D&D 5E Please Cap the Ability Scores in 5E

[Minigiant]

The problem is the crappy math, not the ability heights.

Cap the stats then the cleric and fighter both have max Strength but the cleric has a butt load of spells. 3 spells later and the fighter goes back in the garbage bin. Caps don't fix the problem that no one can even reach the Maximum Dexelterity mod of leather armor without magic. Caps dont fix the fact that there's no way to have decent AC and not take an armor check penalty without magic or rare materials.

Caps don't fix problems when the designers don't pay attention to what they are doing.

 

[Sunseeker]

How about shooting for more realism in some aspects of the game and abstracting away from it in others? There's nothing illogical about that. Different elements within the game may support or even necessitate difference levels of abstraction.

I'm not sure how capping stats and limiting stat growth are two different aspects of the game. Strength improves naturally through physical exertion, the strength you were born with(or had at the point you entered service) is not the same as the strength you'll have upon completion of it.

And then you also have to look at different people having differing opinions on the matter. You're only going to find a two-faced argument if it's the same person taking both sides. Are you really seeing that or are you building up two sides (yours and theirs) despite the many varied viewpoints people are expressing?

There are different viewpoints, but the same people who favor capping stats are the same people who have said there should be no bonus through leveling up.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of the big pushes for ability score advancement is a legacy of rolled stats. Having an otherwise good character stuck with, say, a 9 Con or 11 Dex just one under getting rid of a penalty or getting a mild bonus (depending upon exact version, numbers may vary)--well, it can be annoying. Ever had a Basic character that managed to get nothing but 8, 12, and 15 in stats? It's better than a lot of the alternatives, but it chafes waiting on those host of wishes that you know realistically will never arrive.

The more say people have on their starting ability scores, the less need there is to change them over time. However, the more say people have gotten over the starting point, the more options they have had to increae the scores over time. That is a bit perverse.

 

[Sunseeker]

One of the big pushes for ability score advancement is a legacy of rolled stats. Having an otherwise good character stuck with, say, a 9 Con or 11 Dex just one under getting rid of a penalty or getting a mild bonus (depending upon exact version, numbers may vary)--well, it can be annoying. Ever had a Basic character that managed to get nothing but 8, 12, and 15 in stats? It's better than a lot of the alternatives, but it chafes waiting on those host of wishes that you know realistically will never arrive.

The more say people have on their starting ability scores, the less need there is to change them over time. However, the more say people have gotten over the starting point, the more options they have had to increae the scores over time. That is a bit perverse.

I posted this a long time ago, but as an alternate to a point-buy or rolled system, characters can allow their various aspects to determine their stats.
16 Primary: Determined by your class.
14 Secondary: Determined by your race
12 Major: Determined by your theme.
10 Minor: Determined by your background.
8 Weakness: Good characters have flaws!

Start the stats lower so that with advancement there's just as much room to grow, but it's not so extreme at the higher ends.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure how capping stats and limiting stat growth are two different aspects of the game. Strength improves naturally through physical exertion, the strength you were born with(or had at the point you entered service) is not the same as the strength you'll have upon completion of it.

But that increase in strength is most likely not unlimited nor particularly extreme either. Level increases in 3e can generate a 5 point shift. Once you're in average territory or higher, that's basically doubling your carrying capacity. Should it be any more significant than that?

Capping stats and rate of natural growth of stats may be related, but they're not exactly the same either, particularly if the cap also limits magical or equipment-based effects.

There are different viewpoints, but the same people who favor capping stats are the same people who have said there should be no bonus through leveling up.

That's not really a two-faced argument. That just means they don't want inherent level-based increases and want limits to externally generated increases (magic/equipment). How is that two-faced?

 

[Sunseeker]

That's not really a two-faced argument. That just means they don't want inherent level-based increases and want limits to externally generated increases (magic/equipment). How is that two-faced?

Because they're arguing that it's "realistic" to only ever have <20 str, but it's "unrealistic" for your str to improve after tons of adventuring.

