Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5805060" data-attributes="member: 54877">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification