Abilities Capped at 20 Won't Work

[Alukane]

No he can't get wiser. At the time he begins adventuring his brain had already developed nearly his maximum potential. But through experience (i.e. levelling) he can use better his already powerful wisdom. He learn new spells, he get bonuses to skills etc...

Including all the bonus in the abilities means that the different paths of a rogue and a ranger, both with dex 30 (+10) leads to the same AC, to hit and damage bonuses...

 

[vagabundo]

Limiting ability scores to 20 means you can't have superhuman characters. This is kind of a problem for some people and styles.

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).

 

[Stalker0]

Now ability represents raw talent before experience.

I had thought that there was a quote somewhere mentioning ability scores now present BOTH raw talent and experience. A 20 str fighters isn't just strong, but he has trained to use his strength to its fullest advantage.

Am I making that up in my mind?

 

[ren1999]

No he can't get wiser. At the time he begins adventuring his brain had already developed nearly his maximum potential. But through experience (i.e. levelling) he can use better his already powerful wisdom. He learn new spells, he get bonuses to skills etc...

Including all the bonus in the abilities means that the different paths of a rogue and a ranger, both with dex 30 (+10) leads to the same AC, to hit and damage bonuses...

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.

 

[ren1999]

I had thought that there was a quote somewhere mentioning ability scores now present BOTH raw talent and experience. A 20 str fighters isn't just strong, but he has trained to use his strength to its fullest advantage.

Am I making that up in my mind?

Aren't you just quoting me in another thread?

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!

 

[CleverNickName]

Actually might enocurage 18/12/10.... builds and 14/14/14/14/14/14 builds

True...assuming they do not change the rules for point-buy.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I prefer it that ability scores do improve with level. Every other RPG system out there has a mechanic for improving ability scores. And improving ability scores represent an aspect of character growth narratively.

Like how after years of being side by side with the intelligent wizard, the big dumb brute, becomes less dumb. Yes, I know this is an argument from improving ability scores that aren't the character's primary.

I'm really against any magic item that improves a character's ability scores though, it was one of the biggest things I hated about 3e. Every character had to have these 6 particular magic items, and the level scaling was built around that expectation.

As for the cap of 20, 20 might be a fine cap for being below level 20, but if it follows the 4e assumption that "Epic level" where characters become legends and demigods, then epic level shouldn't have that cap.

 

[CleverNickName]

What's the argument for it? Balance? Anything else? I don't see anything convincing here.

Well, there is also simplicity of math. One of the most common complaints with 3.x and 4E games was the amount of math you had to use. "Roll 1d20, then add your ability mod, then another mod, then another mod, subtract this mod, add another..." It was tedious to keep track of, it was easy to make mistakes, it slowed the game down, and it made game balance more difficult as the levels increased. Trying to balance an encounter for a party of four, 1st level characters is easy...balancing an encounter for a party of five, 12th level characters requires a lot of fuzzy math, broad assumptions, and "on the fly" changes during combat.

But isn't balance enough of a reason? The balance issue isn't going to be resolved unless they find a way to level the math at the very core of the game. The easiest way (and best, in my opinion) to do this is to cap the ability scores.

 

[Balesir]

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...

 

[Trance-Zg]

I like the cap, but I would like to see racial difference in caps. why should max dex be equal for humans and elves?

And why only +1 racial bonus? Not +2?

So I would give elves +2 dex racial and set their cap at 20m humans would have cap at 18. or 22 and 20. Point is that best human can't be as good as best elf in dexterity.

Same goes for dwarfs, orcs etc...