Hard Stat Cap of 18?

[FireLance]

For me, a cap cuts down on spread which cuts down on intra-party differences in ability which cuts down on occasions where a particular challenge is too easy for one PC and too hard for another.

That said, while I like the objective, I'm not sure that a hard cap is the only way or even the best way to achieve it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't necessarily mind the effects of a hard cap. But a hard cap is an admission that the diminishing returns or other intentions of the design are not fully met by that design, and thus must be enforced by the hard cap. So a hard cap is "settling".

I prefer soft caps via rules that encourage the expected range of choices explicitly, whenever possible. They are less brittle than hard caps, and they encourage players and groups to find their own, natural limits, instead of everyone of a given character type pushing for the cap immediately. That is, the problem with a hard cap of 18 or 21 or whatever is not that people can't get beyond the cap, but that the existence of the cap implies that the design team thinks that an inordinate number of people are going to hit the cap. Still, sometimes the cost of avoiding this are more trouble than the cap itself.

The max of 4 skill ranks per skill at character creation in 3E was another example of the same issue. It isn't awful or insurmountable, but it does indicate a hole in the 3E skill rank design--and in that case, a hole that had subtle but real bad side effects throughout the design.

 

[Charleois]

This is the one thing I really want back from AD&D. 18 is the normal maximum. 19 is extraordinary. 20 is phenomenal. 21 is like a demigod or angel.

I do not want 18 plus per centile strength for fighters again however. Find another way to give Fighters a bonus to strength related stuff.

 

[GM Dave]

The max of 4 skill ranks per skill at character creation in 3E was another example of the same issue. It isn't awful or insurmountable, but it does indicate a hole in the 3E skill rank design--and in that case, a hole that had subtle but real bad side effects throughout the design.

You could still heap a large amount of modifier together out of those 4 skill points (or PF 1 rank + Class Skill bonus).

Stealth Halflings

Dex 18 raised by race to 20 for +5 attribute
Size Small +4 modifier Hide or +2 Race modifer Move Silently (3e)
Skill Focus Feat +3
Circumstance Bonus +2 (point to terrain or shadows and give reasons GM)
Ranks in Skill +4

Total Hide = +18 at level 1 or Move Silently = +16 (appropriate choice of Skill focus and pointing out circumstance bonus of a distraction, animal noises in jungle, or windy/stormy weather).

You can be good at both skills with only a loss of +1 for taking the appropriate double skill feat +2/+2. That gives Hide +17 and Move Silently +15.

Access to magic items or spells would just build on those numbers (+5 bonus from potion taking the Hide and Move Silently over 20 at level 1). An average roll can then be in the 30s and 40 is reachable.

Add some extra levels and the system really bloats with increases of attributes, spells offering +10 and +15 to the roll built into items, and more feats.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

GM Dave, that is even worse! That is the hassle and nonsense of the cap, with the side effects of it being there not being addressed. And then the cap is effectively bypassed anyway, thus not even serving its plain purpose.

 

[Incenjucar]

I would much prefer a reduced version of the 4E method that let you focus slightly as you increased in level, but mostly just served to give you better overall stats at more or less the same ratio. Perhaps even based on point buy numbers, so that it's cheaper to boost a low stat than a high stat.

I really, really don't like the idea of getting raw ability score boosts from magic items, because it's the same bloody thing except that your character isn't special or worthy, just lucky.

 

[GM Dave]

GM Dave, that is even worse! That is the hassle and nonsense of the cap, with the side effects of it being there not being addressed. And then the cap is effectively bypassed anyway, thus not even serving its plain purpose.

I was just responding to your statement that 3e skill was not awful and insurmountable with its ?cap?.

I wanted to show how badly the 3e system could be taken and abused by players (which was done by more than a few before Players and GMs stepped in and 'house ruled' not to abuse the system).

I think we will find that players are generally 'more skilled' like they were under 2e skills and powers options (though the Rogue really got laughed at when that book came out as he still had to add percentage to his rogue skills where a regular person with a good attribute was just rolling under their attribute).

2e Rogue Halfling maxing in Stealth was

Dex 18 +1 Race for 19 Dex giving +15% Move Silently / +15% Hide in Shadows

Halfling gave +10% Move Silently / +15% Hide in Shadows

No Armour gave +10% Move Silently / +5% Hide in Shadows

Base Score was 10% Move Silently / 5% Hide in Shadows

Putting all your Discretionary points into these two skills 30/30 (max allowed)

Results in 75% Move Silently / 70% Hide in Shadows

Unlike in 3e, you just rolled under the percentage to succeed and did not need to worry on counter skills to foil your attempt (no perception skill verses Move Silently duels).

This can be compared to if they base Rogue skills of Dex attribute where a Halfling could easily be starting with 19 or 20 and needing to roll under this on d20 to fail. 5e players will seem extremely skilled compared to even their 3e ancestors (especially as there will not likely be many negative modifiers as the d20 range is much narrower).

 

[FireLance]

I really, really don't like the idea of getting raw ability score boosts from magic items, because it's the same bloody thing except that your character isn't special or worthy, just lucky.

Maybe there will be a module to address this: Vow of Not Using Stat-Boost items, or something like that. You get raw ability score boosts and the ability to ignore mortal limits on ability scores in exchange for vowing never to use any stat-boosting items.

Yes, it's a joke.

More or less.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I was just responding to your statement that 3e skill was not awful and insurmountable with its ?cap?.

Oh, I see. What I meant that was not awful or insurmountable was not the cap itself, but that it encouraged people to hit the max ranks and concealed other issues. All that stuff you listed I agree was an issue. So my reply was that the only reason that the cap existed was to stop that kind of thing from getting out of control. If it gets out of control anyway, why even have the cap?

Other issues that I mean are things like: If skill ranks are all that valuable and hot in a diverse set of skills, then why do I need a cap to keep me from spreading them out? Answer, because they knew full well with the way the skill system worked that spreading out was so sub-optimal that only someone focused on "skills as markers for my characterization" would bother.

Same way with stat points. A cap at 18 is an admission that a 19 was more valuable than raising a lower stat by 1. That says that specialization in stats is still the order of the day.

 

[Tallifer]

I would love to see a return to 18 as a normal maximum with only the most extraordinary and limited (and also capped) means to go beyond. 22 should be almost divine.

Also if racial bonuses are only +1, that will help.

In fact, make racial and class bonus +1 slightly flexible (two choices) and the maximum after plus to be 19 at 1st level. No pluses for levels. Only for epic destinies, artifacts and epic level divine boons.