Community

I probably read to much of the grognardia blog, but I really wouldn't mind deflating player attributes a bit.

People were complaining how bugbears are supposed to be "big and strong" and yet they have 14 strength - which is low by PC standards.  There is a definate disconnect between PC attributes and the world they exist in.  Do PCs have to be innately superhuman?

To start with - drop the +1/+1 every 4 levels.  That's one old-school thing I wouldn't mind going back to: your ability scores are your ability scores.  Whether magical means exist to increase them is campaign and playstyle decision - like the belts of giant strength.*

* Personally - I think belts of giant strength are for pre-3rd edition players, so to speak.  The idea that game needs to be innately balanced is something that was introduced in 3e.  They should come with some mention that they are inappropriate for some/many/most campaigns.

I will say though...

The idea of dropping the stat bonus from to hit and defense has occured to me also.  That would be a very ballsy design decision though.  Less extreme would be capping certain aspects of what stats effect, no more than +4 to AC from dex for instance, but it can raise your initiative as high as you can boost the stat.

Oct 16, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Mirtek wrote:

Oct 16, 2012 -- 12:19PM, Saelorn wrote:

There are other ways of dealing with Bounded Accuracy, aside from putting in a stat cap.  Just off the top of my head:

• Remove ability modifier to attack rolls
• Implement diminishing returns so that it takes more to gain each successive bonus
• Put in a hard cap on attack bonuses

Any one of those would solve this particular issue.

In case of 1&3, then why even have the uncapped abilities in the first place? If they no longer have a mechanical impact, they are just a pointless number

Your ability scores frame your character.  They don't completely define your character but they maker it much easier for others to visualise them.  A fighter with str 10 and int 16 is easy to compare and understand when put next to a wizard with str 14 and int 14.  They aren't meaningless even without bonuses.

Halve the attack bonus on stats.  It's easy to work out and scales as the stat scales.  Many of these problems will go away.

Oct 16, 2012 -- 2:59PM, SlappyLamer wrote:

People were complaining how bugbears are supposed to be "big and strong" and yet they have 14 strength - which is low by PC standards.

It's low compared to high-Str PCs.  It's high compared to the rogue, the wizard, and the laser cleric.  Also, this is an average bugbear; as compared to an average human it's quite strong.

Oct 16, 2012 -- 2:59PM, SlappyLamer wrote:

To start with - drop the +1/+1 every 4 levels.  That's one old-school thing I wouldn't mind going back to: your ability scores are your ability scores.

God yes.  Increasing ability scores may make sense in some ways, but it's far more trouble than it's worth.  The only thing I like about it is that, even if you choose an inferior race/class combination, eventually you'll catch up.  On the other hand, it means that every level 16 wizard is going to have exactly the same Int score as every other.  I think decreasing the importance of ability scores--specifically on attack rolls and spell DCs--would be a brilliant solution.  Unfortunately, "the core is done now."

Oct 16, 2012 -- 3:50PM, MindWandererB wrote:

Oct 16, 2012 -- 2:59PM, SlappyLamer wrote:

People were complaining how bugbears are supposed to be "big and strong" and yet they have 14 strength - which is low by PC standards.

It's low compared to high-Str PCs.  It's high compared to the rogue, the wizard, and the laser cleric.  Also, this is an average bugbear; as compared to an average human it's quite strong.

Oct 16, 2012 -- 2:59PM, SlappyLamer wrote:

To start with - drop the +1/+1 every 4 levels.  That's one old-school thing I wouldn't mind going back to: your ability scores are your ability scores.

God yes.  Increasing ability scores may make sense in some ways, but it's far more trouble than it's worth.  The only thing I like about it is that, even if you choose an inferior race/class combination, eventually you'll catch up.  On the other hand, it means that every level 16 wizard is going to have exactly the same Int score as every other.  I think decreasing the importance of ability scores--specifically on attack rolls and spell DCs--would be a brilliant solution.  Unfortunately, "the core is done now."

This is a good point.  In early editions you were penalised if you didn't have 16+ in your prime attribute but nobody pointed and laughed at you.  Raistlin 'only' had Int 17 you know because he was really really smart but not the smartest a man could be.  The stats actually meant something on their own.  I agree that a lot of flavour can be lost if everyone has the same stats and I disliked 4e because the stat spread was almost exclusively bonus driven.  Aytning they can do to minimise that would be a good thing.  Linking each stat to saving throws is a fun idea but I agree that it would be nice if the link between stats and class abilities was not so ingrained that you destroy any hope of a decent character if you don't build a stereotypical PC.

Oct 16, 2012 -- 3:50PM, MindWandererB wrote:

Oct 16, 2012 -- 2:59PM, SlappyLamer wrote:

People were complaining how bugbears are supposed to be "big and strong" and yet they have 14 strength - which is low by PC standards.

It's low compared to high-Str PCs.  It's high compared to the rogue, the wizard, and the laser cleric.  Also, this is an average bugbear; as compared to an average human it's quite strong.

Oct 16, 2012 -- 2:59PM, SlappyLamer wrote:

To start with - drop the +1/+1 every 4 levels.  That's one old-school thing I wouldn't mind going back to: your ability scores are your ability scores.

God yes.  Increasing ability scores may make sense in some ways, but it's far more trouble than it's worth.  The only thing I like about it is that, even if you choose an inferior race/class combination, eventually you'll catch up.  On the other hand, it means that every level 16 wizard is going to have exactly the same Int score as every other.  I think decreasing the importance of ability scores--specifically on attack rolls and spell DCs--would be a brilliant solution.  Unfortunately, "the core is done now."

Yeah, game balance wise I like that poor rolls or suboptimal choices don't matter much in the long term - you're going to hit 20 eventually anyways, but from a verisimilitude perspective it bothers me heavily that everyone is going to hit 20 eventually.

I'm also aware that "the core is done now." :/ (or I think it was "pretty much set" or some such verbiage)

I'm really starting to lean towards decreasing the effect of attributes on to-hit and avoidance. (including DCs for spells)

I like the 20 cap. There are limits to what a human(oid) being can become without the aid of magic! That, and it got pretty ridiculous and 3.x and 4e. I never want to see a Wizard with 36 Intelligence again. How do you even roleplay that? That would be like having a 360 IQ in real life, when people like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have IQ scores in the 160+ range.

From a game design standpoint, it's also very important that ability scores be kept within a reasonable range. Bounded accuracy depends on it. It also helps discourage people from min-maxing. It's very tempting to start with the highest possible primary ability score for your class when there's no limit to how high it can go, and then to put every point you can thereafter into that stat in order to achieve the highest score possible. By having a cap, people are no longer punished for having a somewhat lower stat, and are also encouraged to make more well-rounded characters.

Oct 16, 2012 -- 7:08PM, FallingIcicle wrote:

I like the 20 cap. There are limits to what a human(oid) being can become without the aid of magic! That, and it got pretty ridiculous and 3.x and 4e. I never want to see a Wizard with 36 Intelligence again. How do you even roleplay that? That would be like having a 360 IQ in real life, when people like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have IQ scores in the 160+ range.

At some point the numbers become completely meaningless.  The thing is - I think even as the numbers are now they've become meaningless.

---

To call back to what I said before (because I didn't really reply to the reply to it)

The point with players saying "bugbears have 14 strength? That's not strong, a 1st level fighter has 18 strength." Sure you can say that 18 strength is extraordinary, but players don't imagine it that way, they imagine it as typical fighter strength.  Taken literally every fighter basically looks like this guy.  But actually imagining things that way creates a world that is silly.

It's not the end of the world by any means, but I think it would be nice if extraordinary strength was actually extraordinary and the average PC didn't have at least one superhuman attribute.  This is also something that goes back as far as 2nd edition though, 5d6 drop the two lowest roll 7 times and drop the lowest of those... or 3d6 twelve times keep the 6 highest, etc.

I remember there was considerable resistance when 3rd edition deflated the numbers on player attributes a bit... or at least appeared to. (They seem lower when you compare 1st level characters, but obviously at high levels you get attributes that literally go off the scale of 2nd edition)

If this doesn't happen, I'll just go on having stats that say one thing, and imagining the game in a way that doesn't match the numbers but also doesn't make my brain itch.  But I least want to put the idea forward. (and chances are, it's not going to happen)

People need to remember that they are developing rules for THIS system and not AD&D/3e/etc. 

Just because they had it in 3e doesn't mean it works in this system. Please, for the love of Lathander, concentrate on this edition. Don't try and force old mechanics into 5e just because it was like that before. 5e is it's own edition and we should treat it as such. There are good arguments present against the ability caps that don't involve devling into the past, and that's how it should all be. Please judge and discuss the rules as written, thank you. 

Yes but in older versions of d and d , you did not get increases in stats every few levels. So if ya had a 15 wisdom at 1 st level. Then chance are you had the same at 12th. Unless you found some magic to help it out like pearls of wisdoms. Etch etc etc

1st off lets say they keep the ability score cap at 20.
Now lets say a party of by the rules characters goes up against a cload giant that has ability scores that exceed the ability score cap - the only two out comes for the encounter are:
1. the party runs away in fear narrowly escaping with their lives
2. A TPK!

I personally don't like senarios where the character that I have created enters A No win 

Scenario by any means - In my opinion that limits playability!

And 2nd of all D&D is a fantasy role playing game and not reality and I play D&D to escape the every day grind and let off all the pent up stress of every day life! Please stop asking wizards to make it realistic come on!

3rd what happens when they try to make a video game with the new rules ability caps make for a lame computer game where the characters keep die every other encounter!

Bring back the freedom to go beyond reality and open things up for creativity on the part of the Dungeon masters and the players alike! 

 

Oct 17, 2012 -- 8:05PM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

1st off lets say they keep the ability score cap at 20.
Now lets say a party of by the rules characters goes up against a cload giant that has ability scores that exceed the ability score cap - the only two out comes for the encounter are:
1. the party runs away in fear narrowly escaping with their lives
2. A TPK!

 

Next time the players should just kill the thing rather than trying arm wrestle it.

Oct 17, 2012 -- 8:05PM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

1st off lets say they keep the ability score cap at 20.
Now lets say a party of by the rules characters goes up against a cload giant that has ability scores that exceed the ability score cap - the only two out comes for the encounter are:
1. the party runs away in fear narrowly escaping with their lives
2. A TPK!

I personally don't like senarios where the character that I have created enters A No win 

Scenario by any means - In my opinion that limits playability!

And 2nd of all D&D is a fantasy role playing game and not reality and I play D&D to escape the every day grind and let off all the pent up stress of every day life! Please stop asking wizards to make it realistic come on!

3rd what happens when they try to make a video game with the new rules ability caps make for a lame computer game where the characters keep die every other encounter!

Bring back the freedom to go beyond reality and open things up for creativity on the part of the Dungeon masters and the players alike! 

 

How are you justifying that a storm giant will always beat players? a 26 strength is hardly enough to kill a team of level 10+ players. To go along with players having caps, monsters will have more stable ability scores. Storm Giants will almost always have 26 str, in general. Certain named Giants might rise above that, but I doubt we'll see any giant going 30+. Bounded accuracy is a two way street. PCs are bound by it, as are monsters.

I love the cap. It is simply the limit to which a human (or humanoid) can ascend without supernatural help. A 20 strength means you can win a gold medal in weightlifting in the Olympics. A 20 charisma means you can win your country's independence from England all William Wallace style. A 20 constitution means you can hold your breath like Houdini and kill an owlbear while you have pneumonia. And so on.

You can increase your scores above 20 by magical means; you can disallow those and play ultra-gritty; or you could layer on a super-powered module with 4e style score increases to get the effect of whatever desired genre you're trying to recreate with your game. Everyone gets what they want.

Oct 17, 2012 -- 8:05PM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

1st off lets say they keep the ability score cap at 20.
Now lets say a party of by the rules characters goes up against a cload giant that has ability scores that exceed the ability score cap - the only two out comes for the encounter are:
1. the party runs away in fear narrowly escaping with their lives

2. A TPK!

A nope, characters fight enemies that exceed their ability scores all the time since the dawn of D&D. e.g. in 3.x most fighters don't have a Str 45 by the time the party faces the great wyrm red dragon. While he has more than 20, he likely has less than 30 

I'm totally cool with an ability cap of 20 (for natural ability scores)...mainly because I think scores over 15 should be regarded as incredibly rare. A score of 20 for a player character should be considered on par with the lesser (humanoid) gods.

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

they said human

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:54PM, AlmightyK wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

they said human

While Hercules is a demigod Beowulf is 100% human. Nothing in the tale states otherwise. I'm not familiar with Roland and Cuchulain per se. I think Cuchulain might have been either part divine or his berserker gift might have been enhanced through magical means. I've not heard much about Roland, but I beleive he is a medieval knight, whihc would make him human. Now whether or not we would interpret incredible strength from "god's favor" being Divine or just a way  of saying he was "born that way" I'm not certain.

Oct 18, 2012 -- 7:59PM, BhaelFire wrote:

I'm totally cool with an ability cap of 20 (for natural ability scores)...mainly because I think scores over 15 should be regarded as incredibly rare. A score of 20 for a player character should be considered on par with the lesser (humanoid) gods.

I agree with this. It's kind of sad that people have gotten so used to having such high scores all the time. In 4e if you had less than an 18 in your core stat you had a bad character. Now the system was a little bit built around this, but 5e is not. Therefore we should probably try and see if 5e's stats work before crying to raise the cap because we're used to it

Rolling 3d6 is the problem. The possibility of stupid high scores is what skews what inevitably becomes the standard expectation.

Get rid of 3d6 and you also get fairness between players. There are no 18s to break the game, nor for other players to compare their characters to.  

Oct 19, 2012 -- 7:46AM, Haldrik wrote:

Rolling 3d6 is the problem. The possibility of stupid high scores is what skews what inevitably becomes the standard expectation.

Get rid of 3d6 and you also get fairness between players. There are no 18s to break the game, nor for other players to compare their characters to.  

I used to hate rolling the dice because of fairness between players. I invented my own point buy before 3e and we used that exclusively. I like the array better because you don't have people dumping everything into one stat.

However, I've oddly gotten attracted to the idea of rolling once and accepting the stats. I feel like maybe the array should still be available for a bad set of rolls, but I've really come back around to rolling your character. I feel like it adds a lot of role play opportunity and if you're role playing more than roll playing it can be a lot of fun to play a character with an interesting array of stats rather than a cookie cutter. So, my last character was 4d6 drop lowest and I had two 7s and a 6. So, I took the array. However, my second character had a 17 (oh my goodness!) and so I kept that dice roll. It allows a character to be special and unique. If I had someone roll crazy high and kept the stats, well, there are interesting ways a DM can help neutralize that. Characters die. The super-heroes in our old camps always used to die. Sometimes due to high-stat confidence, and sometimes due to brutal DM character adjustments. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes not. All I have to say is, beware of 2e hold person :P
 

Oct 19, 2012 -- 12:44PM, FluxPoint wrote:

Oct 19, 2012 -- 7:46AM, Haldrik wrote:

Rolling 3d6 is the problem. The possibility of stupid high scores is what skews what inevitably becomes the standard expectation.

Get rid of 3d6 and you also get fairness between players. There are no 18s to break the game, nor for other players to compare their characters to.  

I used to hate rolling the dice because of fairness between players. I invented my own point buy before 3e and we used that exclusively. I like the array better because you don't have people dumping everything into one stat.

However, I've oddly gotten attracted to the idea of rolling once and accepting the stats. I feel like maybe the array should still be available for a bad set of rolls, but I've really come back around to rolling your character. I feel like it adds a lot of role play opportunity and if you're role playing more than roll playing it can be a lot of fun to play a character with an interesting array of stats rather than a cookie cutter. So, my last character was 4d6 drop lowest and I had two 7s and a 6. So, I took the array. However, my second character had a 17 (oh my goodness!) and so I kept that dice roll. It allows a character to be special and unique. If I had someone roll crazy high and kept the stats, well, there are interesting ways a DM can help neutralize that. Characters die. The super-heroes in our old camps always used to die. Sometimes due to high-stat confidence, and sometimes due to brutal DM character adjustments. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes not. All I have to say is, beware of 2e hold person :P
 

I dunno. I feel that at this point in the hobby's lifespan, it takes a certain kind of group to accept rolled stats. A lot of my groups I would never dream of rolling stats with. I know too many of the players would be dissapointed with the character if they got stuck with even decent stats. This would lead to disasociation with the character, or even intentionally trying to get him killed. I feel with these groups the point buy or array is the way to go. Groups that can take whatever the game gives them are few and far between it seems. Mostly older groups that played AD&D and such.

Again. this is my personal experience. 

In many of my groups, they couldn't take it either. In my current group, they could. It definitely takes a special group of folks. 

Also I'll have to add. I like the cap of 20. It means less worrying about min/maxing and just 'being done' when you reach the cap. It allows characters to stay in more reasonable bounds.

As for should races have different caps?  Maybe. I wouldn't be 100% opposed but I think I prefer a general cap over all stats for all races.

Oct 19, 2012 -- 1:51PM, FluxPoint wrote:

Also I'll have to add. I like the cap of 20. It means less worrying about min/maxing and just 'being done' when you reach the cap. It allows characters to stay in more reasonable bounds.

As for should races have different caps?  Maybe. I wouldn't be 100% opposed but I think I prefer a general cap over all stats for all races.

I think keeping all races at 20 is the best thing for bounded accuracy to work correctly. When attack bonuses are so low, even an extra +1 from your race could make it feel required.

I disagree. I don't like this cap. I would like that my fighter have the strength of a Storm Giant. And, what about epic levels? At least, they could modularize-it.

Oct 19, 2012 -- 12:44PM, FluxPoint wrote:

Oct 19, 2012 -- 7:46AM, Haldrik wrote:

Rolling 3d6 is the problem. The possibility of stupid high scores is what skews what inevitably becomes the standard expectation.

Get rid of 3d6 and you also get fairness between players. There are no 18s to break the game, nor for other players to compare their characters to.  

I used to hate rolling the dice because of fairness between players. I invented my own point buy before 3e and we used that exclusively. I like the array better because you don't have people dumping everything into one stat.

However, I've oddly gotten attracted to the idea of rolling once and accepting the stats. I feel like maybe the array should still be available for a bad set of rolls, but I've really come back around to rolling your character. I feel like it adds a lot of role play opportunity and if you're role playing more than roll playing it can be a lot of fun to play a character with an interesting array of stats rather than a cookie cutter. So, my last character was 4d6 drop lowest and I had two 7s and a 6. So, I took the array. However, my second character had a 17 (oh my goodness!) and so I kept that dice roll. It allows a character to be special and unique. If I had someone roll crazy high and kept the stats, well, there are interesting ways a DM can help neutralize that. Characters die. The super-heroes in our old camps always used to die. Sometimes due to high-stat confidence, and sometimes due to brutal DM character adjustments. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes not. All I have to say is, beware of 2e hold person :P
 

Heh. You are kinda making my point how rolling 3d6 skrews up the math.


First. You dont even roll 3d6, you roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. So your average isnt even 10 odd, its something like 13 odd. Plus, this method is more likely to increase the frequency of stupid high scores, which is precisely the problem. And even then, you dont even roll 4d6, you take 4d6 or an array. Not even a standard array, I presume, but an above average array. So not only is your method likely to get stupid high scores. It is impossible to get low scores or even average scores.

Heh.

Basically what you have done is prove how stupid 3d6 is, how unacceptable the results are, how damaging the math is, and how unfair the 3d6 spread is between players.

Just get rid of 3d6. It is the problem.        

I agree that it certainly adds unfairness. But that's life. The person who gets hit with a crit and dies doesn't cry that it was unfair to the rest of the party. Although I do get how having an inferior character can be frustrating, which is why my players always use the array.

This is probably also why that dm allowed people to roll once or take the array (the Next array - from the playtest - not your presumptuously inflated one).

The array is decent with an average of 12 with a gaurantee of nothing lower than 8 or higher than 15. It makes things a little too cookie cutter, but you either go with that, or randomization, or point buy. All of which I feel have issues.

Ultimately you can still get an 18 in your primary with the way things work taking a 15 as your base. Of course with 20 as the max, most characters will make their max if they live. Th0ere must be others with 20s in the group however because they have quite a better to hit than I do. Maybe they rolled 18s for their stats, I don't know. We role play more than we combat, so I'm not all that concerned.

Ultimately, dice rolling for stats isn't the problem. Players' reaction to it and the reaction to the results is the problem. The array is definitely best for most groups. But like I said, I've found my way back around to dice rolling as something interesting to switch things up. I don't really think an 18 breaks the game any more than a 15 does. A character with all 18s would definitely have advantages. But I don't feel they're astronomical or insurmountable in Next. And like I said, there's a special place for those characters when they die. The super hero wall of shame.

See rolling stats makes more sense than having a pre set array.

with the array that implies that everybody has the same aptitude overall, just in different skills.
and we should know this isnt true

Yes but in most cases players actually enjoying themselves should override realism.

Oct 19, 2012 -- 6:55PM, Jenks wrote:

Yes but in most cases players actually enjoying themselves should override realism.

I agree with that. Which is part of the reason we use a system like D&D rather than something more complex. However, to some players, the randomness is enjoyable. I happen to sit on the fence and feel like a case can be made for both. There will be zealots on both sides of that fence. All three methods have their good sides and their bad sides. I for one would probably prefer to use an array in a min/max game but wouldn't mind rolling in a role playing game. Perhaps that's ironic, but those are really the extreme groups that we typically talk about. So different strokes for different folks.

Oct 18, 2012 -- 9:59PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:54PM, AlmightyK wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

they said human

While Hercules is a demigod Beowulf is 100% human. Nothing in the tale states otherwise. I'm not familiar with Roland and Cuchulain per se. I think Cuchulain might have been either part divine or his berserker gift might have been enhanced through magical means. I've not heard much about Roland, but I beleive he is a medieval knight, whihc would make him human. Now whether or not we would interpret incredible strength from "god's favor" being Divine or just a way  of saying he was "born that way" I'm not certain.

I have heard some extreme over the top about Rolands personal efforts, but not sure where.  CuCuchlaine lost his power when he broke a Geasa (an Oath bound magic ... their ideas of demigods were different in many ways)  I think Seigfried/Siegurd is also on the list and human.  A number of the Demigods were raised human and discovered there status (almost like they were declared such after the fact as an explanation of how they were or had become so over the top.) 4es Epic Destiny demi-godhood was actually kind of spot on when you are playing to the legends, but the epic destinies kind of lacked teeth. 

What if epic destinies in 5e had a serious impact and stats didnt top out and similar things.

Oct 19, 2012 -- 6:58PM, FluxPoint wrote:

  I for one would probably prefer to use an array in a min/max game but wouldn't mind rolling in a role playing game.  

Where as I like to have control over the role I play.. and not be chasing after what the dice give me... so I would rather not roll dice. 

Oct 19, 2012 -- 5:34PM, FluxPoint wrote:

I agree that it certainly adds unfairness. But that's life. The person who gets hit with a crit and dies doesn't cry that it was unfair to the rest of the party. Although I do get how having an inferior character can be frustrating, which is why my players always use the array.

This is probably also why that dm allowed people to roll once or take the array (the Next array - from the playtest - not your presumptuously inflated one).

The array is decent with an average of 12 with a gaurantee of nothing lower than 8 or higher than 15. It makes things a little too cookie cutter, but you either go with that, or randomization, or point buy. All of which I feel have issues.

Ultimately you can still get an 18 in your primary with the way things work taking a 15 as your base. Of course with 20 as the max, most characters will make their max if they live. Th0ere must be others with 20s in the group however because they have quite a better to hit than I do. Maybe they rolled 18s for their stats, I don't know. We role play more than we combat, so I'm not all that concerned.

Ultimately, dice rolling for stats isn't the problem. Players' reaction to it and the reaction to the results is the problem. The array is definitely best for most groups. But like I said, I've found my way back around to dice rolling as something interesting to switch things up. I don't really think an 18 breaks the game any more than a 15 does. A character with all 18s would definitely have advantages. But I don't feel they're astronomical or insurmountable in Next. And like I said, there's a special place for those characters when they die. The super hero wall of shame.

But what do you mean, “Thats life.”

3d6 isnt life!

Even you dont use it!

Okay I'm slightly confused. Everyone is talking about 'eventually reaching the cap' and getting the +1 to two fo your ability scores every 4 levels like in 3e/4e. Where is this written in the playtest packet, because I can't find it, and I scoured it twice after reading this thread. If I'm not missing something and it isn't in there, doesn't that then lead to the conclusion that the scores are static like in 1e/2e?

It definitely makes sense that there will not be in the bounded accuracy idea with low magic items as a default.

You used 3d6 when you were born - more or less. It certainly wasn't an array.

Edit: Stat bonuses are discussed at the end of character creation under character advancement! 

Although you could argue it was an average +/- a few low dice rolls. Hmmm. An array that is 2 or 3 less than current, but add 1d4 dice roll to each. Rolling dice is just fun!

Meh disregard my last post, I found it tucked away on the last page of the character creation packet...while I was looking at the table I noticed that those xp totals were really wierd. 

Anyway as to the topic - to the OP: You were given an answer to yoru question, you just don't seem to want to acknowledge it. The answer is/was/willalwaysbe 'Bounded Accuracy'. 

Oct 20, 2012 -- 12:00AM, FluxPoint wrote:

 
You used 3d6 when you were born - more or less. It certainly wasn't an array. 

My mother and father contribute dna chains that came together in some fairly well defined ways and my range of attribute potentials were initiated demonstrating elements of both my parents then life style and training set in the combination resulted rather predictably in who I was. A huge amount of that was due to trained activity. An athlete is not high in strength and dex primarily because he was born that way. Allocating points makes more sense than a pure swing ast die roll.

You can definitely allocate some points. But there are always limits to how far you can swing your own numbers.

Oct 20, 2012 -- 12:25AM, FluxPoint wrote:

You can definitely allocate some points. But there are always limits to how far you can swing your own numbers.

Of course we are just talking about the characters own influence...  on there numbers. 

Player != Character... they get choices and always have knowledge that goes beyond the characters. 

Oct 19, 2012 -- 11:17PM, Phantymwolf wrote:

Okay I'm slightly confused. Everyone is talking about 'eventually reaching the cap' and getting the +1 to two fo your ability scores every 4 levels like in 3e/4e. Where is this written in the playtest packet, because I can't find it, and I scoured it twice after reading this thread.

Ability Score Cap is discussed under Ability Score (How To Play PDF pg. 1)

Ability Score Increase is discussed under The Future: Addvancement (Character Creation PDF pg. 4)

Ability Score Generation is discussed under Determine Ability Score (Character Creation PDF pg. 1) 

An ability score cap is not new to 5E. It was present in 4E as well.

5E at this point looks likely to stop at level 20. And it looks like the ability score cap will be 20 naturally and +3 magic items, for a total of 23.

In 4E, you could start with 20 (including racial bonus). Bump two ability scores by 1 at levels 4, 8, 14, and 18, and all ability scores by 1 at level 11. That's a total of 25. There is NOTHING ELSE available at or before level 20 that boosts ability scores. 25 is the max at level 20.

25, versus 23, as the maximum. Not a big difference.

Since the recent Belt of Storm Giant Strength is 29, it seems the new max ability score is 30.

Oct 20, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Haldrik wrote:

Since the recent Belt of Storm Giant Strength is 29, it seems the new max ability score is 30.

well no, i think the idea is that a belt of giant strength would put one above normal mortal strength limits

here's a thought why not keep the ability caps to the indivdual modules IE 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5 4.0 etc...
that whay every one gets what they want!
I personally don't like the Idea of an ability score cap!
The group I usually play with is prone to TPK against Storm giants! 

I like the caps I got to admit.  But I do think something should be done to make high stats less essential.  If you need that 20 strength to compete everyone has a 20 strength and I think the guy with 14 strength should be able to hang in there.  More versatility in character builds is a good thing.  I like the idea of stats not contributing to the to hit portion.  

And while the "core" is done that is such a loosely defined statement we have no idea what it means.  Stats helping the to hit roll may not set in stone yet. 

Oct 21, 2012 -- 10:58AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

here's a thought why not keep the ability caps to the indivdual modules IE 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5 4.0 etc...
that whay every one gets what they want!
I personally don't like the Idea of an ability score cap!
The group I usually play with is prone to TPK against Storm giants! 

Wait... are you suggesting a different module for every edition of DnD? They've already done that, they are called 1st edition, 2nd edition, ect. I like the idea of modularity to an extent, but people seem to be taking it so far to the extreme. In almost every single debate about an aspect of Next I've seen at least one person say "just make all options part of a module" So we'll have 3 different modules for health, at least 2-3 for attack bonuses, 3-4 for magic systems, 3 for magic items... at that point Wizards might as well sell a book titled "How to build your own Tabletop Game"

As for caps, I like them in theory. The idea that a person can only be so strong or so fast makes sense. However, if we go with the same epic tier limits we saw in 4e the highest level players will be confronting gods and their generals. Perhaps at certain levels the cap is increased? Personally, I have no problem with a player, even if they are a halfling, being equally in strength with the lower giants. I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if at higher levels a fighter could wrestle a storm giant, though I might want some sort of explanation for such mystical might.

All in all, I see this as the easiest section for DM's to adjust as they feel the need, but I expect every single challenge could be overcome, even if the party did not have a single 20 stat. The stats help, but the bonuses and abilities recieved from character level tend to be more important over all.

Oct 21, 2012 -- 12:02PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

Oct 21, 2012 -- 10:58AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

here's a thought why not keep the ability caps to the indivdual modules IE 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5 4.0 etc...
that whay every one gets what they want!
I personally don't like the Idea of an ability score cap!
The group I usually play with is prone to TPK against Storm giants! 

Wait... are you suggesting a different module for every edition of DnD? They've already done that, they are called 1st edition, 2nd edition, ect. I like the idea of modularity to an extent, but people seem to be taking it so far to the extreme. In almost every single debate about an aspect of Next I've seen at least one person say "just make all options part of a module" So we'll have 3 different modules for health, at least 2-3 for attack bonuses, 3-4 for magic systems, 3 for magic items... at that point Wizards might as well sell a book titled "How to build your own Tabletop Game"

As for caps, I like them in theory. The idea that a person can only be so strong or so fast makes sense. However, if we go with the same epic tier limits we saw in 4e the highest level players will be confronting gods and their generals. Perhaps at certain levels the cap is increased? Personally, I have no problem with a player, even if they are a halfling, being equally in strength with the lower giants. I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if at higher levels a fighter could wrestle a storm giant, though I might want some sort of explanation for such mystical might.

All in all, I see this as the easiest section for DM's to adjust as they feel the need, but I expect every single challenge could be overcome, even if the party did not have a single 20 stat. The stats help, but the bonuses and abilities recieved from character level tend to be more important over all.

The key is not breaking the system.  Mutants & Masterminds overcame such folly by placing a cap on the maximum attack, damage, and defences bonuses based on (campaign) level.  So there was no ability cap per-se - you just got no additional combat benefits for exceeding your cap.  I suppose in 5e you would get skill bonuses, carrying capacity, initiative bonus, posdsibly damage bonus, but that's about it.  Thus you could, if you feel strongly abouty a cap thematically, exceed the cap but without the peswky game breaking bonuses that come with it.

This definitely fixes things but it doesn't really make a lot of 'sense.' I get that maybe it is necessary to build a system like this, but I also feel like I'd rather had a system that fixed this by making a better aligned system.

At this point the biggest problem with making drastic changes such as ability score caps to the brilliant game that Dungeons and Dragons has been is that every time you change something there are people who insist on taking it to the extreme (Rules Lawyers)! 
People who are unwilling to budge on weather it works differanty then they read it!

I deal with such players / Dungeon Masters  like this every weekend!
So I don't need any new rules that these people can use to prevent my enjoyment of the game!
Capping Ability scores will make it easier for the acting DM in my group to cause a TPK!

I truely don't see the benefit! As it stands They have already said that DNDNEXT will be a modular system so that if you want a 1st edition feel to your game there will be a module for that, if you want a 2nd edition feel there will be a module for that, etc.. 

So again I say why not leave the capping ability  scores in the edition modules and out of the main module so those of us who don't like ability score caps don't have to deal with them!

On the contrary, I feel like it gives the DM the ability to better prevent TPK. A DM can TPK whenever he  wants, he's the DM.

Also, if you DM, you don't have to deal with them.

The real question is whether it makes for a better game or not with caps in place.
Obviously folks will have their opinions here.

I feel it is better with a cap in place to help bound bonuses and thus to help better judge the ability of a given party. I feel it will also allow a somewhat subpar character to contribute. 

Oct 21, 2012 -- 5:08PM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

At this point the biggest problem with making drastic changes such as ability score caps to the brilliant game that Dungeons and Dragons has been is that every time you change something there are people who insist on taking it to the extreme (Rules Lawyers)! 
People who are unwilling to budge on weather it works differanty then they read it!

I deal with such players / Dungeon Masters  like this every weekend!
So I don't need any new rules that these people can use to prevent my enjoyment of the game!
Capping Ability scores will make it easier for the acting DM in my group to cause a TPK!

I truely don't see the benefit! As it stands They have already said that DNDNEXT will be a modular system so that if you want a 1st edition feel to your game there will be a module for that, if you want a 2nd edition feel there will be a module for that, etc.. 

So again I say why not leave the capping ability  scores in the edition modules and out of the main module so those of us who don't like ability score caps don't have to deal with them!

Maybe I missed it earlier, but why are you so certain that ability caps = TPK's? We haven't seen anything in the bestiary about Storm Giants or any other high-level monsters. In fact, we haven't seen anything much past level 5. A 20 ability score gives you a +5 correct? even if we assume a storm giant has a strength of 30, that's only a bonus of +10. I admit +10 to-hit is very nasty, but a level 5 fighter has a +9 (if their strength is 20) and storm giants are high-level enemies (CR 13 in 3.5 and Lv 24 in 4e), it is not unreasonable that a fighter of level 15 (my chosen midpoint between the challenge ratings of the giant) will easily exceed that +10 (especially with magic weapons). Armor class then becomes the next major concern, but at high levels they should have plate at least, possibly magic plate. +1 plate and shield gives you an AC of 20, at least. That means the giant is hitting about half the time. But this doesn't take into account any new manuevers, feats, or other high-level abilities which could increase the Ac. For example, a wizard casts Shield -> the Ac increases to 22.

Just looking at this, and having no solid information of High-level play, I don't see an unavoidable TPK. I see a tough battle to be sure, but I've also only set up a 1v1 match, with one support spell from a wizard, against the toughest and most powerful of the Giantkin.

