized this issue and made a band-aid fix for it in the form of feats. In a system with ability score caps, such things are unnecessary.
I don't care for hard caps for the same reasons as Crazy Jerome. I'd be perfectly fine without any ability score increases in 5e, but if they are there I think they should pretty much operate like point buy. That is, small ability scores need few points to raise, and larger ones require more. Maybe the game would grant 1 point every 2 levels or something like that. One could raise small scores fairly quickly, or save for a few big bumps. (Even Wish, if it exists, would only be able to raise ability scores in this way.) For the first time ability score increases could actually serve to slightly reduce character disparity.
I mean, what incentive is there to increase any score but the one or two highest in 3e/4e? Almost none, as those ability scores simply have the highest impact on the character both mechanically and often thematically. Let's recognize high scores have greater value and move on. Plenty of people will diversify, either because they finally feel free to do so or because they want instant gratification. For the patient not much will feel as satisfyingly well-earned by their character as bumping themselves just into superhuman strength over the course of 8 levels.
For me the question is if die-hard rolling-only character creation people would reject point buy even for this purpose. I'd guess most would not since the process is "organic" over the course of the campaign, just like any other element of advancement. That said, point-buy vs. rolling can be such a rancorous topic that I can't totally dismiss it.
I mean, what incentive is there to increase any score but the one or two highest in 3e/4e? Almost none, as those ability scores simply have the highest impact on the character both mechanically and often thematically. Let's recognize high scores have greater value and move on. Plenty of people will diversify, either because they finally feel free to do so or because they want instant gratification. For the patient not much will feel as satisfyingly well-earned by their character as bumping themselves just into superhuman strength over the course of 8 levels.
For me the question is if die-hard rolling-only character creation people would reject point buy even for this purpose. I'd guess most would not since the process is "organic" over the course of the campaign, just like any other element of advancement. That said, point-buy vs. rolling can be such a rancorous topic that I can't totally dismiss it.
Last edited:
The first thing I dislike about stat caps is, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't seem to add anything to the game but rather subtract from it. It says "no" instead of "yes" for no reason I can see. But the second thing I dislike about it is that it smacks of lazy design. Make the system balanced so that you don't have to hang a bunch of little exceptions on it all over the place.
I think a more interesting question will how the stats interact back on to the character classes.
For example, in 3e and earlier, the highest level spell you can cast is determined by the prime stat for that style of magic (usually Int, Wis, or Cha).
Now, if we go 'back in time' and remove that stat increases that were a product of 3e and 4e will we see as many characters able to reach level 7 to 9 spells or will they again become the item of the rarefied lucky rolls?
It becomes more of an issue if Fighter and Thieves have no barrier to their top level abilities based on attributes but Wizards and Clerics are still bound by their attributes at creation to their maximum potential.
This could become more of an issue if what Monte said that Fireball is a fixed number of dice of damage that does not improve. A wizard with access to only lower level spells will never be able to make them 'pinch hit' for not having access to the higher level spells.
We also might have a return of people condemning a character at creation because it is too weak in rolls to succeed and will be 'crippled' for the entire life of the character based on a few die rolls at the beginning.
For example, in 3e and earlier, the highest level spell you can cast is determined by the prime stat for that style of magic (usually Int, Wis, or Cha).
Now, if we go 'back in time' and remove that stat increases that were a product of 3e and 4e will we see as many characters able to reach level 7 to 9 spells or will they again become the item of the rarefied lucky rolls?
It becomes more of an issue if Fighter and Thieves have no barrier to their top level abilities based on attributes but Wizards and Clerics are still bound by their attributes at creation to their maximum potential.
This could become more of an issue if what Monte said that Fireball is a fixed number of dice of damage that does not improve. A wizard with access to only lower level spells will never be able to make them 'pinch hit' for not having access to the higher level spells.
We also might have a return of people condemning a character at creation because it is too weak in rolls to succeed and will be 'crippled' for the entire life of the character based on a few die rolls at the beginning.
Ok, here's something a bit more crazy:
First of all, assume that stat modifiers are stat-10. That's right, a 10 is +0, a 14 is +4, and an 18 is +8. This spreads ability modifiers twice as wide as standard d20. An 18 is the equivalent of a 26.
Now, with that kind of big spread, you want to make sure that 14-16 is a normal starting stat for attack, with 18 a lucky exception.
