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

[Falling Icicle]

I wouldn't have a cap, but I would make things that increase ability scores very rare.

 

[Lanefan]

As I mentioned earlier, if the cap is close to PC starting values, then it becomes harder to describe many monsters using ability scores. That was the case in AD&D, and it was problematic when spells and effects targeted an ability score, like ray of enfeeblement or some poisons. What was the strength score of a titan, a huge dragon, an apatosaurus, the tarrasque, and Zeus? All had a 25? As said by others, caps have the side effect of sameness near the cap.

The monsters you list here could pretty much have any strength score you want to give 'em. They're certainly not restricted to the same limits as Humans and just as certainly don't all have to be the same.

Side note: one big mistake 1e made IMO was not to give strong creatures e.g. Giants their strength bonuses in combat.

Lanefan

 

[Recidivism]

I don't see that the numbers in the game need to correspond with any real world measurements of Strength, Dexterity, etc, the numbers themselves provide differentiation without reference to the setting. Therefore I'm fine with ability scores being within a certain defined range if it improves the overall game experience.

If my campaign is based on the Brian Jacques stories I can define the average strength of a mouse as 10 without going into paroxysms that rats and mice are generally not as strong as a human. Similarly in a superhero campaign, I think it's fine to assume that everyone is automatically physically superior to non-superheroes, even if they've only got a 10 in a stat.

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)?

Kinda curious what the numbers on real world lifting capacities you're citing are.

Unfortunately this is an area that D&D rules model poorly, so it's unlikely that we can really say, "The maximum score for a human in reality is X."

I doubt, for example, that a weightlifter would retain a "Dexterity Bonus to AC" when lifting their maximum weight. In fact walking at all seems to be virtually impossible when lifting that much weight. So it's arguable this scenario would be covered under the clause that allows creatures to lift up to double their heavy load value (Ref). Thus a Strength 18 human would be able to lift up to 600lbs but is effectively immobilized by doing so.

Not too surprising that it would work out this way, since it's more than likely that the designers of the encumbrance chart used actual weightlifting records in the real world (rounded off) to benchmark what an 18 Strength would be in D&D.

 

[Mattachine]

The monsters you list here could pretty much have any strength score you want to give 'em. They're certainly not restricted to the same limits as Humans and just as certainly don't all have to be the same.

Side note: one big mistake 1e made IMO was not to give strong creatures e.g. Giants their strength bonuses in combat.

Lanefan

Of course, if some creatures have ability scores over the cap, then the cap only exists for PCs. That creates the stat envy that existed in AD&D--why can't my fighter have a 19 Str with some item/spell/wish/etc.?


I still contend that rather than making a base version of 5e that is the simplest, and using modules/supplements to only add up, the base game should present what appeals to the plurality of players. Just as some modules can present systems that make the game more complex or PCs more powerful, another module can take complexity out of the game or make PCs less powerful.

If the game is designed from the beginning with the knowledge that there will be simpler and more complex versions, adding or taking away will be just as easy. I just wouldn't buy a game that I don't want play "out of the box". I don't think most people would--that means the base game has to appeal to a large group of potential players.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't see that the numbers in the game need to correspond with any real world measurements of Strength, Dexterity, etc, the numbers themselves provide differentiation without reference to the setting. Therefore I'm fine with ability scores being within a certain defined range if it improves the overall game experience.

I'm fine with ability scores being within a certain range (well, actually prefer), if it improves the game experience also. But I'm slightly confused by your post, as I haven't said that the numbers need to correspond with the real world...

I have said that in my games, I'd have a cap whether D&D Next has one or not. I also said that I absolutely would not like to see ability scores above 25 due to the game changing nature of such high bonuses, and would actually prefer it around 20 for that same reason (the improving the game experience part you mentioned). The comparison I made to real world lifting capacities was strictly in response to those that were talking about the realism, or un-realism, of extremely high Strength scores - and for those that wanted to cap it much lower than real world lifting capacities while saying they wanted it for realism purposes (or at least that's what I thought they were saying).

