Hard Stat Cap of 18?

[Crazy Jerome]

You did say that before, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If the design is that 3-18 is the full range of human potential without the aid of outside forces, how is that a design failure?

There has to be a defacto range somewhere. It is not a design failure to acknowledge that. If you roll 4d6, drop lowest, allow no more than +2 for racial mods, and don't allow any increases beyond that, then it isn't a failure to see that you are topped out at 18, or 20 with the right race.

What is a design failure is to put a variety of ways to increase the stats, make them highly attractive, and then put in a cap only because the choices you have put into the game are too good. Go back to adjust the choices to make them reasonably attractive, put appropriate costs on them, and you won't need the cap. And not only is the cap ultimately unncessary, it will often have unintended side effects that radically restrict how and which options you can offer. That's important in 5E, especially.

Hard caps are always like this by their very nature. They are only really justified when you have to deal with an unforeseen problem too late to go back and make the better adjustments. (The nature of communicating a set of rules can, of course, mean that "too late" can be a lot earlier in the process than we might think otherwise.)

Thus the hard cap is always a symptom of a deeper problem. Practically speaking, you'll end up needing a few in the end because of those unforseen issues. But that is hardly a reason to go grabbing one off the shelf every time an issue arises. I dont mind the guy building my house using judicious caulk and trim to cover mistakes, but I don't want him freely knocking holes just because he knows he has caulk and trim as a resort.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmm.

I don´t like a cap, where you get a +1 to a stat and may not put a rolled 18 in the main stat, because of a cap.
Maybe a simple solution would be: You may chose to get a +1 bonus to dex and receive a -1 penalty to con if you are an elf.

I however would like racial minimums and no stat bonuses. But it strongly depends on how stats are used.

If you are doing Point buy, there actually can be a hard cap of 18 AND stat modifiers of +1 because it just makes buying a high stat in your good attribute cheaper and in your off-stat more expansive. You could even allow point buying to 18 after racial modifier (19-1). In a point buy enviroment it is expxplicitely not necessary to have +2/-2 modifiers...

 

[Argyle King]

My main hope is that leveling up will involved broader (I've said 'horizontal' elsewhere) evolution of a character rather than a more linear experience which involves simply heaping more math and larger numbers into the mix. Give me new ways to use the options I already have rather than giving me a revolving door of trading out items and powers for +1 items and powers and then trading out later for +2 items and powers.

 

[GM Dave]

Unfortunately, the early indications from DDXP discussion of abilities seems to indicate that there will be plenty of swap out old parts for new parts.

I refer to the discussion of the Wizard Fireball spell being a flat 5d6 attack and that a higher level spell is needed to do more than the 5d6 attack.

This would suggest that player classes are being conceived around the pull out old part X and swap in new part Y as they advance.

4e had much of this with older powers (after ten levels) being replaced with the newer and fancier version of the same power. The differences were often minor and required a better understanding of the mechanics and key words to understand the true value of the replacement version and why it was superior.

I do support that level advancement should be more in the number of choices of things you can do and how you can do it then in mathematical totals.

I do think that with skills based on attributes that we will see much less of the mathematical totals per level and likely will see more of the options that you can do with a skill be improved as you level.

There seems to be some indication that fighters will see some form of return to weapon specialization (which existed in some degree in 4e as some encounter powers and dailies worked better with certain weapons and feats).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

What is a design failure is to put a variety of ways to increase the stats, make them highly attractive, and then put in a cap only because the choices you have put into the game are too good.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. We're talking about two different things, and in regards to what you said, I agree. An artificial cap on bonuses that has no grounding in the underlying setting is bad.

I've been getting the impression, though, that some people are against even a natural cap, such as limits on how naturally strong a character can become through training. Maybe I'm wrong in that impression?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Ahh, I see what you're saying. We're talking about two different things, and in regards to what you said, I agree. An artificial cap on bonuses that has no grounding in the underlying setting is bad.

I've been getting the impression, though, that some people are against even a natural cap, such as limits on how naturally strong a character can become through training. Maybe I'm wrong in that impression?

Well, I'm of that opinion, so you can't really be wrong.

I'm not fond of the idea that you should cap stats just because of some flavor concept of "the limits of natural strength". I like the idea of fantasy heroes who do completely impossible things because of extreme training and skill. Having strength that would break all limits of comprehension in reality is part of that. As such, I'd only accept a stat cap if it was justified with gameplay necessity.

That said, it is certainly an open question whether I would accept the necessity of such a thing to gameplay. It does reign in some of the problems faced by 4E and has some interesting effects on elements like racial or class stat bonuses, but [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] does make some fair points about why it would be a bad idea. Not sure how I feel, to be honest.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Then, once the rules are grounded in familiar human potential, find ways to move beyond it that are tied to the setting. You want superhuman strength? It has to come from somewhere. Maybe it's magic. Maybe you're ascending to godhood or were bitten by a vampire. But these are events that have to happen within the narrative.

See this? This is why I hate the caps. A 20th level character is not in any way, shape, or form a normal human being-- he can swim in plate mail armor and leap a castle moat using just his skill ranks (with a Strength of 8), he can survive falling from a low Earth orbit and walk away, and he can fight off an army of armed and trained soldiers in his stocking feet, with nothing but his mess kit and a torch. If he's a spellcaster, he can raise the dead, walk through walls, and tell the physical laws of the universe to sit down and shut up.

Even leaving magic aside, past 5th level or so, D&D characters are innately superhuman. If you want to play a "normal" character who obeys the laws of physics, you want to play a low-level character. It's as simple as that. If you want to play a low-fantasy game with human or near-human protagonists, D&D is the wrong game.

But the thing is... any spellcaster has the means to grant himself superhuman ability scores. What you're saying, when you say that ability scores should be capped by "maximum human potential", is that the Wizard and Cleric should be able to enhance themseleves at will, but that the Fighter and the Rogue-- who are of equal level-- should have to rely upon the Wizard and Cleric to do the same thing.

Perhaps I think this way because I feel that human limitations are the cornerstone of storytelling and characterization, both when we're confined by them and when we exceed them.

Yes. And high-level D&D is about exceeding them.

So why should spellcasters and monsters be the only ones allowed to play?

So I suppose my question to those who disagree is this: "What about non-restricted stat increases appeals to you? Is it the concept of unlimited human potential?"

Yes. It's the concept of playing zero-to-hero-to-demigod. It's about becoming a mythic hero, and facing the gods themselves on your own terms. I actually hate some aspects of the stat inflation in D&D, but instead of taking away the automatic score increases... I want to take away the plethora of magic ability score bonuses that every high-level character relies upon.

I would rather have superhuman Fighters and Rogues on their own merits than have a variety of magical buffs being necessary for high-level play.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ahh, I see what you're saying. We're talking about two different things, and in regards to what you said, I agree. An artificial cap on bonuses that has no grounding in the underlying setting is bad.

No grounding in the setting can be bad. It can also be bad, however, to not acknowledge the gaming and/or social dynamics. That is, a cap is saying that a lot of players would exceed the cap if the cap was not there, right? So what was about the system that made the designers/playtesters think that this would happen, that it needed to be capped to prevent it?

I'm not fond of the idea that you should cap stats just because of some flavor concept of "the limits of natural strength". I like the idea of fantasy heroes who do completely impossible things because of extreme training and skill. Having strength that would break all limits of comprehension in reality is part of that. As such, I'd only accept a stat cap if it was justified with gameplay necessity.

And this is great example of what I meant in passing by hard caps interferring with options. If you put in a hard cap based on a particular concept--"grounded in reality" or "heroic limits" or "can eventually become gods"--then the cap doesn't work very well for someone who wants something else. Of course, one of your options can be to change the hard cap. But if it can be changed that easily without changing anything else, then why did we need it in the first place?

 

[Hassassin]

I'm not fond of the idea that you should cap stats just because of some flavor concept of "the limits of natural strength". I like the idea of fantasy heroes who do completely impossible things because of extreme training and skill. Having strength that would break all limits of comprehension in reality is part of that. As such, I'd only accept a stat cap if it was justified with gameplay necessity.

(My emphasis.)

That's why I don't like ability increases beyond human potential. I like heroes to surpass normal people through skill, not through raw ability. Heroes who do great deeds despite their limits, not by breaking them.