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

[Sunseeker]

Again, that's not two-faced. It probably is realistic for a stat to be limited within the bounds of what those stats mean in D&D. And I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic to disallow the improvement of a stat (not just strength) due to adventuring - but that depends a bit on what you think those stats really signify. Are they the PC's ultimate potential? A starting point? Worth even revisiting from the standpoint of personal improvement within the bounds of the game?

In my opinion, they are a starting point.

See, this makes it sound like you want a cap too. Why change the math calculation when you can have the strength value plateau instead?

There's a difference between a soft cap and a hard cap. Saying you can NEVER be any stronger/smarter/faster than the day you started is different than saying that stat has diminishing returns. Having soft caps allows people to keep pushing those limits if they choose to. After 20, you may need 4 points to generate a +1 mod increase. After 24, you might need 6 points, and so on. You can keep going, keep pushing those numbers if you want to, but their benefit id decreased.

The difference between a hard cap and a soft cap? A hard cap limits you, it tells you that you can't ever be any better than X. A soft cap only tells you that the benefit of scores beyond a certain point are less valuable. Leaving it up to the player to decide which stats they find valuable and at what point that value changes.

But different aspects of a stat.

Not different enough in my mind to be able to be addressed separately.

 

[Mattachine]

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.

Other DMG items raised stats above 18, too, even permanently (such as the many tomes, sometimes found as treasure in published modules for mid- to high-level PCs). Effects in the Deck of Many Things, plus items that granted wishes could accomplish such effects.

Also, I would argue that 18/xx str is also "above 18".

Anyway, the hard cap of stats in AD&D caused compression at the top end, as I said, wherein the god of knowledge had no higher Int than some supra-denius demigod, and all big creatures essentially had the same Str score.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think it really makes much of a difference if the push is coming from rolled stats or point-buy. Point scarcity in point-buy will drive it as much as getting a low to fair roll will. As long as a player lacks resources, points or high rolls, to design the character to be the ultimate he wants him to be, there will always be a push for ways to improve over time.

That's true for people that want the "big stats" for whatever reason. I was referring more to those that found themselves on the bad side of boundaries for the next +1, though.

In Basic, if you managed to roll 2 8s, 2 12s, and 2 15s, you got 2 each of -1, +0, and +1. If you rolled 2 8s, 2 13s, and 2 14s, you got 2 -1s and 4 +1s. The second is far more viable, and hardly the most extreme example I could list. (Both of those are pretty decent for Basic.)

Of course, if you are rolling 3d6, arrange in order, then chances are any character that survives long enough for you to care will produce a bit of desire for stat growth on both counts.

By the time we are talking, say, 28 point point-buy, I'd just as soon trade in all stat increases for negotiating more points up front. Get the stats you want, and let's get on with it.

Contrawise, if characters are rolling, or deliberately starting way below potential, I don't mind some increases over time. In that case, I want it to be heavily biased towards shoring up weaknesses rather than boosting whatever strengths are already present. I'd like the fighter that rolled a 13 Str to have more opportunities to boost than the guy who rolled a 16.

 

[Primal]

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.

It may be a bit problematic if your skills don't increase. If I've understood correctly, the designers want to emphasize the meaning and importance of ability scores in D&DN, and this applies to skills as well.

My impression is that they're thinking of something like focuses in Dragon Age RPG, but in DA the difference between a skilled and an unskilled PC is quite insignificant; you simply roll 3d6 + stat, and you get +2 on top of that if you have a relevant (skill) focus. For example, a beginning character might get +5 on a strength check to burst through a door, while a heroic PC gets something like +8 (assuming both have the Might focus, naturally). You do get +1 bump to a primary score every other level, but that's it; there is no other way than to raise your Dex to become, say, a better pickpocket.

The designers have also mentioned scrapping stat bumps... which means that there needs to be more skill/focus ranks in 5E than in DA, otherwise there will be a huge pressure to roll good initial stats and very little to differentiate a master from a beginner. Especially so if there are hard stat caps (18 or 20) in the game. If they want to go down this route, I think the 4E model for skills is ideal; a level-based bonus plus ability score modifier, and maybe some racial/theme bonus on top of that.

 

[Sunseeker]

By the time we are talking, say, 28 point point-buy, I'd just as soon trade in all stat increases for negotiating more points up front. Get the stats you want, and let's get on with it.

This kind of system I could agree with caps. Get the scores you want from the get-go to actualize your character as you envision it and then go with it. The less satisfying your scores are, the less you feel they represent your character, the more you're going to want ways to improve them.

 

[Hassassin]

So adjust the math for carrying capacity, some of those numbers are just silly. Carrying capacity should plateau, not increase exponentially(sans magical reasons).

