Capping Ability Scores

[airwalkrr]

Now I think 3e messed up a lot of things in AD&D, but that's just me and I realize not everyone agrees. But with that in mind, one of the things that has always bugged me about 3e is the way ability scores suddenly sky-rocketed. Wizards walking around with an intelligence of 30 and Warriors with a strength of 35!

On the flipside, I was always frustrated by AD&D's static ability scores and the inability to increase them without magic. Plus the effect of a pair of gauntlets of ogre power was dramatically higher on a character with a 3 Strength than one with a 16 or 17 (and almost useless for one with 18). I never liked these things and I think the bonus to ability scores from magic items and the ability score boosts every four levels were a welcome addition to the game.

So (finally getting around to the point), what do you think about capping ability scores at 18 plus or minus racial modifiers? I'd maintain the 3e way of doing things for the most part but a human for example, could never have higher than an 18 in any ability score without magic. Now obviously, I would have to adjust the rule on spellcasting which requires 10 + spell level for the ability to cast, but changing that to 9 + spell level doesn't seem like such a big deal.

I realize this limits the power of the PCs a bit, but I don't think it is drastic and I think it enforces the idea of an ideal or peak ability in one score that is unimprovable without magic. I think there should be an upper threshold for those kinds of things.

 

[Narsil]

I personally think it's a bad idea.

With this, you make it a complete and utter impossibility for there to be such a thing as a Half-Orc Wizard or any kind of wizard with a negative starting score to Intelligence (a starting intelligence of 16 can make for a halfway decent Wizard, while having your intelligence stop at 16 makes for a very crappy Wizard), and most Epic Feats are now rendered unattainable due to the ability-score requirement.

 

[jeffh]

Now I think 3e messed up a lot of things in AD&D, but that's just me and I realize not everyone agrees. But with that in mind, one of the things that has always bugged me about 3e is the way ability scores suddenly sky-rocketed. Wizards walking around with an intelligence of 30 and Warriors with a strength of 35!

On the flipside, I was always frustrated by AD&D's static ability scores and the inability to increase them without magic. Plus the effect of a pair of gauntlets of ogre power was dramatically higher on a character with a 3 Strength than one with a 16 or 17 (and almost useless for one with 18). I never liked these things and I think the bonus to ability scores from magic items and the ability score boosts every four levels were a welcome addition to the game.

So (finally getting around to the point), what do you think about capping ability scores at 18 plus or minus racial modifiers? I'd maintain the 3e way of doing things for the most part but a human for example, could never have higher than an 18 in any ability score without magic. Now obviously, I would have to adjust the rule on spellcasting which requires 10 + spell level for the ability to cast, but changing that to 9 + spell level doesn't seem like such a big deal.

I realize this limits the power of the PCs a bit, but I don't think it is drastic and I think it enforces the idea of an ideal or peak ability in one score that is unimprovable without magic. I think there should be an upper threshold for those kinds of things.

I suspect you've seriously underestimated how much rebalancing would be needed to get this to work. Everything in the game, at higher levels, assumes that characters will have ACs, attack bonuses, saves, spell DCs, skills and so on that can only be achieved with 20+ ability scores.

I'm reasonably sure your objection is merely aesthetic and/or a case of being used to the pre-3E way of doing things. My suggestion is to simply get used to the idea that a 25 (say) in 3E does not mean the same thing as a 25 in any previous version of the game.

 

[irdeggman]

Also you will be going down a path where every PC will likely end up with approx the same abiity scores by 20th level.

If they are capped then the player will place an ability score increase into a score that is below 18 with the end result being that the all start to lok the same.

Add into this the now limiting benefit of magic items (and spells) that increase ability scores - things get into an even more all characters have identical ability scores situation.

 

[Narsil]

And thus, an otherwise interesting and dynamic game become so much more predictable... because everyone's got the same chance of doing something as anyone else. 3.5e D&D is a completely different game to AD&D, please try to remember that.

 

[XO]

Different Game

Never ceases to amaze me that so many DMs fail to grasp the huge power gap between older editions and current 3.5.

Successful Third edition campaigns are not possible nor well suited for control freak DMs.

There is a case to impose limits, or at least make it more difficult for abilities to soar.

However, even in AD&D (and not THAT many people played it to have PCs rise to high-leve lgames), the Strength spell, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Girdles of Giant Strength, Hammers and Mauls, as well as the Manuals, or the vast scroll collection amassed by the time one hit Archmage, the much more powerful and plentiful Wishes, they meant high power too ! Different scale !

I had a fighter with a 19.3 Str. 19.3 ? Yes, and counting... Striving forward. He might have had 22 or 24 in a newer game. Maybe more.

Does the inflation really change anything ? The Save is still likely a bust on a natural 1... and nothing else.

D&D has morphed into something new. d20 options cover what you may want or need. Iron Heroes, anyone ? True 20 ? So many options, so little time !

 

[GQuail]

I think a lot of people reading this idea are missing the point, to some extent. From the original idea (emphasis mine)

So (finally getting around to the point), what do you think about capping ability scores at 18 plus or minus racial modifiers? I'd maintain the 3e way of doing things for the most part but a human for example, could never have higher than an 18 in any ability score without magic.

A lot of you are tkaing this to mean "no ability scores above 18", whereas it seems to me to mean "your every 4 level pluses can't make an ability score more than 18". That's a lot less radical than what most people are speaking in opposition to.

I agree that this might lead to characters with fundamentally the same base stat array at higher levels: but how much of your high level character's stats are through those boost? Most come from magic: be it permenant boosts from Wish spells, ability boosting items, perhaps use of polymorph magic or the like to achieve a "combat form" with better physical stats.

What Airwalkrr suggests would make a game where the human fighters would still have 30 strength at high levels, but the highest natural strength he can have is 18: whereas as it stands, nothing stops a character throwing every stat boost he gets for levelling into one stat and walking around at 20th level with a natural Strength of 23.

Furthermore, if you still permit the stat-boosting Epic feats to allow you to go over your maximum, it gives those feats increased importance.

The idea isn't quite my cup of tea, I should say: but I appreciate where it's coming from, and felt a lot of you were picking on it somewhat unfairly. I guess enough MY HAT OF D2O KNOWS NO LIMITES!111!!111! flames will make you a bit sensitive. :>

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think one of the first "tricks" to avoid inflating ability points score is to use a not-so-generous stat generation method.

Most the time I read about characters or campaigns on the ENWorld Forum it appears to me as if people use very high point buy methods (32+) or generous stat generation roll methods (I rarely see really bad statistics)

If you use the standard array (based on 25 point buy), the highest starting score for a character would be 15. This would allow a score of 20 at level 20. Magic still adds more.
Even if allowed to use the regular 25 point buy, most characters will not have ability score beyond 15 or 16, since it will cost other scores to much.

It is probably possible to remove the stat-boosting items and spells from the game, and still have a working balance. But keep in mind that players will now invest more in other type of magic items (weapons, armor, protective items, movement-related items, skill boosting items and so on), so the net effect on the characters effective modifier for anything beside checks modified only by an ability score will not change that much - or the characters will have a lot of unusual special abilities making it even harder for you to predict their actions (which might be nice sometimes, but can totally disturb some encounters).

 

[irdeggman]

I think a lot of people reading this idea are missing the point, to some extent. From the original idea (emphasis mine)



A lot of you are tkaing this to mean "no ability scores above 18", whereas it seems to me to mean "your every 4 level pluses can't make an ability score more than 18". That's a lot less radical than what most people are speaking in opposition to.

I agree that this might lead to characters with fundamentally the same base stat array at higher levels: but how much of your high level character's stats are through those boost? Most come from magic: be it permenant boosts from Wish spells, ability boosting items, perhaps use of polymorph magic or the like to achieve a "combat form" with better physical stats.

What Airwalkrr suggests would make a game where the human fighters would still have 30 strength at high levels, but the highest natural strength he can have is 18: whereas as it stands, nothing stops a character throwing every stat boost he gets for levelling into one stat and walking around at 20th level with a natural Strength of 23.

Furthermore, if you still permit the stat-boosting Epic feats to allow you to go over your maximum, it gives those feats increased importance.

The idea isn't quite my cup of tea, I should say: but I appreciate where it's coming from, and felt a lot of you were picking on it somewhat unfairly. I guess enough MY HAT OF D2O KNOWS NO LIMITES!111!!111! flames will make you a bit sensitive. :>

If it is only worrying about the +5 that can be gained via level increase (not counting epic levels) then there is really not much a point since, as poointed out, magical increases dwarf this one totally.

 

[jeffh]

A lot of you are tkaing this to mean "no ability scores above 18", whereas it seems to me to mean "your every 4 level pluses can't make an ability score more than 18". That's a lot less radical than what most people are speaking in opposition to.

If that's true, then my objection changes from "It'll totally change the balance of everything" to "what's the point? Oh, and by the way, it will still change the balance of more things than I suspect you realize".