Does anyone have an issue with ability's capping at 20?

The rules as currently presented state that a character may not exceed 20 in any ability.  While I like that character can not naturally move past 20 like in 3.x  I am not a huge fan of this because I feel that it takes away something special about playing a race other than human.  I like the idea that an elf has the potential to be more dexterous or a dwarf tougher than a human can ever be naturally.  I figured that they would cap out characters at 18 before magic to make 18 the baseline and other races cap at 20 on their increased stats.  I am also a fan of other races getting penalties to offset their higher stat but I understand that there has been a shift away from penalties.

I don't have a problem with it, in and of itself. It's a simple and effective way to keep  that level 3 character from having 35 strength, and completely skewing a game at early levels.

 

That said, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a race of exceptional size and strength (half ogre or some such) who offer the typical + to STR you'd expect, and one of their other budgeted racials could be to increase the maximum cap by 2 as well.

 

As long as it's bugeted into the character, and they're getting that instead of dark vision or natural armor, or cantrips (or whatever other secondary racial ability another race might offer), then it should be fine.

 

It's just something you have to be very very careful with, since bounded accuracy is easy to break with too many +'s flying around.

I like capped ablity scores and anywhere between 18-25 or so is fine by me. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

20 should give us plenty of room for all PC races.      I also like the cap because there is a point at which you just can't improve anymore.   


But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

Caps are fine, caps you can reach at level 1 in a game based around character advancement is kinda dumb however.

VanRicter wrote:
But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

I think it's fine as is. I mean, most races only get a +1 to two stats anyway, and there's no mechanical difference between a 20 and a 21, so I don't see the issue really.
"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment."

~ Benjamin Franklin

VanRicter wrote:

But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

Yeah, that's the part that bugs me. The strongest halfling is exactly as strong as the strongest dwarf or strongest half-orc. It's supposed to be a thing where half-orcs are strong and halflings are not so strong.

The metagame is not the game.

You could always reintroduce AD&D's racial stat minimums and maximums.

"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment."

~ Benjamin Franklin

You can't have bounded accuracy with the stat boost cap, because then most of your bonus would come from stat, (30 str = +10), then you'd have to boost the proficiency bonus to match that, and suddenly we're back to +33 to hit nonsense numbers escalation game that doesn't actually make the game more fun except to munchkin gamers who have a Napoleon complex unless their guy is stronger than a Titan just by doing enough push ups.

 

20 is a good cap, it is much better than 3e's keeping up with the joneses, and certainly better than any guy off the street having a 20 str at level 1, at will, using point buy.

 

Thankfully you can play the game with feats instead of stats as well as the other way around (although that's technically a house rule, since the rules make that a player customization choice, not up to the DM explicitly. They need to put that in there, I think). Official rules such as the point buy vs rolling, or rolling HP vs using averages need to have options clearly spelled out. I think it's great that feats, as they publish more, will put downward pressure on the appeal to just pump your stats, since the more good feats that come out, the more there will be that are plainly better than stat boosts, and it makes me tingle with inward joy that munchkins won't be able to have their cake and eat it too. It will be an agonizing decision for many immature folks out there. The game is not your mother and father, it's not the game's job to teach maturity. You can't be the best at everything in life, and nor should you be able to be in D&D.

 

D&D characters are not gestalt PC by default.

I have undertaken an epic quest to destroy the affront to sanity and reason known as GWF.

 

The Emperor writes : "How you should be? (when undertaking such a quest)

 

You should be like a rocky promontory, against which the restless surf continually pounds. It stands fast while the churning sea is lulled to sleep at its feet."

VanRicter wrote:

But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

 

That's a result of ability scores increasing with level.   Of course,  I don't subscribe to that design.  


It seems to me that the game is meant to be balanced (or at very least, designed) around the cap of 20 in an Ability. It also seems to be a very easy thing to modify via module or houserule. I figure that one could certainly decide to allow greater caps or even racials minimums and maximums if they so wish; they simply have to be aware of the impact this will have on different aspects of the game. Whether the game will educate them on this impact or let it up to the player to find out has yet to be seen.