I guess what I'm asking is, what am I missing that leads to the automatic TPK you are so worried about? What would increasing the cap do to fix it? And how high does the cap need to be before you would think a TPK is not unavoidable?

Anticipating a TPK as a direct consequence of being capped at 20 is plain silly.  If you pump your points into one stat to exceed the cap, your saves in your other stats will be lower, thus increasing the possibility of failing saving throws, making you more likely to die.  It maybe that a cap at 20 is as much to protect players from their urge to min-max as much as it is to avoid breaking the bounded system.

Further, if they adopt similar penalties to 3e, attack rolls for gigantic monsters can be kept in check a bit (e.g. -1 large, -2 huge, -3 gigantic).  Personally, I would still expect there to be some atack roll adjustment based on monsters (+0 for useless, +1 for those lacking self control, +2 standard, +3 martial/highly trained, +4 unbelievably skilled).  Personally, I'm also not happy with the either of the strength progressions listed for any of the giants yet I prefer something akin to updating 1e ratings to the new 5e caps, leading to scores from 22-27.  I think these ratings work best because they would lead to sufficient variation:

Hill 22 +6 +1 -1 = +6
Stone 23 +6 +2 -1 = +7
Friost 24 +7 +2 -1 = +8
Fire 25 +7 +3 -1 = +9
Cloud 26 +8 +2 -2 = +9
Storm 27 +8 +3 -2 = +10

The ord chief had +7 to attack in the first playtest so this gives us an idea how these ratings fit in to the original maths.  They seem ok to me.

If PCs are treated differently so that they get only half their attack bonus, plus level bonus, class bonus, and magical bonuses, the attack rolls should even out over time, even if girdles of giant strength provide the actual strength of the giant because they're only getting +4 to attack.

Oct 20, 2012 -- 11:34AM, warrl wrote:

An ability score cap is not new to 5E. It was present in 4E as well.

5E at this point looks likely to stop at level 20. And it looks like the ability score cap will be 20 naturally and +3 magic items, for a total of 23.

In 4E, you could start with 20 (including racial bonus). Bump two ability scores by 1 at levels 4, 8, 14, and 18, and all ability scores by 1 at level 11. That's a total of 25. There is NOTHING ELSE available at or before level 20 that boosts ability scores. 25 is the max at level 20.

25, versus 23, as the maximum. Not a big difference.

Actually there are things that boost stats before level 20. Look at the Sentinel Druid daily spells. 

Oct 18, 2012 -- 7:59PM, BhaelFire wrote:

I'm totally cool with an ability cap of 20 (for natural ability scores)...mainly because I think scores over 15 should be regarded as incredibly rare. A score of 20 for a player character should be considered on par with the lesser (humanoid) gods.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't want stat inflation again, keep with 10-11 being average, 12-15 he heroic, 16-20 being super-heroic, and let anything past that be to sole purview of magical enhancement, epic destinies and/or divine boons.

Oct 23, 2012 -- 4:09PM, Azzy1974 wrote:

I'm inclined to agree. I don't want stat inflation again, keep with 10-11 being average, 12-15 he heroic, 16-20 being super-heroic, and let anything past that be to sole purview of magical enhancement, epic destinies and/or divine boons.

I really feel this is how it should be. Keep the cap and balance monsters with that expected max. 4e is my favored edition, but the stat inflation gets WAY out of control, and every monster has a holy sh*t amount of hit points to compensate and combat takes forever when PCs miss their Encounter/Daily powers.

Oct 21, 2012 -- 5:08PM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

At this point the biggest problem with making drastic changes such as ability score caps to the brilliant game that Dungeons and Dragons has been is that every time you change something there are people who insist on taking it to the extreme (Rules Lawyers)! 
People who are unwilling to budge on weather it works differanty then they read it!

I deal with such players / Dungeon Masters  like this every weekend!
So I don't need any new rules that these people can use to prevent my enjoyment of the game!
Capping Ability scores will make it easier for the acting DM in my group to cause a TPK!

I truely don't see the benefit! As it stands They have already said that DNDNEXT will be a modular system so that if you want a 1st edition feel to your game there will be a module for that, if you want a 2nd edition feel there will be a module for that, etc.. 

So again I say why not leave the capping ability  scores in the edition modules and out of the main module so those of us who don't like ability score caps don't have to deal with them!

Sounds like you need a new group.   You don't seem very happy with your current party or DM.  Perhaps a change in scenary is in order

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:59AM, Rory wrote:

Caps based on what is racially possible is easy to justify. In return you have less threat of magic, high levels, and blessings boosting the score out of context. I agree an arbitrary 20 cap is bad.

agreed!

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

Those individuals aren't human, they're divine beings, and would be well outside of the scope that DNDN seems to have established.  That's the sort of thing that modules or suppliments are for.

I'm also all for an attribute cap.
 

I can see the epitome of strength in medium sized humanoids being as strong as an average giant... but I don't really see it going beyond that... The ability score cap is necessary so that at any given level, you can take any monster and throw it into an encounter and it can contribute to the danger. Without the cap higher level characters will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be threatened by any of the monsters from the beginning of their career... they could walk into a mob of 10000 of them and still expect to walk away fine, i.e. fourth edition... This edition seems to be more about being a hero of your people then ascending to god-hood...

Nov 2, 2012 -- 11:37PM, Chris_Lee66 wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

Those individuals aren't human, they're divine beings, and would be well outside of the scope that DNDN seems to have established.  That's the sort of thing that modules or suppliments are for.

I'm also all for an attribute cap.
 

As I pointed out above Beowulf and possibly Roland (still haven't gotten around to llearning who this guy is) are completely human. I think Cuchulain was determined to have used some sort of magical ability or curse for his strength.

Nothing in the tale of Beowulf makes him seem divine, except his incredible exploits. So it leads credence to the idea that a normal human can become incredibly strong.

I see no problem with the highest level heroes being able to achieve mythic ability scores, maybe the cap only lasts until near the end of their career? After all I'm not sure if we are doing a level 20 cap or a level 30 cap, but if it is 30 then reaching higher than 20 makes some sort of sense.

