Abilities Capped at 20 Won't Work

[ren1999]

I want to talk about ability scores again. Here are humans with the highest ability scores of 20. This includes practice, experience and learned feats.
Ability Scores

But this does not account for magic items and spell effects. With spells and magic, we can become stronger than Arnold and smarter than Einstein.

If dragons are going to be stronger than humans even with magic, then humans should be stronger than halflings even with magic.

An 18 represents the limit of human ability. But dwarves, elves and halflings aren't human. They should have different ability limits.

 

[enigma5915]

Although some studies show the human brain fully develops at around age 22, other studies show that the brain reaches full cognitive potential in our 30s and 40s.

Someone noted that a Halfling should never be as strong as a human. I think we need to start looking at some racial ability scores assigning a difference of 1d4.

That someone was me. And yes the races need to be looked at with a bit more detail and distinction between them. A halfling should never be as strong as a human (without magical aid) and likewise a human should not be as strong as an ogre.

Racial minimums and maximums should make some sense...even in a fantasy make believe world. again...just saying.

 

[ren1999]

A halfling should never be as strong as a human (without magical aid) and likewise a human should not be as strong as an ogre.

Racial minimums and maximums should make some sense...even in a fantasy make believe world. again...just saying.

Please say more about it because it is a good idea.

Do you have racial limits for some of the races already thought out?
What should be the ability caps for all 6 abilities for the Halfling, the Dwarf, the Elf, the Human?

Ah! I have an idea.

All abilities are maxed at 20 except
Dwarf max strength and constitution max is 21
Halfling max dexterity and charisma max is 21
Human max 2 abilities is 21
Elf max intelligence and dexterity is 21

 

[ren1999]

How about this idea as a compromise.

Humans may not exceed 20(+5) in ability scores stacking non-magical bonuses.

non-magical bonuses are
race bonuses
class bonuses
level-up ability bonuses
feat/power bonuses

Humans ma not exceed 30(+10) in ability scores stacking magical bonuses.

magical bonuses are
magic items
spell, prayer effects

A character could become as strong as a dragon with magic if the DM allows such magic items or spell effects to exist.

How is that for a compromise?

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

How is that for a compromise?

No good because if you make it possible to have a 30 in strength then every fighter will strive for 30 in strength and the game will have to be balanced against the fighter with 30 strength so we'll have to have magic and stuff to make sure all fighters have 30 in strength.

Flat math better. End ability score inflation now. Only you can prevent character sheet fires.

 

[steeldragons]

This would only cover the first 20 levels of play. I'd assume the cap would be broken if they did epic levels (20-30).

I would assume that "epic level play" is a completely different module/style of play. yes, there will probably be expansion modules for stuff beyond 20. But honestly, if you want/have to play [or worry about] between 20 and 30 levels (in D&D terms) alllll of the time, then you are better off playing something other than D&D, imho.

I think ability scores should represent raw talent and gained experience. That's why they should go up.

But as another comment said, if you get nicked in the head, perhaps your intelligence and wisdom should go down!

Dude...again, 5e does not appear to be for you. You have something to say (often the same things) over and over about it not giving you, quite obviously, what you want. AND THAT'S OK!!! It does not mean that 5e needs to incorporate every idea you have to make it "ok" for others!

I have heard/read an overwhelming appreciation for just about every aspect of the presented playtest (barring certain conventions like AoO and movement stuff and, moreso from you than anyone else, increasing ability scores). It should be obvious, from the overwhelming response to THIS particular thread, that many [if not most] people don't want or need ability scores over 20 to make the game work!

Ability scores capped at 20 seem to work for pretty much everyone. All characters don't need to be a superhero in D&D. That's what superhero RPGs are for! Will they get there? With an "Epic Level Handbook", very possibly. Do certain races being able to start the game at "higher than humanly possible" in certain abilities make sense? YES! Does the pinnacle...absolute perfection of human possibility maxed out at 20 make sense? YES! It does.

If the "low" numbers don't work for you, then play what you play...make your own game and/OR houserule 5e to make it what you want. It is obvious [to me] that that is not what many [if not most] of the rest of us do. Accept it. Make your decisions...and move on.

I respect the opinions, ren1999...I really do! Just about any or all of us have altered things in our games to get that sweet spot of "what [we] want". It just seems you are intent on fighting an uphill battle, at all costs, with things very few people have an issue with. AND, that's all they are...your opinions of what makes a "better" [HUGEly subjective] game.

No one can "make" you like flat math (and perhaps "limited" to your eyes) progression...no one can "make" you like a more Basic or 1e D&D experience...and no one should try to. By the same token, you should not be trying to tell everyone else what they like/want/should want is incorrect or misguided because YOU [think you] know differently.

Cheers and happy gaming.
-SD

 

[Steely_Dan]

Str was capped in 1st Ed, well, save Thor - 25 special, baby!

I love the flattening of the math action, the way a 3rd/4th Ed character can naturally (no magic) get to be able to bench press a small car gets a tad silly, IMO.

As for characters not being able to reach the ability scores of certain monsters and gods, fine, I'm not keen on mortals being as intelligent as an immortal devil, or as strong as a titan (without magic).

And, as another poster said, when a bonus to a d20 gets to a certain number, the d20 becomes irrelevant, just rolling for a fumble or critical.

 

[Lwaxy]

An 18 represents the limit of human ability. But dwarves, elves and halflings aren't human. They should have different ability limits.

For physical attributes I agree.

 

[VannATLC]

Leaving aside the arguments over flat(ter) maths per se, the cap I see as odd is not the 20 one for "adventurers" (though why do they need to be defined as inferior to the most powerful monsters, exactly?), but the 30 one for "monsters and divinities". This will mean that, in an opposed roll (or "contest" or whatever they want us to call it, now), an average man-in-the-street has about a 1 in 9 chance of beating a god(dess). I do hope the world fluff is adjusted to give the same description of the game world(s) as this mechanic does...

Then play book makes it quite clear the DM should be adjudicating what is and is not a contest. I would not be allowing contests against gods without excellent narrative. IE, I expect my genius wizard with 20 int might actually be able to pull a fast one on the mighty-yet-dumb god of thunder, for instance, but my STR 20 fighter will be pulverised if he attempts to match the 30 STR of same god.

 

[Minigiant]

Str was capped in 1st Ed, well, save Thor - 25 special, baby!

I love the flattening of the math action, the way a 3rd/4th Ed character can naturally (no magic) get to be able to bench press a small car gets a tad silly, IMO.

That's your opinion. I don't know how a fighter who can't toss around 250 lbs can successfully stab a dragon outside of a sneak attack. Only so many "between the plates/scales" examples can happen before it gets silly.

As for characters not being able to reach the ability scores of certain monsters and gods, fine, I'm not keen on mortals being as intelligent as an immortal devil, or as strong as a titan (without magic).

And, as another poster said, when a bonus to a d20 gets to a certain number, the d20 becomes irrelevant, just rolling for a fumble or critical.

I never got the "the d20 roll MUST MATTER" argument.

At work, I can't fail at basic stuff outside of a critical fumble (nat 1).
Someone of the street can't succeed without a critical success (nat 20).

---

Also I found another issue.

With caps and flat math, characters at the ability cap have the same or similar modifiers... no matter the flavor.

A Str 20 fighter might only had +1 over a 20 Str wizard or cleric at every level.

That is one ting that felt weird about 4E. A cap makes it worse.