Shirebrok wrote:

It seems to me that the game is meant to be balanced (or at very least, designed) around the cap of 20 in an Ability. It also seems to be a very easy thing to modify via module or houserule. I figure that one could certainly decide to allow greater caps or even racials minimums and maximums if they so wish; they simply have to be aware of the impact this will have on different aspects of the game. Whether the game will educate them on this impact or let it up to the player to find out has yet to be seen.

 

True true. 

 

I prefer no increase via level myself.  

 

This design makes it easy for me to say "Feats only guys.  None of this stat increase nonsense" or vice versa without severely limiting. Thier characters power level relative to the expected challenges.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

VanRicter wrote:

But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

If there really isn't anything else I like in the game, then having racial bonuses change the limit isn't going to somehow save the product.

 

If there's other things I like in the game enough to play it, then this is at best merely missed out bonus points (possibly offset by keeping the cap simple and not setting off a game breaking chain reaction of exceptions to the cap)

 

It really worries you so much it overshadows whatever else you find fun about the game?

Princes of the Apocalypse Actual Play Accounts ( Over seven of 'em! For one campaign! )

 

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

 

Philosopher Gamer

Noon wrote:

 

VanRicter wrote:

But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

 

If there really isn't anything else I like in the game, then having racial bonuses change the limit isn't going to somehow save the product.

 

If there's other things I like in the game enough to play it, then this is at best merely missed out bonus points (possibly offset by keeping the cap simple and not setting off a game breaking chain reaction of exceptions to the cap)

 

It really worries you so much it overshadows whatever else you find fun about the game?

This isn't a rule that makes me not want to run Next just something that made me question the designers intentions.  Having started in 2nd edition it was always a point that differnet races were statistically different.  18 (being the best roll on 3d6) was placed at the top and then being a dwarf gave me that boost because unlike a human I was tougher, or as an elf I was faster.  I just intended to review the game upon release and likely houserule 18 max, 20 for a racial bonus.  I just wanted to know how others felt about this.

It's not the cap itself that bothers me, so much that it's necessary to have a cap because of how freely they hand out Ability Score bonuses.  I'd prefer that Ability Scores remained very close to their starting rolls throughout a career.  Whether or not they increased or decreased should be due to serious time spent in training, study or some kind of in-game event.  If, say, a character wanted to improve their scores a modifier, I'd want them to spend some of that hard earned XP (since it does represent Experience) to gain it.  I'd then also expect them to either pay in game Downtime or Gold, and more than likely a combination of both, to represent a 'Training Montage'.  And maybe that means they advance a little slower, or miss out on part of an adventure, but they come out stronger for it.  Nothing that significant to a Character's Development should just be handed out for free.  

 

On the other side of this I'd also have in game event present penalties to Ability Score bonuses as well.  Get knocked down to zero a few times in the same encounter/adventure, maybe your physical stats take a hit.  Get your world rocked by the Demon loosed by those crazed Cultists you were sent to stop, maybe your mental stats take a hit.  Consequences in game, and all that.  Make the characters take every encounter seriously, and have to earn their place among the legends.

VanRicter wrote:

The rules as currently presented state that a character may not exceed 20 in any ability.  While I like that character can not naturally move past 20 like in 3.x  I am not a huge fan of this because I feel that it takes away something special about playing a race other than human.  I like the idea that an elf has the potential to be more dexterous or a dwarf tougher than a human can ever be naturally.  I figured that they would cap out characters at 18 before magic to make 18 the baseline and other races cap at 20 on their increased stats.  I am also a fan of other races getting penalties to offset their higher stat but I understand that there has been a shift away from penalties.

 

Overall, I'm not bothered by it. While it would be nice if the different races had different maximums based on their bonuses, it doesn't bother me that that isn't the case.

Nope.

 

Though the cap should start (1st level) at 18 and raise (ceiling) as you gain experience. ~shrugs~ All rules can be rewrote.

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

VanRicter wrote:

The rules as currently presented state that a character may not exceed 20 in any ability.  While I like that character can not naturally move past 20 like in 3.x  I am not a huge fan of this because I feel that it takes away something special about playing a race other than human.  I like the idea that an elf has the potential to be more dexterous or a dwarf tougher than a human can ever be naturally.  I figured that they would cap out characters at 18 before magic to make 18 the baseline and other races cap at 20 on their increased stats.  I am also a fan of other races getting penalties to offset their higher stat but I understand that there has been a shift away from penalties.

