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

[S'mon]

I like 1e AD&D PHB, with the caps by race & sex at around 18 - as low as 14 for half-orc Clerics! It gives a very different, more grounded feel compared to modern editions. Deities & Demigods and Unearthed Arcana pretty much trashed that system though, and I've only really discovered it in the past few months, GMing a PHB-only 1e game.

I voted "fairly low, like 20" but really I'd prefer 18 as the cap, that being the mortal maximum. This would avoid a lot of problems 3e introduced with escalating stats, stat buff items et al.

 

[S'mon]

I don't like attribute mods by race, I much prefer the BX-BECMI approach of "You must have CON 9 to be a Dwarf" or "You must have DEX 9 to be an Elf". Races can have maximum stats too, CHA 16 for Dwarf or CON 16 for Elf would be ok. I'm ok with a lower max STR for female PCs too, as long as it's high enough to allow for viable female Fighters. STR 16 if male PCs can have STR 18, for instance. Not more than a +1 difference on maximum attack roll bonus.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'm a 2E kind of guy, I'd like a base 18 cap, 19/17 for the Demi-Humans, and up to 25 for all them magic items and wishes I dish out.

 

[Mattachine]

That depends what mechanics they are tied to, doesn't it?

In a 2e-style system of roll-under ability checks (best skill system yet, by the way) there absolutely has to be a cap. Roll under Int. is pointless if your Int. is 25.

It's only pointless if no check has a penalty. Also, a skill system based on ability scores that might start out near a capped maximum (you imply a max of 20 if using the roll-under check), starts out fairly compressed.

I used roll-under skill checks in late AD&D (some call it 1.5, with Dungeoneer Survival Guide and such), and some checks carried penalties as high as -5 (or +5 to the roll).

 

[Mattachine]

I like 1e AD&D PHB, with the caps by race & sex at around 18 - as low as 14 for half-orc Clerics! It gives a very different, more grounded feel compared to modern editions. Deities & Demigods and Unearthed Arcana pretty much trashed that system though, and I've only really discovered it in the past few months, GMing a PHB-only 1e game.

I voted "fairly low, like 20" but really I'd prefer 18 as the cap, that being the mortal maximum. This would avoid a lot of problems 3e introduced with escalating stats, stat buff items et al.

A traditional AD&D game often breaks through the cap of 18 on ability scores simply using the magic items provided in the DMG, or the bonuses to Int, Wis, and Cha from natural aging.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm still not getting it.

Wouldn't it be better for the designers to pay attention to what they put in the game and watch their math rather than place a cap to cover their butts.

How about designing a game so 24 is the highest you can get rather than straight capping the ability and letting them put +10 Str gauntlets in the game with no sense of balance?

Don't give them an excuse to be lazy.

 

[Wulfram]

No caps, but a lot less stat boosts available. Scrap all level based boosts and only allow you to have one stat boosting magic active a time (so just one of circlet of wisdom or belt of giant strength, or spell of Fox's Cunning, not all three).

edit: at least untl Epic levels.

 

[steeldragons]

I voted "fairly low".

However, aas others have stated or hinted at, a short section of suggestions in the DMG would probably work best.

"For traditional/Classic/Adventurer game play cap scores (without magical assistance) at 18."

"For expanded/Legacy/Expert game play cap scores (with or without magical assistance) at 25."

"For epic/Legendary/Master game play (with or without magical assistance) there should be no cap."

But then, this runs into a problem with the stated desire that players using different modules/optional systems should/could sit down and play at the same table. If my "Conan-esque" fighter is maxed out with 18 Strength (without magic) and I'm playing with a "Legacy" or "Legends" PC with a 22 or 45 strength, how are we supposed to play the same game?

I, also, will throw in my two coppers that I have no problem with Racial maximums being different. The flavor/fluff that a dwarf can survive harsher treatment (higher than 18 Con) than the toughest human or an elf could be more dextrous or intelligent or wise than the smartest or wisest human does not bother me at all.