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said the game needs to correspond with the real world. (My game does, The Game does not...)

If my campaign is based on the Brian Jacques stories I can define the average strength of a mouse as 10 without going into paroxysms that rats and mice are generally not as strong as a human. Similarly in a superhero campaign, I think it's fine to assume that everyone is automatically physically superior to non-superheroes, even if they've only got a 10 in a stat.

I understand what you're saying, and that's great for you and your games. But D&D has never been designed around a system of relative Ability scores. They've always had absolute lifting capacities related to them.

A relative Ability score system would be interesting, and even useful in some situations, but it's not what is commonly accepted as "D&D". That would be a rather significant change involving the slaying of a sacred cow for inclusion in the core (if that's what you're proposing), and require DM's to be more educated on how an underlying math affects the system and garners a specific "feel". You, and most DM's here, probably wouldn't have a problem with that. But DM's here are not most DM's when it comes to the entire pool of DM's and gamers. D&D Next needs to work for DM's and groups that aren't as into game mechanics and the underlying math as the DM's and gamers that visit ENWorld and similar sites. And, I think most people are okay with the slaying of sacred cows, if it's necessary for the basic game, but not just to model certain game styles or feels that aren't the majority preference.

Kinda curious what the numbers on real world lifting capacities you're citing are.

Unfortunately this is an area that D&D rules model poorly, so it's unlikely that we can really say, "The maximum score for a human in reality is X."

I doubt, for example, that a weightlifter would retain a "Dexterity Bonus to AC" when lifting their maximum weight. In fact walking at all seems to be virtually impossible when lifting that much weight. So it's arguable this scenario would be covered under the clause that allows creatures to lift up to double their heavy load value (Ref). Thus a Strength 18 human would be able to lift up to 600lbs but is effectively immobilized by doing so.

Not too surprising that it would work out this way, since it's more than likely that the designers of the encumbrance chart used actual weightlifting records in the real world (rounded off) to benchmark what an 18 Strength would be in D&D.

Yeah, D&D Strength scores aren't exactly "scientific", but I think they're more than good enough for government work a game.

As to how I determined real world Strength scores in comparison with D&D: I used exactly what the D&D designers did - real world weightlifing records (rounded off also). Which puts the current female weightlifting record holder at 21, and the current male weightlifting record holder at 23 (at least at the time I made my chart). Also, according to RAW (3E), characters do not retain their Dexterity bonus to A/C (it gets severely limited) nor do they retain their normal movement rate (it also gets severely limited) when lifting certain weights, and the double weight can only be staggered around with. (4E is a slightly different story...though similar enough in most respects.) What you say about the way it should be, is pretty much the way it actually is...

But, did you look at the pdf? (It was right there at the bottom of my post, but I recopied it below for your convenience...)

To break down how I got the results I did:

3E/4E: 23 Strength
Bonus = +6/+6
Light Load = 200 lbs. or less/230 lbs. or less (no AC or movement penalty for either 3E or 4E)
Medium Load = 201-400 lbs./- (Max Dex +3, Check Penalty -3, speed 20 ft./15 ft., normal run x4) - (no medium load listed in 4E)
Heavy Load = 401-600 lbs./400 lbs. (Max Dex +1, Check Penalty -6, speed 20 ft./15 ft, run x3) - (4E = Slowed to movement 2, can't effectively attack or defend)
Lift over head (clean and jerk) = 600 lbs. - (no listing for 4E)
Lift off ground (dead lift) = up to 1200 lbs. (between 600 lbs. and 1200 lbs. lift, character can only stagger around - no movement, no Dex bonus, cannot perform another physical skill, etc.) - (4E = 400 lbs. ???)
Pull/Drag Weight = 3000 lbs./1060 lbs. (3E: up to double for favorable conditions, 1/2 for unfavorable - and doesn't specifically say, but movement is assumed to be minimal also with no attack or defending) - (4E: impossible in difficult terrain, slowed)

Hossein Rezazadeh - Clean and Jerk World Mens Olympic Record 578.6 lbs. (D&D 3E: 23 Strength = 600 lbs.)