To me carrying capacity is pretty much the definition of a strength score. A typical peasant has Str 10 *because* he can carry around 100 lb. of stuff comfortably. Str 18 represents the 0.5% who can wear something like 300 lb. of gear and still fight.

That's one of the main reasons I think there should be no non-magical advancement beyond 18 for humans. I don't particularly care if there is advancement within the human range, i.e. capped to 18, but I don't think it's worth the costs in math and complexity.

To sum up my opinion on this matter: 3-18 should by definition be the range of human potential. There should be no non-magical advancement beyond that (except in superhuman epic levels). Additionally, level-based ability increases don't add enough to the game to be needed, but I don't feel strongly about them.

 

[Sunseeker]

To me carrying capacity is pretty much the definition of a strength score. A typical peasant has Str 10 *because* he can carry around 100 lb. of stuff comfortably. Str 18 represents the 0.5% who can wear something like 300 lb. of gear and still fight.

To me carrying capacity has always been one of those "if you're not going to make it realistic, why bother" sort of situations. I'd be more than happy if I never had to deal with it.

That's one of the main reasons I think there should be no non-magical advancement beyond 18 for humans. I don't particularly care if there is advancement within the human range, i.e. capped to 18, but I don't think it's worth the costs in math and complexity.

I hardly see it as a complex issue. 18+1 is 19. Complicated? uh...

To sum up my opinion on this matter: 3-18 should by definition be the range of human potential. There should be no non-magical advancement beyond that (except in superhuman epic levels). Additionally, level-based ability increases don't add enough to the game to be needed, but I don't feel strongly about them.

The idea that your "potential" has limits doesn't really sit well with me as a good mechanic for a fantasy game. Defining fantasy by the limits of mundane, real-world humanity seems to take the "fantasy" out of it. I'm not talking about being godly powerful like Hercules here, but I do think that fantasy characters ought to verge on the exceptional.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can't really see it working in the AD&D, 3E, 4E or later line, but one thing I was always tempted to try in BEMCI/RC was to reverse the XP bonus for high stats into a penalty. And then add bonuses for the corresponding low stats. So if are so lucky to get that naturally talented 16 Str as a fighter, you lose 10% of all gained XP--you do a certain amount of coasting on talent. Meanwhile, that implausible fighter with an 8 Str is gaining 5% on all XP--working hard for everything.

If you take that underlying logic, work it around to make it more palatable to later versions, you end up with--high stats costs you elsewhere. Could be less feats--or requiring feats to boost stats beyond preset arrays. Could be less skills. Up until recently, there really wasn't much that you could trade for the better stats. Now there is.

 

[Hassassin]

I hardly see it as a complex issue. 18+1 is 19. Complicated? uh...

I said even within the range. It's not the math itself but its implications. My Str increases to 14 so I need to update about 20 things on by sheet. With most other increases it's only one number that needs to be adjusted. It's also difficult to weight the consequences raising one vs. another ability.

The idea that your "potential" has limits doesn't really sit well with me as a good mechanic for a fantasy game. Defining fantasy by the limits of mundane, real-world humanity seems to take the "fantasy" out of it. I'm not talking about being godly powerful like Hercules here, but I do think that fantasy characters ought to verge on the exceptional.

My idea of heroes are people who do great things despite their human limits.

Characters should be exceptionally skilled and even exceptionally able (being in the 0.5% is very exceptional), but they shouldn't become superhuman before epic. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[El Mahdi]

To me carrying capacity is pretty much the definition of a strength score. A typical peasant has Str 10 *because* he can carry around 100 lb. of stuff comfortably. Str 18 represents the 0.5% who can wear something like 300 lb. of gear and still fight.

I agree completely with this. Which is why I don't understand the following. It seems like a contradiction, unless we're talking about Strength Score carrying capaicities in an edition other than 3E or 4E.

That's one of the main reasons I think there should be no non-magical advancement beyond 18 for humans. I don't particularly care if there is advancement within the human range, i.e. capped to 18, but I don't think it's worth the costs in math and complexity.

To sum up my opinion on this matter: 3-18 should by definition be the range of human potential. There should be no non-magical advancement beyond that (except in superhuman epic levels). Additionally, level-based ability increases don't add enough to the game to be needed, but I don't feel strongly about them.

Real World lifting capacity, using the lifting capacities for Strength Scores in 3E and 4E, put the strongest real world man at 23, and the strongest real world woman at 21. I could even see the argument for slightly higher scores in a Fantasy Game, though higher than 25 really stretches the bounds of believability for me.

But if you believe that lifting capacity is the definition of Strength, and you want them to be realistic with the real-world, then why cap at 18 (which isn't a realistic limit)?

Size and Weight to Strength comparison and analysis of D&D characters.pdf