D&D 5E D&D Next Ability Scores

[dervish]

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.

 

[Gadget]

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]

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.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

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]

I do not see any problem with PCs eventually progressing towards Beowulf or Hercules in strength.

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).

 

[Steely_Dan]

So as 18 is the bad-boy in 5th Ed, a player who did not roll so hot can reach that?

 

[Gadget]

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.

 

[El Mahdi]

And exactly how are you supposed to do that without breaking the math? Only scaled and fixed are mathematically sound.

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]

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.