My brain might be (is probably) mushy. Why not?
D&D (2024) What should be ability score cap for standard PCs?
My brain might be (is probably) mushy. Why not?
Vaalingrade
Legend
Because raw numbers should never be an alternative to flavorful abilities or versatility.
Feats directly competing with ASI's is terrible design. You're given a choice between adding something cool to your character or increasing your effectiveness. Most Half-Feats aren't worth taking so that's not really a good choice either most of the time (they're not all bad, I always take Resilient, and I had a character with Heavy Armor Master).
It should have been +1 to 2 stats or a Feat and +1 to a stat (and not a watered-down feat, but a good one), IMO.
As for the ability score cap, I don't particularly like it, but I do agree that if you don't give a player a limit, they'll optimize one aspect of their character to the point of crippling overspecialization. In the 3.x/PF1e era, I saw many a player do this and be seriously put out when one of their weak points was targeted, because the game rewards you so much for continuing to pile all your eggs in one basket (especially for casters).
It should have been +1 to 2 stats or a Feat and +1 to a stat (and not a watered-down feat, but a good one), IMO.
As for the ability score cap, I don't particularly like it, but I do agree that if you don't give a player a limit, they'll optimize one aspect of their character to the point of crippling overspecialization. In the 3.x/PF1e era, I saw many a player do this and be seriously put out when one of their weak points was targeted, because the game rewards you so much for continuing to pile all your eggs in one basket (especially for casters).
I am led to believe that a Halfling wanting to be as strong as a Titan is an important character desire to be able to fulfill? (Only part tongue-in-cheak. In a game that uses raw numbers, it feels like improving them might be flavor to some players?)
Edit: See post right below this one from @James Gasik for what I thought was a great answer to my quesiton.
Last edited:
Sure, if you want to play Royle Gladdenstone, World's Strongest Gnome (TM), that's your prerogative. I think the issue is that the game has a very limited upgrade blueprint- if you're a Fighter, anything that isn't making you better at Fightering (I may have made that word up) can have dubious merits.*
*I say can, because not everyone plays the game the same way. There are certainly tables where a Fighter with a 14 Strength who becomes a master chef or learns the ways of trap-busting is, in fact, far more ideal than accruing a little more DPR, and that's ok. But the game is built with an expectation that fighting things is going to happen a lot, and in these life or death scenarios, being 5-10% better at Fightering can make all the difference to your character's survival).
And forcing players to sit down and calculate whether Feat X or Stat Increase Y makes them better at Fightering seems like a step back to Monte Cook's so-called "ivory tower design", IMO.
Thank you!
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I think the best would be 18, and 20 at level 19.
Vaalingrade
Legend
The issue is the fact that stats are sharing a resource pool with versatility options.
The halfling Titan should not be left with nothing to do because they chose being strong.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
Back in the 3E/3.5E days, I had a house-rule where ability scores were capped at (20 + racial bonus). So a Dwarf had a max Con of 22 and a max Cha of 18.
It never mattered. Not even once.
It never mattered. Not even once.
Similar Threads
