D&D 5E Why do ability scores cap at 20 instead of 18?

[Ruin Explorer]

So, Powerful Build, but even BETTER! LOL, why am I not surprised.

Yeah it's a rather unfortunate case of power creep.

Really, in a lot of ways it's the right approach to making larger creatures stronger, but when Giff are getting it, and not Goliaths (who are, lore-wise, far more renowned for their strength), that's just silly power creep/bad design.

In three different campaigns with barbarians, I don't think I've seen a single use of advantage on Strength checks - the damage bonus and especially the resistance, however, are constantly used.

Really? I've seen tons of use of Advantage on STR checks but only in combat by Barbarians. Shoves and grappling are extremely effective in 5E, almost as effective as 4E at times. The damage bonus is kind of a joke when you can shove someone off a cliff or into a pit of lava or the like. Combined with a a Warlock Hex'ing STR it can get pretty hilarious too (esp. as there's no save against Hex and no easy way to remove it).

Like you I haven't seen a single use of Rage out of combat though. If people really need to move something, they'll figure it out without blowing a Long Rest-limited resource, generally.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Man, I hope not. I hate rolling extra dice and prefer flat bonuses. Like bless, I always forget to roll the d4, but a flat +2 bonus I can easily remember.

If they go to bonus dice, I'll just stick to the average, round down.

I know what you mean and using either +2 or +3 as a flat bonus works too of course. I just meant that I hope they will define a bit better what really confers advabtage and where a flat bonus might work better. They probably just need to look at LevelUp A5E to get some inspiration... Speaking of which should give a reroll/force a reroll instead of giving advantage.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah it's a rather unfortunate case of power creep.

Really, in a lot of ways it's the right approach to making larger creatures stronger, but when Giff are getting it, and not Goliaths (who are, lore-wise, far more renowned for their strength), that's just silly power creep/bad design.

It is UA content, so the final version we see next month might be different.

The damage bonus is kind of a joke when you can shove someone off a cliff or into a pit of lava or the like.

This presumes the existence of said pits and cliffs, and that the PCs are willing to take the risk - Shove only gets you 5 feet, so if you are close enough to do this, you are just one square away from having it done to you.

The barbarians seem quite happy doing boatloads of damage, and not too worried about moving enemies around.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because:

1. That way, even people who roll the maximum 18 have somewhere to go, whether by spending an ASI or by having an ancestry bonus to that stat.
2. 20 looks nicer to human eyes because of our decimal number system. If we used some other system, such as the much superior dozenal (aka duodecimal) system, it would probably still be "20"--which we call 24 in our system. And yes, even though this is purely aesthetic, it has an outsized impact on the things people choose to design and use.
3. +5 is, very roughly, the standard deviation of the d20 (actually it's closer to 6, but 5 is good enough). This means that getting to the maximum personal bonus without special features (+5 from ability score, +6 from Proficiency) is essentially equivalent to making your new average be the same as an unmodified maximum (10.5+11 = 21.5.) So, mathematically, stopping at 20 is slightly better than stopping at 18 in terms of growth. (Stopping at 22 would probably be the "ideal" point, but that would run afoul of the previous point.)

I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, because it is outdated. There are strong hints that they soon go the way of the dodo and rightfully so.

The 2014 PHB will still be relevant and compatible with the 2024 updates. And it is the only "official" option right now for the core races. Sure, we can see where the '24 edition is headed, but we are not their yet and it will be fully compatible with '14 edition.

Now, to be clear, I am in favor of limiting ability score to 18 and in fact will do so in our next campaign.

 

[dave2008]

I'd go with a max of 18 for all humans, and other races can break the limit up to 20 in their racial bonus.

If using floating stats, the character can break the limit (up to 20) in the two primary stats of their class, aka the two stats in which they have save proficiency.

In both case, I think I'd restrict this possible limit break only at chargen.

Have I ever said how much I hate ASI? I started playing D&D with BG2, so increasing stats was a thing left to magic items and spells.

We use feats only in our 5e game. 5e works just fine without stat creep.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

We use feats only in our 5e game. 5e works just fine without stat creep.

That's my problem, I dont care much for feats! And half-feats would still be a problem, albeit a lesser one.

I would prefer if classes did not gain a new thing at each level, but I know I'm an opinion orphan in this case. Or at least more passive things?

 

[dave2008]

That's my problem, I dont care much for feats! And half-feats would still be a problem, albeit a lesser one.

I would prefer if classes did not gain a new thing at each level, but I know I'm an opinion orphan in this case. Or at least more passive things?

As a DM it doesn't bother me and actually just feels more realistic, to me, to gain things with experience. As a player I like getting new things to work with (but I don't play much myself). But everyone has there thing I guess. Now we level really slow (it has taken us 6 years to get to lvl 15 in our initial 5e campaign), so it is not like my players get a constant stream of new abilities. Perhaps that would work for you. Just stretch out level gains. It might give a bit of the non/slow advancement feel you seem to like. I feel like some people go 1-20 in 6 months of play and in that amount of time our group only advances one level!

 

[DND_Reborn]

And half-feats would still be a problem, albeit a lesser one.

Would you be interested in our group's revised half-feats (we turned most of the feats (all in PHB) into half-feats)? I can DM you a link if you want?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 2014 PHB will still be relevant and compatible with the 2024 updates. And it is the only "official" option right now for the core races. Sure, we can see where the '24 edition is headed, but we are not their yet and it will be fully compatible with '14 edition.

Now, to be clear, I am in favor of limiting ability score to 18 and in fact will do so in our next campaign.

I don' t think compatibility goes this far. These races will get the legacy tag. Of course you are right, that right now those bonuses are still official, but they are marked for death.