 

I never liked ability score caps before, and I don't like them now.

Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

It would not be hard to create a Module for this. You just set the Ability Score Max for each Race, making sure that the total kind of balances out. Example:

 

Humans: all 20

Dwarf: Con 22, Cha 18, others 20

Elf: Dex 22, Con 18, others 20

Halfling: Dex 22, Str 18, others 20

 

You can even add details with Subraces (Mountain Dwarf: Con 22, Dex 18, Wis 22, Cha 18) if desired.

LupusRegalis wrote:
It's not the cap itself that bothers me, so much that it's necessary to have a cap because of how freely they hand out Ability Score bonuses.  I'd prefer that Ability Scores remained very close to their starting rolls throughout a career.  Whether or not they increased or decreased should be due to serious time spent in training, study or some kind of in-game event.  If, say, a character wanted to improve their scores a modifier, I'd want them to spend some of that hard earned XP (since it does represent Experience) to gain it.  I'd then also expect them to either pay in game Downtime or Gold, and more than likely a combination of both, to represent a 'Training Montage'.  And maybe that means they advance a little slower, or miss out on part of an adventure, but they come out stronger for it.  Nothing that significant to a Character's Development should just be handed out for free.
Agree.

 

I liked the way the AD&D Unearthed Arcana allowed the Cavalier to increase a few of it Ability Scores: through the % system; where the player kept a running percentage total for each eligible Ability Score, then rolled percentiles at each Level to increase the score. The Ability Score was raised each time the percentage reached 100; then the 100 was subtracted from the percentage and counting started again.

 

LupusRegalis wrote:
On the other side of this I'd also have in game event present penalties to Ability Score bonuses as well.  Get knocked down to zero a few times in the same encounter/adventure, maybe your physical stats take a hit.  Get your world rocked by the Demon loosed by those crazed Cultists you were sent to stop, maybe your mental stats take a hit.  Consequences in game, and all that.  Make the characters take every encounter seriously, and have to earn their place among the legends.
I would like to see this as well. You give some good examples.

 

I would also like to go back to Racial Ability Penalties, to offset the Racial Ability Bonuses; that's what kept the races from being better, overall from the others (including Human).

 

EDIT: As to the OP: I would like to the cap stay at 18, for normal increase capabilities; then have 19 & 20 be the cap for those Races that get the bonuses. I'm not a big fan of Ability increases (although I would much rather see the percentile system I mentioned earlier in this post, than the current system).

VanRicter wrote:

But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

Hardly.    There's a good difference between a halfling buying up to 15 strength using points, and a human buying up to 15 and getting the +1 bonus, for a total of 16.     He'll be up +1 hit and damage for a number of levels, the first to 20 and up for a feat at the same level the halfling is still trying to hit 20.     Those levels before you hit 20?   Some of the most heavily played levels in the game.

 

 

Racial stat bonuses are  considered the most important thing about a race by many.    Given caps, other features may start to become more and more important as well, so lets not forget those!   

I would prefer the system to cap all humans at 18, then let the other races have two ability scores they can progress to 20, the ones they get bonuses to.  Then pick one ability score that makes sense for those races to have a cap of 16 in.

 

For example.

Dwarf - mountain  Con 20, Wis 20, Dex 16, others 18

Dwarf - hill Con 20. Str 20, Dex 16, others 18

Elf - high Dex 20, Int 20, Str 16, others 18

Elf - wood Dex 20, Wis 20, Con 16, others 18

Halfling - stout  Dex 20, Con 20, Str 16, others 18

Halfling - lightfoot Dex 20, Cha 20, Str 16,  others 18

etc...

 

Magic items that increase ability scores should just give a bonus to those rolls and limit them like bonus to weapons and armor, so +3 cap.

 

A belt of giant strength wouldn't change your score just give you a +2 bonus to your strength modifier.  

 

Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.  

 

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

I don't have a' balancing trick' issue with 20 as the stat cap, but I do have a problem with the relative ease with which characters will be able to get to the stat cap.

 

You'll get 'attack of the clones' in larger parties usually because it's pretty much assured everyone will hit 20 in something as they level.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

I like the caps a lot for the following two reasons:

 

(1) If the caps were higher or non-existent, people would feel obliged to keep raising their primary stat every time they were afforded an opportunity to do so in order to avoid 'falling behind'.  The current caps promote diversity of choice.  On average, I only need to spend two ability score improvements in order to reach the cap for my primary stat.  This means that I can use my remaining ability score improvements to increase some of my secondary stats or to pick up some interesting feats without having to worry about the fact that I am making suboptimal choices.

