D&D 5E Flat math ability scores vs roleplay considerations

[FreeTheSlaves]

One of the consequences of the new flat math / emphasis on ability scores is that in D&DN the scores are an amalgamation of raw talent and developed skill. Fine so far? Good.

Well now I've got a wee problem, stats go up by level and naturally the prime stat is going to approach the 20 ceiling as the returns per point of allocation is too good to ignore. Nothing too bad here, although I do wonder why bumping a 18 to 19 costs the same from bumping an 8 to a 9 - I mean elite athletes improve incrementally by slender margins whereas Joe Newbie could see a 20% increase in say 4 weeks. Simplicity is a virtue, but does it outweigh a nod to the bell curve sacred bovine?

Anyway I digress, the problem I have is the narrative attached to ability scores.

Say if my fighter has 16 str at level 1, well I'll make up a character story that accounts for the impressive, but less than peak ability in this area. Then the levels begin to accumulate and stat bumps come & go and soon I'm looking at the post-18 range and scratching my head. Is this the same character I started with?

Ok, I can get with the program, abilities represent skill too now. But wait a sec, my carry load just increased too. I know about pack fitness but my guy can now also bend thicker bars and throw heavier things as examples. He actually is stronger.

I know, I don't have to bump the prime scores, heck I don't have to bump anything, my buddies won't mind. Erm, except those higher level monsters are getting a bit tough - or is that just me?

The above is a bit of a ramble, but is there a problem here?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

• Many people like ability increases as a form of character advancement.
• Many people increase their primary attack ability score in order to get better at what they are already good at, at the thing they do most often.
• If the defences of monsters increase at a rate that takes this into account, then the primary attack ability score advancement becomes necessary to keep up.
• If they don't, choosing to increase the primary attack ability score is still highly recommended.
• So ability score increases force a certain pattern of behaviour. 4E allowed two increases, so you could choose to increase another ability, but keep up with the attack/defence curve, though often the second increase was to a key secondary ability for your class.
• Either they follow 4E to prevent the feeling of having to keep up with the curve, or they don't include any ability score increases, or they enforce increasing non-highest abilities, or something, because a plain +1 to an ability will almost always go on your primary (the exception being when you have an odd score to increase and a spare +1 across levels 1-20 that won't be of any use on your primary score).
• I would prefer no ability score increases, particularly given the low scores they have planned for monsters. No Fighter should end up naturally stronger than a hill giant.

 

[Li Shenron]

The easiest solution would indeed be to just not have any ability increase by level.

I don't think that ability scores should really represent skill. They should represent "raw" capabilities. BUT raw capabilities CAN be increased during life (and can also be decreased by age, but this is another topic). Everybody knows that if your job demands physical efforts, your Strength increases, but that is also true about all the other abilities: you CAN train your Intelligence or your Charisma and so on.

So maybe a second possible approach would be to allow ability score increases by level but instead of capping them at 20, capping them at e.g. +2 or +3 from your starting score.

Alternative, instead of a fixed cap, this could actually be inherently done by granting them at a slower pace, e.g. only 1 increase every 4-5 level but you cannot increase the same score twice in a row (thus each score can increase only every 8 or 10 levels).

 

[Cadence]

Will spells require 10+ability of level or higher to cast?

Will how much creatures can carry/lift/throw be based on both STR and size, with large weapons having a higher base damage already?

 

[Sekhmet]

Post 18 scores in any attribute are reserved for the most prime specimens of that ability, invariably moving toward monsters and demigods as examples, especially in the Strength and Dexterity attributes.
A man's strength score could be improved to 22-24 quite readily, with only a few years of hard training. I'm not sure I see an issue with your Fighter moving from 16 to 18 within the course of a levels.
The real concern is moving beyond human limitation into the realm of fantasy, where you birth the magic items, legends, and even demigods of the past. As an example, many magic items were created by absorbing a small amount of their wearer's prowess, such as Gauntlets and Girdle of Ogre Power/Strength (which he would have worn for improved grip and back support, rather than as ability boosters), Bracers of Archery (which he would have worn to protect his wrist, rather than to improve his aim), and so on.
Heroes have entire legendary personalities attached to them for singular attributes, like Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, Elminster, or Mata Hari. This wouldn't happen if their attributes were of median stock.
Some demigods exist only to be paragons of ability, like Hercules, the Red Knight, or Velsharoon. Some were even promoted to demigodhood because of that ability.


So, to put it shortly, I don't mind boosting ability scores higher than is humanly possible, because after level 5 or 6 (when stats become that high, anyway), you're already heading into the super human.
The stuff of fantasy, heroism, and legend are the things D&D characters strive for - they need the super-human ability scores to reflect that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Will spells require 10+ability of level or higher to cast?

I wouldn't mind to see that rule disappear.

In 3ed it meant two things:

- that every spellcaster just HAD to get at least 19 early or late in their career, because being totally blocked after some point was a terrible prospect

- that ability score damage or drain required another thing to keep track of

I am actually a fan of the second, but I never liked the first.

 

[kerleth]

I kinda think it's not an issue. We'll know more when the new playtest packet is released later today, but if the earlier chart is any indication than it would take 8 levels for a 16 strength to turn into an 18. That's a lot of shield blocks and axe swings. In real life people get stronger from training, and it's not like the fighter went from weakling to Hercules in one adventure. A +1 bonus to bending bars after 8 levels isn't really immersion breaking.

 

[edhel]

Well now I've got a wee problem, stats go up by level and naturally the prime stat is going to approach the 20 ceiling as the returns per point of allocation is too good to ignore. Nothing too bad here, although I do wonder why bumping a 18 to 19 costs the same from bumping an 8 to a 9 - I mean elite athletes improve incrementally by slender margins whereas Joe Newbie could see a 20% increase in say 4 weeks. Simplicity is a virtue, but does it outweigh a nod to the bell curve sacred bovine?

How about instead of giving points to the ability scores, you give points for point buy?

E.g. your fighter advances to 4th level and gets 2 points which he can use to raise his Dex 10 to 12 or his Con 14 to 15. (I'm using the 3.x point buy values here). If you wanted to raise your highest attributes, you'd have to invest several attribute raises to increase them. It's a bit fiddly but makes more sense in your bell curve context.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm in favor of not having stat increases. It causes problems with the math. If you want flatter math, it should be universally flatter. Slowing down the increase to attack bonuses from going up levels does nothing if you can still increase your stats every couple of levels.

Then again, I already don't like the fact that stats matter so much. Ideally, I'd like to see the difference between an Excellent stat modifier and a Terrible stat modifier to be no larger than 3 to discourage people from maxing their prime stats.

Both 3e and 4e annoyed me with their "Every character starts with a 20 in their prime stat or you are an idiot" philosophy. And it looks like it's coming back in D&D Next.

 

[Steely_Dan]

No Fighter should end up naturally stronger than a hill giant.[/LIST]

The 1st level halfling fighter that's as strong as a hill giant messes with my head.