D&D (2024) What should be ability score cap for standard PCs?

[Yaarel]

Even tho I like 20 as the cap, I agree that 18 is the peak of reallife human ability. Scores of 19 and 20 are literally superhuman. I feel superhuman scores are important character concepts, especially for tropes from myth and folk belief. So I like the 20 being available for players who want this kind of flavor.

 

[Horwath]

Even tho I like 20 as the cap, I agree that 18 is the peak of reallife human ability. Scores of 19 and 20 are literally superhuman. I feel superhuman scores are important character concepts, especially for tropes from myth and folk belief. So I like the 20 being available for players who want this kind of flavor.

maybe add that you can get 20 at level 19 as current UA suggestion?

 

[Kalmi]

To me, the cap itself is less important than ASIs sharing the same space as feats; I don't like game mechanics that make you choose between "optimal but boring" and "interesting character specialization but sub-optimal." The fact that so many of the new feats include a single ASI shows that they understand some of the problems with this 5e design choice, but it's still a bit of a hack. I greatly prefer the design of older D&D editions (and Pathfinder) where ASIs and feats are entirely different design spaces;

 

[Scott Christian]

My suggestion is to lower everyone to 18. The fighter, and the fighter champion only (since he's so incredibly weak compared to other classes) gets to go to 30.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Even tho I like 20 as the cap, I agree that 18 is the peak of reallife human ability. Scores of 19 and 20 are literally superhuman. I feel superhuman scores are important character concepts, especially for tropes from myth and folk belief. So I like the 20 being available for players who want this kind of flavor.

But what does that give you conceptually?

Mechanically the difference between 18 and 20 is basically 0. It doesn't make sense to declare these "superhuman" when all that does is attach a label to it that says "superhuman" while not actually having mechanics to reflect the fact that these numbers are actually superhuman.

 

[Yaarel]

But what does that give you conceptually?

I like the abilities and prefer to call them "aptitudes".

Conceptually, they represent the various kinds of things that one tends to be good at − and to have a talent for even without training.

A superhuman score of 19 is an odd number. If 5e further develops the high tiers and epic tier, this odd number can be a prereq to gain certain features.

The superhuman score of 20 is +5, which in the context of bounded accuracy can dramatically increase autosuccess and chances of success.

 

[CreamCloud0]

personally i like 18 as the basic cap, with species deciding which stats get a cap bump to go to 20.

then remove the choice between ASI and feats, every existing feat gains a +1 so full feats become half feats and half feats give a +2.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

RIP feats.

Do like PF2E. Uncouple feats from stat bumps, so you get both. No cap, but stat bumps under 18 give a +2, and 18+ give a +1.

 

[Horwath]

personally i like 18 as the basic cap, with species deciding which stats get a cap bump to go to 20.

then remove the choice between ASI and feats, every existing feat gains a +1 so full feats become half feats and half feats give a +2.

then you still get a choice of +2 vs a good feat.

all feats should be +1 ASI and if people do not want feats, then have them take +1/+1 ASI instead.

 

[CreamCloud0]

then you still get a choice of +2 vs a good feat.

you'd still be getting +1 with a good feat though.