 

(2) For similar reasons, I am not straitjacketed into selecting from a small subset of races in order to be great at any particular class.  If I want to play a fighter, for instance, why would I even consider playing anything other than a half-orc with a +2 Str modifier if there were no ability score caps and ability score improvements? The existence of the ability score caps and the improvements means that I can choose whatever race I want and still have an opportunity to catch up in terms of overall mechanical effectiveness.  This, in turn, helps to eliminate some of the homogeneity in terms of race/class choice that was so prevalent in prior editions of the game. In 5E, people are liberated to make race and class choices based on interesting character concepts without having to sacrifice a lot of mechanical effectiveness.  This is one of my favorite things about D&D Next.  

I like the cap because it takes away from the magic item "Christmas tree".

VanRicter wrote:

The rules as currently presented state that a character may not exceed 20 in any ability.  While I like that character can not naturally move past 20 like in 3.x  I am not a huge fan of this because I feel that it takes away something special about playing a race other than human.  I like the idea that an elf has the potential to be more dexterous or a dwarf tougher than a human can ever be naturally.  I figured that they would cap out characters at 18 before magic to make 18 the baseline and other races cap at 20 on their increased stats.  I am also a fan of other races getting penalties to offset their higher stat but I understand that there has been a shift away from penalties.

 

I don't mind the cap being loosened, and the racial bonuses don't amount t oa full +1 so increasing the cap to 21 is not going to matter. I hate the humans a lot. I'm making my own that use the same base race/subrace structure that everyone else does 'cause I really like it and I think it's stupid that humans don't have it.

 

As for the general notion, I don't like it but after playing with it a while I don't care enough about it to bother worrying. The only thing about it is it pushes for feats to be included as the cap means your ability bumps become unnecessary.

 

And finally, I think the race abilities go a lot further than the stat bonuses to make the race something special, like the dwarves are tougher 'cause they have more HP or more AC than others, the elves are more dextrous or magical 'cause they can hide in very little cover or have a cantrip to their name. And that's the only reason I can see for making humans so crap: it makes the demihumans special.

I'm not sure about some races being able to go above the 20 limit and others not. It makes all combinations of class and race viable. Sure playing a half-orc fighter will make you better at first but eventually the others will eventually catch up, even the halflings.

I was going to say that I like a "natural" cap.   Meaning magic items could overcome the cap.   I believe in reality there is a cap so why shouldn't there be in the game.   

 

Now given all of that I totally forgot about racial bonuses.   Maybe race shouldn't get a bonus but rather they should have a higher cap.   I think I'd agree with moving the cap down to 18 and then allow some races to go to 20.   I would even accept a lower cap for races weak in an area.    I like the whole race idea far better than bonuses.   You still have to spend feats to take advantage of a higher cap.

 

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

VanRicter wrote:
The rules as currently presented state that a character may not exceed 20 in any ability.  While I like that character can not naturally move past 20 like in 3.x  I am not a huge fan of this because I feel that it takes away something special about playing a race other than human.  I like the idea that an elf has the potential to be more dexterous or a dwarf tougher than a human can ever be naturally.  I figured that they would cap out characters at 18 before magic to make 18 the baseline and other races cap at 20 on their increased stats.  I am also a fan of other races getting penalties to offset their higher stat but I understand that there has been a shift away from penalties.

1) No, it doesn't really bother me. Also, it keeps bonuses in check.

 

2) While I appreciate and understand your point about races and their stereotypical qualities (nimble elves, tough dwarves, etc)....I think maybe your assumption is a bit off. For the average member of that race, this still works just fine. But Heroes are a different story! Especially at higher levels. The mid-high level Elf is no longer a typical Elf. In fact, I'd go as far to say that Heroes are atypical of their race. You know, Chaotic Good Drow Rangers and Half-Orc Wizards and Halfling Fighters.

 

So your racial paradigms are still intact...just not for PCs.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

My improvements to the Ranger: A Better Beast Master Ranger.