Rolling stats
* roll stats, 4d6 drop lowest as the default (average roll: 12.25)
* option to reroll if total bonus is under +3 or no score is 14 or higher
* race gives +1 to one stat; If already 17, add to other stat under 17
* class gives +1 to one stat; If already 17, add to other stat under 17
* feats to make melee attacks with any stat: Weapon Finess (Dex), Titan Style (Con), Tactical Duelist (Int), Mystic Martial Arts (Wis), Champion Style (Cha)
Effect:
* everyone has at least a 14, or 16 if race + class align perfectly
* There is only one way to get an 18: roll it. This will make an 18 fairly rare: 21/6^4 = 1.62% per roll, or 9,34% on 6 rolls
* A minimum 14 is pretty likely (over 40% per roll)
https://klubkev.org/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html
Point buy
Distribute 15 points
score cost
15 7
14 5
13 3
12 2
11 1
10 0
9 -1
8 -2
7 -3
Player choice
Players can choose between point buy and rolling. The rules encourage the DM to be strict with begging for rerolls.
There is a clear benefit to either: With point buy, you can achieve slightly better scores than the roll average (12.25), and a more balanced character. However, without the downside risk of a really bad score, you also don't get the upside of a possible 18. The best you can do with point buy is a 17 with perfectly aligned race and class. If you want an 18, you have to roll. The 18 is reserved for the less than 10% lucky few.
Advancement
PCs get a stat bump every 5 levels. However, you can only raise a stat if it is equal to 10 + 1/2 level + race + class bonus or lower. The same limit applies to all other stat boosters, like Gauntlets of Ogre Power. This will protect the uniqueness of the 18 until level 10.
First of all, assume that stat modifiers are stat-10. That's right, a 10 is +0, a 14 is +4, and an 18 is +8. This spreads ability modifiers twice as wide as standard d20. An 18 is the equivalent of a 26.
Now, with that kind of big spread, you want to make sure that 14-16 is a normal starting stat for attack, with 18 a lucky exception.
Rolling stats
* roll stats, 4d6 drop lowest as the default (average roll: 12.25)
* option to reroll if total bonus is under +3 or no score is 14 or higher
* race gives +1 to one stat; If already 17, add to other stat under 17
* class gives +1 to one stat; If already 17, add to other stat under 17
* feats to make melee attacks with any stat: Weapon Finess (Dex), Titan Style (Con), Tactical Duelist (Int), Mystic Martial Arts (Wis), Champion Style (Cha)
Effect:
* everyone has at least a 14, or 16 if race + class align perfectly
* There is only one way to get an 18: roll it. This will make an 18 fairly rare: 21/6^4 = 1.62% per roll, or 9,34% on 6 rolls
* A minimum 14 is pretty likely (over 40% per roll)
https://klubkev.org/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html
Point buy
Distribute 15 points
score cost
15 7
14 5
13 3
12 2
11 1
10 0
9 -1
8 -2
7 -3
Player choice
Players can choose between point buy and rolling. The rules encourage the DM to be strict with begging for rerolls.
There is a clear benefit to either: With point buy, you can achieve slightly better scores than the roll average (12.25), and a more balanced character. However, without the downside risk of a really bad score, you also don't get the upside of a possible 18. The best you can do with point buy is a 17 with perfectly aligned race and class. If you want an 18, you have to roll. The 18 is reserved for the less than 10% lucky few.
Advancement
PCs get a stat bump every 5 levels. However, you can only raise a stat if it is equal to 10 + 1/2 level + race + class bonus or lower. The same limit applies to all other stat boosters, like Gauntlets of Ogre Power. This will protect the uniqueness of the 18 until level 10.
Last edited:
Some notes from a quick analysis:
* Your change to rerolling (sum 63 instead of +1 sum of modifiers the old way) has a very minor effect of lowering average rolled abilities.
* Considering all > 15 abilities as 15 and all < 7 abilities as 7, rolled abilities average 17-18 with your point buy.
* Counting only ability sets where all abilities are in the range 7..15 the point buy average is 14-15 instead. (This of course discounts most ability score sets.)
* Practically any other method of giving extra value to scores above the point buy range results in average point buy value 20 or more.
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
Hard caps are a very big turn off for me, bordering on dealbreaker. (Speaking of unexpected dealbreakers...) Games where you can't improve your natural abilities are frustrating and don't make sense; combine this with random ability scores and you get a game I have zero interest in playing.
And limiting ability scores to "normal human" ranges in a game with a divine ascension endgame is a perfect example of schizophrenic design goals.
And limiting ability scores to "normal human" ranges in a game with a divine ascension endgame is a perfect example of schizophrenic design goals.
Grazzt
Demon Lord
Suppose there is no divine ascension end game?
Or suppose there is, and once you reach said point, then your scores can go above the maximum...but until that time, they cannot without magical aid.
Similar Threads
