D&D 5E Please Cap the Ability Scores in 5E

[Tequila Sunrise]

One of the things that bothers me about newer editions of the game is ability scores. Specifically, how there is no limit or "cap" to them. This means that a person can eventually attain a Strength score higher than the gods themselves through the proper application of perks, gadgets, and magic.

I've been wondering; in a world like pre-4e D&D, if PCs can boost their stats with wishes and booster items...why aren't the gods making bigger wishes and wearing better items?

If gods have stats at all, they should absolutely be outpacing PCs in the stat race. Unless possibly if we're talking Boccob vs. Bob the Legendary Fighter.

Secondly, if 5e is going to have more significance laid on attributes as they have said, then I'd prefer to see the range between highest and lowest reduced - uncapped attributes make that much harder. I'd like attributes to be important but not overwhelming.

Stat boosting, period, makes it hard to limit the range between highest and lowest. Which is why I believe that any stat boosts -- whether from levels, wishes or items -- are more trouble than they're worth. We must put an end to the haves and the have-nots, my brothers and sisters!

...Okay, never going to happen.

 

[the Jester]

Rather than capping ability scores, I'd cap bonuses from ability scores.

You have a 13 or higher? +1.

You have an 8 or lower? -1.

You have above an 18 (or perhaps 20, or 22, or...)? +2.

That's it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Stat boosting, period, makes it hard to limit the range between highest and lowest. Which is why I believe that any stat boosts -- whether from levels, wishes or items -- are more trouble than they're worth. We must put an end to the haves and the have-nots, my brothers and sisters!

...Okay, never going to happen.

Thing is, it worked for RQ. You rolled your stats, your racial maximums were based upon the dice rolled (if you rolled 3d6, your racial max was 21), you could increase most ability scores by time & training (or temporarily by magic for 2 minutes) - and there were ability scores for creatures. Big ability scores too - a giant would have 18 +3d6 per 2m of height for its strength (a 6m giant would have Str of 9d6+18, or about 50. Ain't no human going to win an arm wrestle with him!)

Maybe it wouldn't work for D&D rules, but as a concept it can certainly work

Cheers

 

[Sunseeker]

Thing is, it worked for RQ. You rolled your stats, your racial maximums were based upon the dice rolled (if you rolled 3d6, your racial max was 21), you could increase most ability scores by time & training (or temporarily by magic for 2 minutes) - and there were ability scores for creatures. Big ability scores too - a giant would have 18 +3d6 per 2m of height for its strength (a 6m giant would have Str of 9d6+18, or about 50. Ain't no human going to win an arm wrestle with him!)

Maybe it wouldn't work for D&D rules, but as a concept it can certainly work

Cheers

From level 1 to 20, a player will only get a total of +5 through leveling.
Sans magical enhancements, that's at best a +2 to any given roll, and they won't have that +2 until 16th level. I would argue that by 16th level any player has earned a +2 to any given roll.

I agree that racial bonuses should be toned down, I am highly favorable to the +2/-2 system. But even so, we're talking about an additional +1. Assuming the player is human, gets an 18 in their best stat, the maximum value they could get(without magical aid) by 20th level is 25.

I really don't think a 25 in a primary stat is unreasonable AT ALL for a 20th's level character. If you're concerned about statflation, simply trim the magical enhancement items from the available list.

A 20th level warrior with a 24(since that extra 1 doesn't matter) in strength is only getting a +7 bonus to hit/damage. For a 20th level character, that sounds pretty reasonable.

 

[BobTheNob]

I feel like I have stepped off a space ship reading this thread. Previous thread (cant be bothered looking up) asked the question about whether stats should increase at all and I got the impression there was a growing number of people who were all for stats not even increasing (myself included, hence why I voted for "something else").

My vote is, dont increase stats with level up. In review its one of the things about 3e/4e that "looked great on paper" but really didnt (IMO) add value. If anything, it just threw off the math and made leveling messy.

Upping stats with level is (again, IMO) just one of those failed experiments which is making WOTC look back over previous editions for which elements work, and Im hoping they look past 3e to when stats were static.

I dont care about the cap question, cause I just dont want stats going up with levels, so cap doesnt matter to me.

 

[Sunseeker]

I feel like I have stepped off a space ship reading this thread. Previous thread (cant be bothered looking up) asked the question about whether stats should increase at all and I got the impression there was a growing number of people who were all for stats not even increasing (myself included, hence why I voted for "something else").

My vote is, dont increase stats with level up. In review its one of the things about 3e/4e that "looked great on paper" but really didnt (IMO) add value. If anything, it just threw off the math and made leveling messy.

Upping stats with level is (again, IMO) just one of those failed experiments which is making WOTC look back over previous editions for which elements work, and Im hoping they look past 3e to when stats were static.

I dont care about the cap question, cause I just dont want stats going up with levels, so cap doesnt matter to me.

If stats don't improve, and we nerf enhancement gear into the ground, how exactly does it differentiate anything, at all? If you have a system in which levels exist, you need higher numbers at one end and lower numbers at the other. If the most powerful god is only 2 points different from the most lowly soldier, WHAT exactly is the point?

More tricks? More tricks are just that. TRICKS. All flash and no substance. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind wanting a game to start and end at 1.

 

[Hassassin]

If stats don't improve, and we nerf enhancement gear into the ground, how exactly does it differentiate anything, at all?

BAB or other level dependent attack bonus. Skill bonuses. Level based defenses/saves.

 

[howandwhy99]

Maybe we should talk about dice roll mechanic design? What modifiers mean in relation to these rolls changes significantly depending upon how the mechanics function.

I think the popular understanding is d20-based. Rolls are strictly additions to the natural number line, most being 20 numbers wide with randomness equaling a linear distribution. Higher numbers simply meant bigger results.

Numbers were capped in the earlier editions, I believe, because modifiers were on a bell curve, a curvilinear distribution. If 10.5 was the average, a 14 might be +1, 16 +2, and 18 +4. Imagine what happens with ability scores in the 20s and 30s with these modifiers?

 

[Sunseeker]

BAB or other level dependent attack bonus. Skill bonuses. Level based defenses/saves.

So, for some reason BAB, defenses, and saves can all increase...but actual stats don't. How is that not hypocritical? And if stats aren't changing and we're deriving our abilities from everything else, why do we need stats at all?

 

[billd91]

So, for some reason BAB, defenses, and saves can all increase...but actual stats don't. How is that not hypocritical? And if stats aren't changing and we're deriving our abilities from everything else, why do we need stats at all?

It's not hypocritical at all. There's no reason to expect a character's inherent qualities should advance like his professional skills. That said, I still like a certain amount of potential for stat increases. I just believe that liking one but not the other had nothing to do with hypocrisy.