I am also not opposed to goign back to the B/X, BECMI idea of Racial minimums...that your "average" adventuring elf is automatically, somewhat more dextrous and/or intelligent than your "average" adventuring human. You must have minimums to play X race was another good way of incorporating flavor.

The problem there, as we've seen all over the "race" threads, is that not everyone likes or necessarily wants the races to have the same/"built-in" fluff/flavor.

The bonus modifications, in general, I would make sigNIFicantly more rare, less accessible. MAYBE a [1] single Racial Feat/Skill/Theme that allows +1 to X. MAYBE a Racial Mod but not more than +1 to X (and NO, humans don't get this. I'm a little tired of the argument, these others races get this so humans need it too for "balance". Humans are the Baseline. Bonuses/penalties work off of what humans are capable of. Say, well if an elf get +1 Dex. and a dwarf +1 Con, then a human gets a +1 they can put anywhere they want just doesn't make sense, imho.). MAYBE a magic item or two that will effect/amp up X or Y ability, without which the hero goes back to whatever they started with.

Maybe ability mod's should be built-in to class? A Fighter automatically gets +1 to their Str., Mages +1 to Int, etc...and/or ANY class may add +1 to their Con or Cha (for those extra "tough" or "charmign" folks) if they desire. Something like that for Humans...?

But PCs shouldn't be able to, from the start of play (unless you're playing epic/superhero/Legends type of game) with +4, +10, +62 to any of their abilities, no matter how many feats/skills/items/what race they are/have.

So...yeah, if I had a starting party of 1st level guys with a human fighter with 16 Str.(straight roll or placement or however you determine your ability scores), a dwarf Fighter with 19 Con. (roll of 18 with +1 for being a dwarf), a human Cleric with 17 Wis. (because she rolled 16 and took the "Contemplative" theme to give them +1) and an elf Mage with 19 Int. (rolled 17, +1 for being an elf and +1 for the "Bookworm/Researcher" theme)...not a magic item in sight, I would think this is a solid/normal party.

When they get a couple of (very rare) magic items and the Fighter now has Ogre Strength (what is that, 20?) and the Cleric has up'ed their Wisdom to 19 with a Pearl of Wisdom and reading some Tome, that makes total sense.

But they still will appear to pale in comparison of the other group with the human barbarian of 25 Strength and 28 Con, a 30 Dex halfling thief and a sinister tiefling warlock whose pact afforded them a 40 Int.

Rambling...I know. Working off of coffee #1. But I guess my point...is...what is my point?

Options good. Endless mods bad. Caps...erhm...wherever you like 'em for your game. Yeah, I guess that covers it.

--SD

 

[billd91]

I'm still not getting it.

Wouldn't it be better for the designers to pay attention to what they put in the game and watch their math rather than place a cap to cover their butts.

How about designing a game so 24 is the highest you can get rather than straight capping the ability and letting them put +10 Str gauntlets in the game with no sense of balance?

Don't give them an excuse to be lazy.

I don't think it's being lazy at all. I don't see any great need for some pseudo-generic system that is mechanically open-ended with statistics and their effects. In other words, if D&D can do what it needs to do in, for example, 25 points of stats (like it did in 1e and 2e), why have more?

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it's being lazy at all. I don't see any great need for some pseudo-generic system that is mechanically open-ended with statistics and their effects. In other words, if D&D can do what it needs to do in, for example, 25 points of stats (like it did in 1e and 2e), why have more?

If the highest ability you want in the game to be 25, then just don't put in a bunch of things that stack to a sum higher than 25. And make sure there are no loopholes to get around this.

Don't make a cap. Just don't let people even get to the value.

If the only way to increase strength is Rage, the giant belt, the ogre gloves, and the bull strength spell and you don't want scores over 22; then don't let them stack. All fixed. No silly caps needed. And even that is a lazy solution.