Steely_Dan
First Post
They will be as common as the DM chooses as they are completely optional, and they stated capping them at +3, so a +1 longsword would be huge, as it should be.
D&D 5E D&D Next Ability Scores
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
They will be as common as the DM chooses as they are completely optional, and they stated capping them at +3, so a +1 longsword would be huge, as it should be.
Scaled Fixed.
Not because it is my most preferred option though. With the way 5e is going and I think scaled capped is the best fit at this point in time.
If I really had my way I would go for the DCC approach with merciless randomization. But in order to do that properly the entire game really needs to follow through on the philosophy as DCC does (i.e. top to bottom random everything).
Not because it is my most preferred option though. With the way 5e is going and I think scaled capped is the best fit at this point in time.
If I really had my way I would go for the DCC approach with merciless randomization. But in order to do that properly the entire game really needs to follow through on the philosophy as DCC does (i.e. top to bottom random everything).
I prefer fixed ability scores. Skills and feats seem more more representative of training and conditioning to me than experience levels. I feel that a character who "gets stronger" or "becomes more charismatic" does so through training and practice (gaining skill ranks or new feats, improved base attack, improved save throws, etc.), not by getting a new and improved body.
It's not a deal-breaker for me, though. As long as they don't go crazy with the power creep, I'm sure I can work with it.
It's not a deal-breaker for me, though. As long as they don't go crazy with the power creep, I'm sure I can work with it.
Last edited:
You cannot do this and have a mathematically balanced game. It. Is. Not. Possible. Handwaving 'flatter math' around is not going to change this.
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
Is it a 4e phenomenon that any 5-10% deviation from expected stats is considered catastrophically unbalanced?
I for one would like to be able to roll or even choose less than perfectly minmaxed stats and still have the game work.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
It is only "not possible" if your definition of mathematically balanced rests teetering on a razor's edge, ready to be pushed off by the introduction of any permanent change in the numbers.
"Close enough for rock and roll" is the nearest the system ever needs to get to perfect balance; and it needs to be coarse enough to handle all kinds of stuff that players and-or DMs are going to do to it whether intentionally or not. If +1 or +2 here and -1 or -2 there is enough to break it, all that says it the math is fragile to the point of uselessness.
Lanefan
tlantl
First Post
If D&D N is such a game I don't want anything to do with it. Flawed, unpredictable, and chaotic works for me.
Someone already made the game you're talking about and I don't like it. Lots of us don't like it. Mathematically balanced perfection isn't always desirable.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
If anything, I'd prefer Roll & Keep abilities scores to be altered via Training, Aging, and Magic. And training costs A LOT of time. The game starts after reaching one's adult potential. Increasing these post-puberty is simply more time consuming (which means a safe spot ($), sustenance ($), a trainer might help ($), no class training (leveling halted), the same time not spent adventuring (no XP), and so on).
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I chose "Upgrade, Capped".
I like the game mechanics to mirror the real world as much as possible. So I want player's to have the option of improving their characters Ability Scores with Feat selections, but not automatic improvements (Upgrade). I see improving Strength as Lifting Weights, improving Dexterity as intense training or exercise, improving Wisdom or Intelligence as focused study or meditation, improving Charisma as focused introspection and self-evaluation of how people see you and studying how people react to others (social intelligence), and I see improving Constitution as either focused changes in diet and exercise or purposeful exposure to "toxins" in order to toughen one up.
But I also feel there is an upper limit to which medium-sized mortals are able to aspire to. So I selected Capped also.
However, I think this is one of those things that each and every group is quite able to choose for themselves, without major or adverse consequences to system balance. The option should be there in D&D Next for all of the possible approaches to this, with the core base system as the most simple version of the above options (not necessarily the most popular).
I like the game mechanics to mirror the real world as much as possible. So I want player's to have the option of improving their characters Ability Scores with Feat selections, but not automatic improvements (Upgrade). I see improving Strength as Lifting Weights, improving Dexterity as intense training or exercise, improving Wisdom or Intelligence as focused study or meditation, improving Charisma as focused introspection and self-evaluation of how people see you and studying how people react to others (social intelligence), and I see improving Constitution as either focused changes in diet and exercise or purposeful exposure to "toxins" in order to toughen one up.
But I also feel there is an upper limit to which medium-sized mortals are able to aspire to. So I selected Capped also.
However, I think this is one of those things that each and every group is quite able to choose for themselves, without major or adverse consequences to system balance. The option should be there in D&D Next for all of the possible approaches to this, with the core base system as the most simple version of the above options (not necessarily the most popular).
Last edited:
Steely_Dan
First Post
I don't agree, please explain your opinion.
I'm for dynamic, capped ability scores with one giganic caveat: I'm against ability scores affecting basic combat capabilities. I believe that high-level fantasy superheroes should be able to move mountains, hear a cat breathing behind a locked door across the street, and read and memorize the forty-seven scriptures of Tiamat in four hours flat. However, I don't want this to cause extremely confusing, complicated and unbalanced math when it comes to combat.
If ability scores absolutely have to figure into combat mechanics, fixed scores are probably prefferable, if they're generated in a fair way.
If ability scores absolutely have to figure into combat mechanics, fixed scores are probably prefferable, if they're generated in a fair way.
I think the ability to improve ability scores can be important, but it must be capped in some manner; anything else and it becomes an arms race to max out your main ability scores into the stratosphere. This way if you have poor roles, you can eventually catch up with the guy who rolled well, he will just 'branch out' once he gets to the max if he is already near it.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
One hundred and sixty-five votes later, here are the statistics:
The single category with the most votes is, obviously, "Fixed." However, most voters (65%) would like to have ability scores that change in some way or another over time; they just seem to disagree on how that is done.
