Abilities Capped at 20 Won't Work

[AntiStateQuixote]

As a 3e-turned-4e DM, I intensely dislike uncapped player character ability scores. I would rather have characters bump up against the cap and then get the opportunity to broaden their horizons by boosting lesser-used stats.

I also think that if stat-boosting items are to return, they should have diminishing returns. For example gauntlets of ogre power could provide a +6 to characters with strength 13 or lower, +4 if 14-17, or +2 if 18+.

Or could simply give you a strength of 18/00?

 

[Tehnai]

I'm fine with not providing ability-score boosts at certain levels, or magic items that do the same. But ability-score caps are just the lazy-mans solution to the problem.

There does however have to be progression in some form. Attacks get more accurate, more powerful, something. Gaining new "options" is neat, but ultimately pointless if none of the options are explicitly better than the others.

That aside, no growth in abilities directly punishes the non-Vancian. A Wizard doesn't ever need more than an 18 Int, but they keep gaining more spells of increasing power. A fighter who gets no stronger, hits no harder, or more accurately is just a pile of HP, he gets nothing.

It has been said that the fighter will grow in damage, and looking at the playtest, he does gain extra attacks at level 2, extra damage and cleave at level 3, all augmenting in some way, his damage output. It makes sense to only boost damage and HP if we embrace the concept of abstract HP. I mean, it makes it so the fighter's hits are tougher to dodge, taking more of a toll on his opponent's stamina, until he can't dodge anymore and takes a lethal attack. Or in the case of weaker monsters, it makes it so an attack that should've hit is always deadly.

 

[Remathilis]

Not only do I disagree, I believe the opposite: I'd rather Bab, saves, and skill bonus increased with level than ability scores do. At least that assumes skill and training that increased with level, rather than raw ability increasing....

 

[keterys]

I'm absolutely fine with not increasing ability scores, or minimally increasing them. I think that hard caps (ex: 18 - 20) are necessary for the new math to have a prayer of working.

The OP's premise is also flawed - if you're not capped, then you're incentivized to get that 18 or 20 to start and maximize it as much as you can. If you're capped, though, there's room to diversify around the other stats, wait til higher level to hit the cap, hope for an item, whatever.

Unbound stats that scaled continually were a huge problem with 3e and to a slightly lesser but still very large problem with 4e. I don't feel a need for 18/100 str or items that give out 24s, but BECMI had some better ideas on stats for PCs than those editions

 

[Astrosicebear]

I do not think (pg3, ability modifiers, par3) states anything close to ability scores being capped. So I think until we get confirmation on that, this discussion is purely theoretical.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it places too much importance on players wanting to roll the highest abilities they can for the best possible character.

If this is an issue, there will definitely be a defaul point-buy method in the core rules.

Two reasons to cap ability scores and avoid increases by level:

1) Not everybody likes a marvel/superheroes RPG. Uncapped ability scores give you exactly that, because when your Fighter has the same Strength as an elephant or your Rogue has the same Dexterity as a hummingbird, they are not humans anymore.

2) If the core rules caps ability scores, it is a piece of cake to uncap them as a house rule and give whatever rate of increases by level you wish, and then just throw more or bigger monsters at the party. But if the core rules start with uncapped scores and regular increases, then the whole game (especially monster design) is going to assume the PCs have them (see 3e and 4e), and house rule the other way around is more difficult.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The only thing is that if rolling for ability scores is in, there could be a decent disparity.

 

[eamon]

I'd prefer no abilty score changes, ever (outside of plot devices, yadda yadda) - certainly not as a form of buffing, item collection, or levelling.

If there's going to be any ability score increases, I can live with generic levelling bonuses as long as the player can't choose which scores to increase (i.e. if everything increases equally).

e.g., I could imagine a flat +1 to all ability scores every few levels or so, just as a means for a very limited all-around levelling power gain. That might feel suitably epic eventually. But not too much, and certainly not selectively.

As soon as there are any selective ability score gains, there's going to be stat divergence. Based on 3e and 4e, once the genie is out of the bottle it seems hard to contain; Skills there are so divergent most challenges turn out to be impossible for some and trivial for others in the same party. Let's make that the exception, not the norm. This just means players are going to be strongly encouraged to do anything to bring their strong scores to bear and avoid their weak scores; so rather than interact with the world and choose an in-game believable path, they'll try to squeeze a solution out of their core strengths, reasonableness be damned because that's just the smart thing to do if you want to overcome the challenge. Which leaves the DM with the choice to (1) railroad and basically say what they have to do (2) give in and just ignore the fluff (3) use huge, swingy, easy to get wrong situational modifiers so that the players need to play guess-what-the-DM-is-thinking.

Capped ability scores are OK, but no (selective) increases is even better.

 

[Grazzt]

Once again, I disagree with you.

A cap on stats is essential to flattening the math, if we're keeping bonuses for ability scores as they are since 3.0 (i.e., 12 gives +1, 14 gives +2, etc).

Personally, I think we need to go further and reduce the rate of stat increase as well.

Yeah. This. AD&D worked fine for a lot of years with capped ability scores.

 

[BobTheNob]

I actually think capping at 20 will work. Thanks for putting your arguments forward, but they didnt compel me.