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

[CleverNickName]

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

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this the same thing? Visible or no, a cap is still a cap...right?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this the same thing? Visible or no, a cap is still a cap...right?

Not all caps create the same results. Say that you have no more than 10 ways to raise any given ability score, over the course of all levels, call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J. Each one raises the relevant ability score +1. (There might be different, somewhat overlapping sets for the other ability scores.)

• If you cap by saying that ability scores cannot exceed 25 or something similar, then how many of these you can take will be the number before you hit the cap. Someone starting at 15 can take them all, someone starting higher can max out without taking them all. You have to start below 15 to not be able to touch the cap.
• If you cap by making these increasingly harder to find, get, etc., then maximum will be determined by the starting place, your effort to focus on getting these, and what the DM allows in play.
• If you cap by making some of these have opportunity costs--i.e. affecting other options you can take not related to this ability score--then the maximum will be determined by how much the players are willing to specialize their characters.

Naturally, if supplements add optional methods K, L, M, and N, then how this affects the results will differ wildly based on the type of cap you used. In the first one, for example, a hard cap of 25, all it does is increase the variety of ways that a character can hit the cap, and allow characters that start lower to still hit it. The practical result is early variety at lower levels and more sameness at upper levels.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this the same thing? Visible or no, a cap is still a cap...right?

There is a difference.

One is an arbitrary cap placed because the designers never (or not for a long enough time) looked at multiple aspects of the game and compared them to make the desired result.

And the other is when they do the work and not just what sounds cool in their heads.

 

[CleverNickName]

Not all caps create the same results. Say that you have no more than 10 ways to raise any given ability score...

...snip...

The practical result is early variety at lower levels and more sameness at upper levels.

Hey, it sounds good to me. I don't really care how they go about limiting the ability scores, so long as there is a limit. (Personally, I would make it closer to 20 than 25, but that's more a matter of taste than balance.)

The only problem I would have with this, though, is that it would encourage the "Christmas tree" concept of character development. But again, as long as there is a fairly low limit to the stats, I suppose this is more a matter of taste than balance.

 

[Hassassin]

There is a difference.

One is an arbitrary cap placed because the designers never (or not for a long enough time) looked at multiple aspects of the game and compared them to make the desired result.

And the other is when they do the work and not just what sounds cool in their heads.

Although I don't want caps for no good reason, a cap can sometimes be the best way to get the desired result if the other concerns matter. For example, here it makes you branch into secondary ability scores, instead of min-maxing on one.

Lets assume only humans with max 18 ability at 1st, 20 levels and only level based increases. Hypothetical target is maximum of 20 in an ability with room to improve secondary abilities. Options:

1. Ability score increases 1/3 levels, capped at 20. Simple rule, gradual growth, meets the target.
   
2. Ability score increases 1/3 levels, you can't increase the same ability score more than twice. We still have a cap, and we also limited growth of secondary abilities and made starting with 18 matter more.
   
3. Ability score increases to three abilities every 9 levels (6th and 15th, for example). Now there's no "arbitrary" cap, but we've still limited growth of secondary abilities and made starting with 18 matter. Additionally, growth is clustered at two levels.

Can't think of any other ways right now, but given those goals I find 1. the best option. It's simplest and doesn't have any side effects. Some sort of point buy would probably work, but it would be more complex.

 

[Mattachine]

As I mentioned earlier, if the cap is close to PC starting values, then it becomes harder to describe many monsters using ability scores. That was the case in AD&D, and it was problematic when spells and effects targeted an ability score, like ray of enfeeblement or some poisons. What was the strength score of a titan, a huge dragon, an apatosaurus, the tarrasque, and Zeus? All had a 25? As said by others, caps have the side effect of sameness near the cap.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Hey, it sounds good to me. I don't really care how they go about limiting the ability scores, so long as there is a limit. (Personally, I would make it closer to 20 than 25, but that's more a matter of taste than balance.)

The only problem I would have with this, though, is that it would encourage the "Christmas tree" concept of character development. But again, as long as there is a fairly low limit to the stats, I suppose this is more a matter of taste than balance.

Yeah, it is a matter of taste. That result does not sound good to me. I want relative differences at start, and I want those relative differences maintained over most of the lives of the characters, barring some kind of radical departure in concept, of course. And just yesterday, I saw a poster express a preference for the exact opposite--homogenity at start, followed by every increasing differences over levels.

Good soft caps, for balance concerns, are difficult to build well. They really do get their fingers in many aspects of the system, and require some discipline on boundaries and playtesting. Yet, if done well, they readily permit a wide range of game styles.

Then save the hard caps for last minute mistakes, house rules, or campaign tweaking. Hard caps are easy to implement, easy to understand, and all you really need is a sidebar or two explaining the likely results of using them. Perhaps if there is a digital character tool, it needs to have a bucket to record such a hard cap for the campaign, if there happens to be one.

 

[Yora]

I think everything above 16 is nonsense, but I voted "No".

If a DM wants to have "moderate" ability scores, that he has to chose an appropriate method of generating ability scores and limit the access to ability score raising magic. There is no need to add additional and arbitrary rules to the game.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It seems I find myself in the majority, in that I'd like to see a hard, lowish cap on attribute scores.

Firstly, it prevents wonky ness in the maths of the system (cf saving throw DCs in 3e)

Secondly, if 5e is going to have more significance laid on attributes as they have said, then I'd prefer to see the range between highest and lowest reduced - uncapped attributes make that much harder. I'd like attributes to be important but not overwhelming.

Thirdly, if it is uncapped then nothing is ever high enough, and people will always want more.

So I hope for a baseline of relatively low cap, and then a module for added wahoo which includes rules for uncapped attributes and class, feat and magic options for raising attributes. Since scaling up has always been easier than scaling down.

Cheers

 

[Mengu]

Voted they can go sky high. I don't really care. It's just numbers on a paper. I have no attachment to their ranges. I'm strength 20, everyone else is strength 10, fine I'm strong, I can bash in wooden doors. I'm strength 25, fine I'm still strong, I can bash in iron doors. I'm strength 30? Oh look, I'm still strong, I can bash in adamantium doors. Strength 4000? Yippee, I can play golf with moons. I'm strong. Fear me. Rawr.

Okay so maybe we don't need the numeric inflation. But whether you are playing commoners or super saiyans, all that matters is your power relative to your opponents because we want challenges. The rest is just numbers on a paper.