Hard Stat Cap of 18?

[Transformer]

I actually like the cap. I mean, don't get me wrong, +ability score items should be killed where they stand, but I think a cap is an elegant solution. Racial modifiers allowing a guy to get a +5 modifier on his primary ability score from level 1, which is a bit too high to facilitate balance and good challenge design alongside a potential +3 or even +2 primary attribute on another guy in the same party? Not anymore, there's a cap. Periodic ability score bumps always going to the same score, leading to huge differentials in ability scores and throwing off people's saves and ability checks and everything? Not anymore; once your primary gets to 18, it's time to branch out.

 

[billd91]

I like increasing ability scores by leveling up and I don't mind ability increasing items (might cap them off at +4 though instead of +6). I favor a stat cap for PCs, but a bit higher than 18. I'm thinking 22-24 would be sufficient. That gives you some space to work up to better than human level without being totally outlandish.

One of the 3e family's biggest problems with optimizers who red-lined the system was unbounded stat expansion, particularly with single-attribute dependent classes who set save DCs (clerics, wizards, sorcerers) based on that single attribute. There was very little downside to pumping the hell out of it. Caps are a much better alternative. As long as those caps aren't totally out of reach for defenses, things are OK even if the wizard maxes his Int.

 

[howandwhy99]

As I understand it 3-18 was understood to be the adult human range with 18/00 being the maximum. Other races had ranges more or less within this, but they were different. Beyond 18/00, for any ability, meant one was buffing up their racial stats, were magically changed into another race/monster type, or were wearing magic items, etc. Why was it 3-18/00 for everyone at the table, no matter the race chosen? That had to do with the theory of the game at the time.

I like that they are pushing racial ability modifiers. I like that they are thinking about rolling stat increases into classes too. Both have been done before, with the second more recent than the first, but it allows stats to increase because of gaining a level. That's something that was paid for differently as I understand it. For whatever reason, class abilities increased separately from core abilities - the big 6 (and more, but let's stick to the point). The latter could be boosted through training, but it took a lot of time and the absence of adventuring. Seeing how magic was an easier path, that's what usually won out.

The main point though is this: 3-18 defines a nice spectrum of what stories are going to be told by the game. We're not talking about flea circuses (literally) or Galactus the devourer of worlds. The abilities scores define the scope of the game to readily recognizable behavior by the participants engaging in it. Could a STR 128 eat a planet? Why not. Could 18? Sure. How about 0.0003? Yeah, that too. The thing about the statistics is they define a somewhat comprehensible fictional world that isn't so different from our own that we cannot relate.

Does this mean we should make PCs with ability scores in the 100s? Millions? Infinities? Go right ahead. The core game is going to be focusing on commonly understood human scales. We can build from there. With that reliability we can design everything else in the game to balance with that spectrum of scores. Then we are told how to break them. Or we break them ourselves and drop maximums.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I've never understood people who don't like caps, which isn't to say that I don't want to. Just that I want there to be a set range of human potential, and I want that human potential to loosely simulate real human potential.

Humans, on earth, can only get so strong or intelligent. Sure, over the centuries we've discovered ways to squeak a little bit more out, but that's such a rare and minute exception as to not bother with rules for it.

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.

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.

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?"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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?"

Sometimes I want the god-like stuff at higher levels. Sometimes, I don't. That's yet another reason why I like soft caps, but not hard ones. A hard cap is the designer saying, "this is where everyone should be"--it implies a certain ideal range. A soft cap is the designer saying, "you should be somewhere in the vicinity of the average N"--it implies that how much you deviate from that will be determined as much by your group preferences, the nature of the campaign, and what happens to arise during play.

But mainly, as I said earlier, a hard cap is an admission of design failure, which I only want to see when there are no other options. If you have a design failure and don't realize it, you might have to kludge on a cap at the last minute to handle it. But to build one in from the beginning is to say, "Hey, this doesn't actually work right here. Heck, let's merely cap it off and not worry about why it doesn't work."

 

[Zireael]

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.

I'd like to see the detailed descriptions of 10 is ...., 11 is .... (compared to real-life abilities) like in AD&D. Which rulebook was it in originally?

 

[StarFyre]

it should always be based on what the DM and players want for their enjoyment.

If you want to make true epic heroes like in earth religious myth (greek, christian, norse, hindu, etc) then having no caps would work better (since within the confines of a game, higher stats is one of the easiest way to represent them -- I wouldn't want to say hercules has 18 str, but a special rule that means in some regards, he is 10000 stronger than this. It's just easier to say he has 55 str or 70 str, etc and it makes more sense since his str isn't situational -- it's a part of him)

This is an extreme, but you get the idea.

Sanjay

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

But mainly, as I said earlier, a hard cap is an admission of design failure

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?

 

[Deadboy]

I like increasing ability scores by leveling up and I don't mind ability increasing items (might cap them off at +4 though instead of +6). I favor a stat cap for PCs, but a bit higher than 18. I'm thinking 22-24 would be sufficient. That gives you some space to work up to better than human level without being totally outlandish.

One of the 3e family's biggest problems with optimizers who red-lined the system was unbounded stat expansion, particularly with single-attribute dependent classes who set save DCs (clerics, wizards, sorcerers) based on that single attribute. There was very little downside to pumping the hell out of it. Caps are a much better alternative. As long as those caps aren't totally out of reach for defenses, things are OK even if the wizard maxes his Int.

This... I'm cool with. I want to be able to break human max as I level, but I'm good with not being able to break 22-24 or somewhere thereabouts. If I remember correctly (don't have my books here at work) I think I remember old school D&D capped stats for everything at 25.

Though if they absolutely have to have stat-boosting items, I hope they limit them to no more than +2.

 

[Grazzt]

If I remember correctly (don't have my books here at work) I think I remember old school D&D capped stats for everything at 25.

Yep. Nothing above 25. Most ability scores capped at 19 (racial bonus) though, and couldnt increase without magical aid.

Even then, some items (if I remember correctly) didn't add a flat bonus to your score, they changed the score. Like Girdle of Hill Giant Strength changed your Str score to 19 (Hill Giant Str) instead of giving you say +1, +2, whatever. Same with Gauntlets of Ogre Power (IIRC)