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

[Mattachine]

So I hope for a baseline of relatively low cap, and then a module for added wahoo which includes rules for uncapped attributes and class, feat and magic options for raising attributes. Since scaling up has always been easier than scaling down.

Cheers

Given the mess most editions have made of high-level and high-level play, I think this assertion (scaling up is easier) is demonstrably false.

Scaling up or down is difficult if the system is made such that it does not account for the possibility of scaling.

 

[BobTheNob]

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.

This debate has been made in other threads and I have contributed to those as well. Im not going to re-iterate points as that just becomes petty squabbling.

I disagree with your analysis and your drawing conclusions as to my intentions. Some growth is needed, yes, but we are intelligent beings and part of that is learning from mistakes. Rampant growth is as viral to high end play as no growth at all. Its a balance. You have assumed with your post that because I said "No stat growth" that I said "No growth", and frankly, you just got that plumb wrong. It isnt what I meant at all.

I think there are other ways to skin this cat and frankly, what you posted, of course its true, I just didnt argue it because I like a certain brevity to forum posts, and I assumed stating such obvious points irrelevant given the caliber of reader enworld enjoys.

 

[Hassassin]

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?

By stats you mean ability scores and by abilities all the things characters do, correct? (Sorry, term overload in D&D is confusing.)

I agree with you that something must change in the numbers for there to be growth. However, the fewer moving parts, the less likely things break down. If each roll has one constant part (ability modifier) and one that changes with level (BAB/skill bonus/whatever) it makes the math easier. There's no real *need* to have ability scores increase, if the other things already do.

The reason why it's ability scores that should IMO remain constant is that they are inherent, compared to things like BAB, skills, saves represent the character's training. You basically divide the character's numbers into nature (ability scores) and nurture (the rest of the modifier). Furthermore, BAB et al are derived from class, so that means characters of different classes can grow better at different things.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

As I demonstrated, the characters "inherent qualities" only change by a fraction of a fraction over the course of 20 levels. And so say they wouldn't change after months, years of adventuring and training? Strength isn't genetic, neither is intelligence, ESPECIALLY not wisdom, I mean the very definition of "wisdom" is knowledge gained over time. Time passes in the game and prospectively you know more now than you did then. Barbarians may even learn to read!

To treat ability scores like fixed numbers is to deny a whole host of reality. Beyond which the actual numerical growth over the leveling process is insignificant. If the game math is having trouble handling a +2 to your modifiers by final level, there is a serious problem in the math.

 

[steeldragons]

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?

This isn't "hypocritical", shidaku.

The game worked just fine, for a few decades, without character ability scores mystically "going up" every couple of months of in-game time.

"After a few weeks of adventuring, you return to town remarkably more skilled. You've learned how to use this new weapon effectively, are able to avoid certain types of damage more effectively, maybe picked up/got trained in a new fighting style/stance/non-weapon skill...and, somehow, you now also notice that you are as strong as a fire giant."

To argue (or demand) that ability scores need to increase with level or we don't need abilities at all is taking it a bit...over the top. Maybe a bit?

Incongruous, perhaps. But it is not "hypocritical." And definitely not necessary for the game.

Just mho.

 

[Sunseeker]

This isn't "hypocritical", shidaku.

The game worked just fine, for a few decades, without character ability scores mystically "going up" every couple of months of in-game time.

Good for it. Times change. I'm tired of the "well it worked in this edition" argument.

"After a few weeks of adventuring, you return to town remarkably more skilled. You've learned how to use this new weapon effectively, are able to avoid certain types of damage more effectively, maybe picked up/got trained in a new fighting style/stance/non-weapon skill...and, somehow, you now also notice that you are as strong as a fire giant."

If you want to make your party return to a trainer before they can "level up" that's all fine and dandy. And don't exaggerate, as I pointed out, without magical enhancements, the best you can achieve in any score is a 25(3d6+2 racial+5 leveling). By 20th level, yeah I can reasonably see characters being pretty durn powerful.

To argue (or demand) that ability scores need to increase with level or we don't need abilities at all is taking it a bit...over the top. Maybe a bit?

Without progression there is no point for leveling. So suggest that one's wisdom, physical strength, or flexibility do not increase with serious adventuring is just silly.

 

[billd91]

As I demonstrated, the characters "inherent qualities" only change by a fraction of a fraction over the course of 20 levels. And so say they wouldn't change after months, years of adventuring and training? Strength isn't genetic, neither is intelligence, ESPECIALLY not wisdom, I mean the very definition of "wisdom" is knowledge gained over time. Time passes in the game and prospectively you know more now than you did then. Barbarians may even learn to read!

To treat ability scores like fixed numbers is to deny a whole host of reality. Beyond which the actual numerical growth over the leveling process is insignificant. If the game math is having trouble handling a +2 to your modifiers by final level, there is a serious problem in the math.

All role playing games deny massive hosts of reality. It's how they simplify extremely complex universes into playable formats. Reducing ability scores into a set of fixed values is no worse than many other abstractions. I would argue that allowing limited and moderate inherent increases compared to more rapid increases from equipment (including magic) and career experience would be a better reflection of reality than either static or fast paced advancement, though.

But either way, there's no hypocrisy here. There are just different ways of designing character development in satisfying and reasonably robust ways.

 

[S'mon]

A traditional AD&D game often breaks through the cap of 18 on ability scores simply using the magic items provided in the DMG, or the bonuses to Int, Wis, and Cha from natural aging.

Uhm, no it doesn't. Not if it's using the rules in the book.

Edit: Exception for girdles of giant strength, which do raise STR above 18.

 

[Sunseeker]

All role playing games deny massive hosts of reality. It's how they simplify extremely complex universes into playable formats. Reducing ability scores into a set of fixed values is no worse than many other abstractions. I would argue that allowing limited and moderate inherent increases compared to more rapid increases from equipment (including magic) and career experience would be a better reflection of reality than either static or fast paced advancement, though.

Sure, but the argumentation for limited ability scores tend to run along the lines of "no human could wrestle a giant!" so on the one hand the arguments for limitations are "well that's not realistic!" and then when presented with how reality ACTUALLY works the argument is now "well that's unrealistic!" Denying reality is fine and dandy, I just don't appreciate the two-faced nature of the argument. Either we're shooting for more realism, or we're not. Shooting for more realism while ignoring reality isn't a very logical thought process.

Well, the simple solution to magic items is just to not make them available in YOUR game, not to remove them from the game as a whole. And I would say that +1 every 4 levels is a fairly reasonable amount of advancement.

 

[billd91]

Either we're shooting for more realism, or we're not. Shooting for more realism while ignoring reality isn't a very logical thought process.

How about shooting for more realism in some aspects of the game and abstracting away from it in others? There's nothing illogical about that. Different elements within the game may support or even necessitate difference levels of abstraction.

And then you also have to look at different people having differing opinions on the matter. You're only going to find a two-faced argument if it's the same person taking both sides. Are you really seeing that or are you building up two sides (yours and theirs) despite the many varied viewpoints people are expressing?