And I already agreed about externally-granted stat buffs, but that's more an issue of deciding what should or shouldn't be in your campaign than what should be in the game entirely. Good communication with your players will stem almost any problem related to them getting what you don't want them to have.

But that increase in strength is most likely not unlimited nor particularly extreme either. Level increases in 3e can generate a 5 point shift. Once you're in average territory or higher, that's basically doubling your carrying capacity. Should it be any more significant than that?

Who said it should be? I think 5 points over 20 levels is pretty fair. So adjust the math for carrying capacity, some of those numbers are just silly. Carrying capacity should plateau, not increase exponentially(sans magical reasons).

Capping stats and rate of natural growth of stats may be related, but they're not exactly the same either, particularly if the cap also limits magical or equipment-based effects.

They're in the same realm of how stats should be handled.

Adding a cap to stats will just cause gear to sidestep it. Instead of +4 str it'll give +2 hit/dmg. Unless you want to cap everything, in which case your game may as well begin and end at 1.

 

[billd91]

One of the big pushes for ability score advancement is a legacy of rolled stats. Having an otherwise good character stuck with, say, a 9 Con or 11 Dex just one under getting rid of a penalty or getting a mild bonus (depending upon exact version, numbers may vary)--well, it can be annoying. Ever had a Basic character that managed to get nothing but 8, 12, and 15 in stats? It's better than a lot of the alternatives, but it chafes waiting on those host of wishes that you know realistically will never arrive.

The more say people have on their starting ability scores, the less need there is to change them over time. However, the more say people have gotten over the starting point, the more options they have had to increae the scores over time. That is a bit perverse.

I don't think it really makes much of a difference if the push is coming from rolled stats or point-buy. Point scarcity in point-buy will drive it as much as getting a low to fair roll will. As long as a player lacks resources, points or high rolls, to design the character to be the ultimate he wants him to be, there will always be a push for ways to improve over time.

 

[Minigiant]

My hatred of caps comes down to sameness. I Hate Sameness between character concepts that should not be the same.

Caps enforce Sameness between characters. Why have sheets at all if the difference between you and me is +1?

 

[billd91]

Because they're arguing that it's "realistic" to only ever have <20 str, but it's "unrealistic" for your str to improve after tons of adventuring.

Again, that's not two-faced. It probably is realistic for a stat to be limited within the bounds of what those stats mean in D&D. And I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic to disallow the improvement of a stat (not just strength) due to adventuring - but that depends a bit on what you think those stats really signify. Are they the PC's ultimate potential? A starting point? Worth even revisiting from the standpoint of personal improvement within the bounds of the game?

So adjust the math for carrying capacity, some of those numbers are just silly. Carrying capacity should plateau, not increase exponentially(sans magical reasons).

See, this makes it sound like you want a cap too. Why change the math calculation when you can have the strength value plateau instead?

They're in the same realm of how stats should be handled.

But different aspects of a stat.

Unless you want to cap everything, in which case your game may as well begin and end at 1.

Now that's actually an illogical statement.

 

[Tuft]

If stats don't improve, and we nerf enhancement gear into the ground, how exactly does it differentiate anything, at all? If you have a system in which levels exist, you need higher numbers at one end and lower numbers at the other. If the most powerful god is only 2 points different from the most lowly soldier, WHAT exactly is the point?

More tricks? More tricks are just that. TRICKS. All flash and no substance. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind wanting a game to start and end at 1.

I feel very much the opposite. When numbers increase simultaneously on both sides of the equation, they feel empty and meaningless. If both your salary and the prices you pay rise, do you get any richer?

Think hyper-inflation 1920:s. If you are paid in millions of Marks, but the eggs also cost millions, do you really feel like a millionaire?

That is why plain numbers inflation is empty. The only numbers that matter is the remainders after you have taken both sides of each equation into account.

So, to me a bigger toolbox is much more important than artificially inflated numbers.