26.6% of voters want a player-controled means of increasing ability scores, such as feats;
15.8% want them to automatically improve as the character gains levels of experience (like 3.x and Pathfinder); and
23.0% want both: ability scores that automaticaly improve with level, AND the ability to improve ability scores by selecting feats or somesuch.
Regardless of how they change, the majority (64%) wants them to be capped in some way or another. (And if you count "Fixed" as a type of cap, this number increases to 74%.)
So what does that mean? Well:
IF this survey is representative of the attitudes and preferences of gamers everywhere (it's not), and IF the voters are completely objective and free of bias (we aren't), and IF the game developers will use this information to design the new edition (they won't)...
...the new edition of the game will have ability scores that improve over the length of a character's career, but the DM will be able to cap them in some way or another. Which is about what I expected, honestly.
The single category with the most votes is, obviously, "Fixed." However, most voters (65%) would like to have ability scores that change in some way or another over time; they just seem to disagree on how that is done.
26.6% of voters want a player-controled means of increasing ability scores, such as feats;
15.8% want them to automatically improve as the character gains levels of experience (like 3.x and Pathfinder); and
23.0% want both: ability scores that automaticaly improve with level, AND the ability to improve ability scores by selecting feats or somesuch.
Regardless of how they change, the majority (64%) wants them to be capped in some way or another. (And if you count "Fixed" as a type of cap, this number increases to 74%.)
So what does that mean? Well:
IF this survey is representative of the attitudes and preferences of gamers everywhere (it's not), and IF the voters are completely objective and free of bias (we aren't), and IF the game developers will use this information to design the new edition (they won't)...
...the new edition of the game will have ability scores that improve over the length of a character's career, but the DM will be able to cap them in some way or another. Which is about what I expected, honestly.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
I voted Scaled Uncapped, but I do like your reasoning here.
I do not see any problem with PCs eventually progressing towards Beowulf or Hercules in strength. I like flatter math, but what the heck does it mean to be 20th level if you cannot rival a demigod or lesser god on a good day? Let's not be so shy about being able to pick up ever larger boulders when your traveling companion can cast Wish.
That said, the maths tend to favor being the one trick pony, which is not the best thing IMO.
Steely_Dan
First Post
I do have a verisimilitudinous problem with saying my Halfling Fighter being as strong as an Ogre (unless he's part of the Halfling Pantheon).
Last edited:
Steely_Dan
First Post
So as 18 is the bad-boy in 5th Ed, a player who did not roll so hot can reach that?
Ridley's Cohort,
I see your point, and maybe the cap can move up a bit each 'tier' (assuming there is a similar concept to tiers in D&DN), but if 4e showed us anything, it is that people will always min/max their main ability score to the point that being 'as strong as Beowulf becomes the expected norm after a few levels; a few more levels and 'as strong as Beowulf' is getting wedgies and shoved into a locker at lunch recess.
I would much prefer that, if one is fortunate to roll high at the start (or made the sacrifice in a point buy method for a high stat) , to already be renowned for great strength with little room for improvement (maybe once you reach paragon or epic levels the bar moves up). Then, as our hero builds his reputation over time, he eventually becomes renowned for his tenacity, endurance, cunning, and ability to lead warriors in battle by the sheer power of his presence. I realize that this is not the only way to look at it and others may prefer another method, but this seems to be a better way to handle many of the metagame min/maxing that inevitably takes place.
I see your point, and maybe the cap can move up a bit each 'tier' (assuming there is a similar concept to tiers in D&DN), but if 4e showed us anything, it is that people will always min/max their main ability score to the point that being 'as strong as Beowulf becomes the expected norm after a few levels; a few more levels and 'as strong as Beowulf' is getting wedgies and shoved into a locker at lunch recess.
I would much prefer that, if one is fortunate to roll high at the start (or made the sacrifice in a point buy method for a high stat) , to already be renowned for great strength with little room for improvement (maybe once you reach paragon or epic levels the bar moves up). Then, as our hero builds his reputation over time, he eventually becomes renowned for his tenacity, endurance, cunning, and ability to lead warriors in battle by the sheer power of his presence. I realize that this is not the only way to look at it and others may prefer another method, but this seems to be a better way to handle many of the metagame min/maxing that inevitably takes place.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
You may believe this is so in your own experience. But just because this is your belief does not necessarily make it true, or true in everyone's experience.
I would agree that scaled and fixed are more consistent in relation to the games mathematical expectations, but that does not necessarily make it more "sound" in an absolute, matter of truth or fact way (which is how you are characterizing it in your posts).
The soundness of a system is based on each and ever individual groups ideas of what the game should do for them. If someone doesn't feel that the unpredictability of such bonuses in relation to the games base math are a concern, then the math is just as "sound" for them as a fixed or scaled system is for you.
One should be careful about making absolute claims concerning something that is inherently a subjective endeavor...
Ratskinner
Adventurer
umm...any and all of those.
I don't like the idea of a progression being a core assumption, but if some magic items can up a score...that's not a big deal....but the critical thing is: all of these options must be modular, if they exist.
That being said. If temporary buff spells that directly affect ability scores return....I'll be uncapping my sharpie.
I don't like the idea of a progression being a core assumption, but if some magic items can up a score...that's not a big deal....but the critical thing is: all of these options must be modular, if they exist.
That being said. If temporary buff spells that directly affect ability scores return....I'll be uncapping my sharpie.