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

I would think that racial bonuses should be cap breakers.  So any character can reach the cap if it is 20 on Dexterity for instance, but an elf or halfling that gets a +2 racial bounus to Dex would be able to attain a 22 Dex.  In this case the Half-orc would always be able to attain a higher strength than a halfling. 

 

The +1 to a stat every 4 levels from 3e type of system seems to support the idea that as you use skills over time you are going to increase in your ability.  A thief using Dex as they gain levels is going to become more dexterous as he or she gets better at picking locks and disarming traps of increasing greater complexity.  A 20th level fighter should be stronger than a fighter that is just starting out.  Battlels, adventuring life style, travel, learnng new fighting style, practicticing, ect.. would logically make him or her stonger than someone without the same amount of time put in.  

 

Sure age can catch up to you but there are stat adjustment rules to simulate that as well.  

 

I am not for or against stat caps as rules like that are easy enough for a DM to modify to fit his or her world/style. I also believe that the DM is ulitmately responsible for what he or she allows in their game,  If you have a third level character with a 35 strenght at your table I would suggest taking a look at yourself as a DM and what you allow or do not allow.  No rule system is going to stop players from power gaming if that is their style. 

I like the stat cap at 20.  I think there's plenty of room for races to differentiate themselves mechanically and narratively without allowing every demihuman race in the game to get a higher score in one or two stats than humans can (or conversely to limit them to lower stat caps than humans).  If the heroes are creatures of legend, then dwarven toughness and elven grace and so forth should be things they can achieve, regardless of the shape of their ears.

"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider

Emerikol wrote:

I was going to say that I like a "natural" cap.   Meaning magic items could overcome the cap.   I believe in reality there is a cap so why shouldn't there be in the game.   

 

Now given all of that I totally forgot about racial bonuses.   Maybe race shouldn't get a bonus but rather they should have a higher cap.   I think I'd agree with moving the cap down to 18 and then allow some races to go to 20.   I would even accept a lower cap for races weak in an area.    I like the whole race idea far better than bonuses.   You still have to spend feats to take advantage of a higher cap.

 

 

 

Giving some races the ability to raise certain stats above those of other races all but ensures that certain race/class combinations will never see the light of day in most games, except by people who are willing to play suboptimal characters.  I don't like the homogeneity that this breeds at all.  People should have the freedom to pursue whatever interesting character concepts their imaginations might happen to concoct without having to worry that those choices might be suboptimal.  In my current DDN game, the cast of characters is at least as unique and interesting as in any other campaign that I have participated in using prior edition rules, thanks in large part to the freedom afforded to players in terms of combining different races and classes.  I have always hated the fact that, if I chose to play a wizard, for instance, it was always a no-brainer that I had to choose to play either an elf or a human, because any other option would yield a suboptimal character from a mechanical perspective.  

 

I like the current system because it gives certain races a leg up at the beginning of the game, but not such a huge leg up that it cannot be compensated for with a couple of stat bumps in the right places.  This allows me to choose my race based purely on my roleplaying preferences instead of basing my decision on the mechanical benefits that I will or will not accrue depending on my choice. I believe that this is really good for the game because it does not force a dichotomy between choosing an interesting race/class combination for roleplaying reasons on the one hand and being the best that you can be from a mechanical perspective on the other.  That is not a choice that I want to be forced to make.

Kaganfindel wrote:

I like the stat cap at 20.  I think there's plenty of room for races to differentiate themselves mechanically and narratively without allowing every demihuman race in the game to get a higher score in one or two stats than humans can (or conversely to limit them to lower stat caps than humans).  If the heroes are creatures of legend, then dwarven toughness and elven grace and so forth should be things they can achieve, regardless of the shape of their ears.

 

Fully agree.

Kaganfindel wrote:

I like the stat cap at 20.  I think there's plenty of room for races to differentiate themselves mechanically and narratively without allowing every demihuman race in the game to get a higher score in one or two stats than humans can (or conversely to limit them to lower stat caps than humans).  If the heroes are creatures of legend, then dwarven toughness and elven grace and so forth should be things they can achieve, regardless of the shape of their ears.

 

  It sounds more like you're against the cap if you think humans can achieve anything.  Why stop at only dwarven toughness, why not titans?

