Ability Score Capping... with added Sanity.

[Umbran]

Yes, there may be more dwarven fighters than elven fighters, but -- if you have an elf fighter -- that character should be able to hit the opponent just as well as the more numerous dwarven fighter allies. Similarly, dwarven thieves might be rarer than halfling thieves, but a lower dex cap shouldn't limit the dwarven character.

Yes, well, if they can do the job just as well, why are there fewer of one than of the other.

In addition, "able to hit the opponent just as well" does not necessarily equate to, "has the same strength". For example, if the elf has the 5e equivalent of Weapon Finesse, that elf may hit as well, without being as strong.

Plus, there's more to being a fighter than hitting. There's also doing damage. There's also soaking damage. There's also not getting hit in the first place.

I don't mind much if some races just aren't suited for some classes. Maybe halflings don't make great front-line fighters. I'm okay with that. I prefer the Star Trek approach - IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Celebrate the variations of the universe, rather than attempt to iron out all the wrinkles.

 

[FireLance]

Rather than flat cap everyone's scores at 20, why not cap them at base score +10.

So, for humans, scores would cap out at 20, regardless, whereas elven constitution would cap out at 18 and elven dexterity would cap out at 22.

It's BRILLIANCE... and works out wonderfully... because if an elven warrior caps out at 20 constitution... and a dwarven warrior caps out at 20 constitution... well, it just doesn't differentiate the two altogether that much.

This is an awesome idea. Four gold stars!

Wait ... did you quote the wrong guy by mistake?

 

[FireLance]

Back on topic ... I'm quite happy to cap mundane increases to ability scores, but powerful magic (stat boost items, wishes, tomes) should always be able to exceed these limits, IMO.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

If I recall correctly, 1e had racial attribute caps.

 

[Mercule]

I'm agreeable to the basic idea, but I want to add another cap: 1st level/starting ability scores cannot be more that base + 8.

 

[Lanefan]

Back on topic ... I'm quite happy to cap mundane increases to ability scores, but powerful magic (stat boost items, wishes, tomes) should always be able to exceed these limits, IMO.

As long as stat-boost items aren't as dime-a-dozen common as they were in 3e, I'd be cool with this.

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

As long as stat-boost items aren't as dime-a-dozen common as they were in 3e, I'd be cool with this.

Unless the game goes some really strange place into the Narrative space, frequency of items will always be in the hands of the GM. The designers can suggest they be rare, but that's about it.

 

[KidSnide]

The key to differentiating an elf and a dwarf is in the secondary attributes, not the primary attributes. Yes, there may be more dwarven fighters than elven fighters, but -- if you have an elf fighter -- that character should be able to hit the opponent just as well as the more numerous dwarven fighter allies.

Yes, well, if they can do the job just as well, why are there fewer of one than of the other.

I don't mind much if some races just aren't suited for some classes. Maybe halflings don't make great front-line fighters. I'm okay with that.

Lots of reasons. Just because the average dwarf is less dexterous than the average elf, doesn't mean that the average PC dwarf rogue is less dexterous than the average elf rogue. Unless, the weakness is supposed to be part of the race, I don't see why we should handicap PCs.

If every class is best played by a small number of races (like 4e) many interesting party concepts (e.g. the "all dwarf party") become much harder to play optimally. I don't want a party of all dwarves to play like a party of all elves, but 4e-style racial balance disadvantaged those parties too much when compared to a party made up of optimal race-class pairings.

The one exception I'll grant you is the halfling (or gnome) example. Those races explicitly have "small" as part of their identity. That's a limitation (or, in some editions, an advantage) that is build into the race, and I think that's fine. I don't mind if a small number of races aren't any good with specific classes. It's a problem when a given class is dominated by a small number of races.

In addition, "able to hit the opponent just as well" does not necessarily equate to, "has the same strength". For example, if the elf has the 5e equivalent of Weapon Finesse, that elf may hit as well, without being as strong.

Plus, there's more to being a fighter than hitting. There's also doing damage. There's also soaking damage. There's also not getting hit in the first place.

That's all true, and -- to a certain extent -- I'm still reacting from my experience with 3.x and, more recently, 4e. At least with 4e, hitting was so important because the cool effect riders also required a hit. If hitting is a less essential part of effectiveness (or, possibly better, stat bonuses didn't affect the to hit modifier), then the balance issue becomes less important and it's easier to let game world ideas about stat modifiers dominate stat modifiers.

-KS

 

[Mercule]

Unless the game goes some really strange place into the Narrative space, frequency of items will always be in the hands of the GM. The designers can suggest they be rare, but that's about it.

3e made some pretty strong assumptions about math. Sure, you could adjust for it, but it was much more difficult than in AD&D.

From the sound of things, this is one place 5e will return to its roots. I, for one, am extremely happy with that decision.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I like the idea of Stat mods from race and class, with the bonus not stacking. Magic items could also modify, but again not stack, and should be limited to a +1, keeping the +2 from race and Stat the prefered.

This way the base character building would be the flat 3 to 20.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2