Jang Mi-Ran - Clean and Jerk World Womans Olympic Record 412.3 lbs. (D&D: 20 Strength = 400, if rounding down, 21 = 460, if rounding up)


I used the same formula for all the other people and strengths on the pdf.





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

 

[Recidivism]

As to how I determined real world Strength scores in comparison with D&D: I used exactly what the D&D designers did - real world weightlifing records (rounded off also). Which puts the current female weightlifting record holder at 21, and the current male weightlifting record holder at 23...

Well I don't want to get too much into this but you continue to assert this as if it were fact and I don't feel like you've really demonstrated that it's the case.

D&D doesn't have rules for a clean & jerk or any other extraordinary but unsustainable effort, but it's pretty clear those guys don't retain any agility when they're lifting that much, or even retain the ability to breathe normally. Definitely seems to fall under the lifting rules IMO, putting the world's strongest man at 18 strength and the world's strongest woman at 16.

 

[El Mahdi]

Well I don't want to get too much into this but you continue to assert this as if it were fact and I don't feel like you've really demonstrated that it's the case.

D&D doesn't have rules for a clean & jerk or any other extraordinary but unsustainable effort, but it's pretty clear those guys don't retain any agility when they're lifting that much, or even retain the ability to breathe normally. Definitely seems to fall under the lifting rules IMO, putting the world's strongest man at 18 strength and the world's strongest woman at 16.

I'm considerably confused by this.

Clean and Jerk is lifting a weight off the ground and to chest level using a jerking technique that incoporates all the bodies muscles. And then uses another move (the Clean) to go from chest to over-head (still using all of the bodies muscles). Snatch is another technique, but one that's significantly different (goes straight from the ground to over the head using arms, upper body, and back - but not the legs, pauses with arms locked out, and then stands up using the legs). Since I assume that D&D characters aren't lifting a weight over their head for sport, but out of necessity, I assume they are going to use the most effective technique (the one that allows them to lift the most weight). That would be the Clean and Jerk.

I'm not sure what the disconnect here is though. What do you believe "Lift over head" entails?

The only other option I can imagine is Shoulder Press, which is limited to lifting a weight that starts at head/shoulders/chest level position and isolates the shoulder muscles (not allowing the use of other muscles like the legs and back).

Why would a D&D character finding themselves in a situation where they need to lift a weight over their head, limit themselves to using only the weakest muscles in the process?

What are you using as "lift over head" to limit to an 18 strength?

Isn't the Strength score supposed to be modeling the complete lifting capacity of the characters muscles...all of their muscles (not just certain muscles)...?

I'm not trying to pick an argument, I'm just honestly confused as to what else there is to model strength on...

 

[Janaxstrus]

I don't want any limits, really. I liked how 3, 3.5 and Pathfinder do it. Wasn't a fan of the limits in 1 and 2 at all. I don't like stat limits, level limits, gender differences, etc etc

In fact, the more I read about all these changes people want to see, the more I think that if even 50% make it into the game, this won't be the "One Game" to bring everyone together. No +n weapons, no alignments, etc etc

 

[Sunseeker]

In fact, the more I read about all these changes people want to see, the more I think that if even 50% make it into the game, this won't be the "One Game" to bring everyone together. No +n weapons, no alignments, etc etc

I tend to get the same feelings. But then that seems to be the disconnect between early editioners and later editioners.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I tend to get the same feelings. But then that seems to be the disconnect between early editioners and later editioners.

Agreed. I'm in favor of having weapons that are "magical" but don't confer to-hit bonuses, instead incorporate some of the bonuses/magical effects from the 3.5 MIC (Bluesteel, etc), but I see no reason to get rid of +1 through +5.

I personally feel things like "Max of +2 weapons available" should be covered
on a campign by campaign basis. The core default should maintain the +1 through +5 system.