 

  The reality is that previous editions also had caps, they were just not explicit.  3E for instance you could get 18 base + racial + 5 from leveling to 20, so your stat cap was somewhere in the 20s.  Going beyond that took some sort of magic, either tome, item, spell, etc. or a temporary class ability such as rage.  Although there were lots and lots of magical ways to push your stats beyond the mundane cap, there are still some in 5E such as Divine Power which effectively gives you +8 STR, giant str belts can take you into the 20s, ioun stone can push you into the 30s etc.

Saelorn wrote:

 

VanRicter wrote:

But does it irk anyone that every race ultimately meets at 20?  That there is nothing really seperating them?  It really diminishes the racial bonus given at start.

 

Yeah, that's the part that bugs me. The strongest halfling is exactly as strong as the strongest dwarf or strongest half-orc. It's supposed to be a thing where half-orcs are strong and halflings are not so strong.

 

We could fix this though, if the cap were instead 18 and only dwarves could reach a 20 constitution, half-orcs 20 strength, elves 20 dexterity, halflings and humans would be stuch at 18 max. If the level cap is too low for you just imagine it at a higher number.

I contend that race-specific stat caps have no more place in the game than the gender-specific stat caps of the old AD&D game.  Sure, from a purely simulationist perspective there is a some sort of argument to be made in favor of these caps (not by me),  but neither type of cap contributes in any way to fun or diversity within the game.  Both relegate certain player choices which should be driven almost entirely by roleplaying preferences to suboptimal status.   I say keep the caps the way they are, and give every race/gender the same opportunity to reach them without sacrificing mechanical effectiveness.

Paraxis wrote:

I would prefer the system to cap all humans at 18, then let the other races have two ability scores they can progress to 20, the ones they get bonuses to.  Then pick one ability score that makes sense for those races to have a cap of 16 in.

 

For example.

Dwarf - mountain  Con 20, Wis 20, Dex 16, others 18

Dwarf - hill Con 20. Str 20, Dex 16, others 18

Elf - high Dex 20, Int 20, Str 16, others 18

Elf - wood Dex 20, Wis 20, Con 16, others 18

Halfling - stout  Dex 20, Con 20, Str 16, others 18

Halfling - lightfoot Dex 20, Cha 20, Str 16,  others 18

etc...

 

Magic items that increase ability scores should just give a bonus to those rolls and limit them like bonus to weapons and armor, so +3 cap.

 

A belt of giant strength wouldn't change your score just give you a +2 bonus to your strength modifier.  

 

 

This is exactly my take on it.  18 should be the baseline.  Racial bonus' increase the caps and the penalties, that have been removed, would lower the caps.

Leugren wrote:

I contend that race-specific stat caps have no more place in the game than the gender-specific stat caps of the old AD&D game.  Sure, from a purely simulationist perspective there is a some sort of argument to be made in favor of these caps (not by me),  but neither type of cap contributes in any way to fun or diversity within the game.  Both relegate certain player choices which should be driven almost entirely by roleplaying preferences to suboptimal status.   I say keep the caps the way they are, and give every race/gender the same opportunity to reach them without sacrificing mechanical effectiveness.

Please explain to me though how a 4'2" halfling who weighs 60lbs could reach the same 20 strength as a 6'9" 320lb H-orc naturally and the both get stuck there?

VanRicter wrote:

 I am also a fan of other races getting penalties to offset their higher stat

pukunui wrote:

You could always reintroduce AD&D's racial stat minimums and maximums.

yes

VanRicter wrote:

 

Leugren wrote:

I contend that race-specific stat caps have no more place in the game than the gender-specific stat caps of the old AD&D game.  Sure, from a purely simulationist perspective there is a some sort of argument to be made in favor of these caps (not by me),  but neither type of cap contributes in any way to fun or diversity within the game.  Both relegate certain player choices which should be driven almost entirely by roleplaying preferences to suboptimal status.   I say keep the caps the way they are, and give every race/gender the same opportunity to reach them without sacrificing mechanical effectiveness.

 

Please explain to me though how a 4'2" halfling who weighs 60lbs could reach the same 20 strength as a 6'9" 320lb H-orc naturally and the both get stuck there?

 

Bruce Lee weighed 135lbs at his strongest and was far stronger than most men who were twice that size.  

 

It just took him more work to get there.  

 

 

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Sign In to post comments