Nov 3, 2012 -- 12:20PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

Nov 2, 2012 -- 11:37PM, Chris_Lee66 wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

Those individuals aren't human, they're divine beings, and would be well outside of the scope that DNDN seems to have established.  That's the sort of thing that modules or suppliments are for.

I'm also all for an attribute cap.
 

As I pointed out above Beowulf and possibly Roland (still haven't gotten around to llearning who this guy is) are completely human. I think Cuchulain was determined to have used some sort of magical ability or curse for his strength.

Nothing in the tale of Beowulf makes him seem divine, except his incredible exploits. So it leads credence to the idea that a normal human can become incredibly strong.

I see no problem with the highest level heroes being able to achieve mythic ability scores, maybe the cap only lasts until near the end of their career? After all I'm not sure if we are doing a level 20 cap or a level 30 cap, but if it is 30 then reaching higher than 20 makes some sort of sense.

I may disagree, although I'm not sure.  If you want to say that beyond level (X) you have access to supernaturally (or magically) increasing your stats, then I get it. However 'naturally' increasing them should have a cap. I enjoy a lot of what a cap will do to the game as well. So maybe in epic levels characters are simply no longer 'human' but are rather super-human. Maybe paragon race levels can allow you to be a 'super' and have a different ability cap.

Nov 3, 2012 -- 12:20PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

Nov 2, 2012 -- 11:37PM, Chris_Lee66 wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

Those individuals aren't human, they're divine beings, and would be well outside of the scope that DNDN seems to have established.  That's the sort of thing that modules or suppliments are for.

I'm also all for an attribute cap.
 

As I pointed out above Beowulf and possibly Roland (still haven't gotten around to llearning who this guy is) are completely human. I think Cuchulain was determined to have used some sort of magical ability or curse for his strength.

Nothing in the tale of Beowulf makes him seem divine, except his incredible exploits. So it leads credence to the idea that a normal human can become incredibly strong.

I see no problem with the highest level heroes being able to achieve mythic ability scores, maybe the cap only lasts until near the end of their career? After all I'm not sure if we are doing a level 20 cap or a level 30 cap, but if it is 30 then reaching higher than 20 makes some sort of sense.

Roland was the nephew of Charlemagne, and IS the basis for the paladin class as it appears in D&D.  He had a magical sword, Durendal, forged of metoric iron that could spilt a stone in two and never dull.  He had strength gifted to him for his purity has a christian, so as to better defend the realm of ancient christian France from the saracens in Spain.

His strength being above a 20, so to speak, would've come from the blessing he recieved from god.

As for Beowulf's supernatural strength, that might be arguable, because we don't know exactly how much stronger than a man Grendel is, and the fact that Beowulf defeated him with his barehands is not so much a testament to his raw strength, as it was capitolizing on Grendels 'weakness' of an unarmed opponent.  Granted, he did rip off Grendel's arm, but we don't know how weak or spongy his flesh was, because he was immune to weapons.

I'm in favour of the caps because it makes the system work, nothing more.

Yeah, only support it from system functionality. Either the ability bonus is capped or the total bonus is capped or we go back to named bonuses.

Nov 3, 2012 -- 10:04PM, Ogrenomnom wrote:

Nov 3, 2012 -- 12:20PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

Nov 2, 2012 -- 11:37PM, Chris_Lee66 wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

Those individuals aren't human, they're divine beings, and would be well outside of the scope that DNDN seems to have established.  That's the sort of thing that modules or suppliments are for.

I'm also all for an attribute cap.
 

As I pointed out above Beowulf and possibly Roland (still haven't gotten around to llearning who this guy is) are completely human. I think Cuchulain was determined to have used some sort of magical ability or curse for his strength.

Nothing in the tale of Beowulf makes him seem divine, except his incredible exploits. So it leads credence to the idea that a normal human can become incredibly strong.

I see no problem with the highest level heroes being able to achieve mythic ability scores, maybe the cap only lasts until near the end of their career? After all I'm not sure if we are doing a level 20 cap or a level 30 cap, but if it is 30 then reaching higher than 20 makes some sort of sense.

Roland was the nephew of Charlemagne, and IS the basis for the paladin class as it appears in D&D.  He had a magical sword, Durendal, forged of metoric iron that could spilt a stone in two and never dull.  He had strength gifted to him for his purity has a christian, so as to better defend the realm of ancient christian France from the saracens in Spain.

His strength being above a 20, so to speak, would've come from the blessing he recieved from god.

As for Beowulf's supernatural strength, that might be arguable, because we don't know exactly how much stronger than a man Grendel is, and the fact that Beowulf defeated him with his barehands is not so much a testament to his raw strength, as it was capitolizing on Grendels 'weakness' of an unarmed opponent.  Granted, he did rip off Grendel's arm, but we don't know how weak or spongy his flesh was, because he was immune to weapons.

Ah, thanks for the info on Roland.

As for Grendel, the tale has him easily tearing apart soldiers in armor, so I'd say he would be considered fairly powerful. Above 20 I think, though I'm not sure... Can an ogre rip a man in half?

I would say that a person with a 20 strength, and a solid grip could probably tear soft tissue, and assuming it cracked the spine first, probably pop you in two like a peanut.  However, his skin's toughness to natural things is never really talked about, which is what I was getting at.  If his flesh had the toughness of jello to fist, then he would not be much of a threat for ripping apart bare handed.

A couple years of in vivo and post mortem messing around with human anatomy tells me that strength 20 (which is a pretty arbitrary number, that doesn't really abstract a specific ammount of strength to begin with, but let's just assume the 'normal' d&d standard of it being just above what's normally humanly achievable. But then, what and how is Strength, really? The weightlifter? The strongman? The gymnast?) is a whole lot more than what you need to rip the bones of most joints apart.
Breaking actual bone is a bit tougher, depending on the bone in question. Try to break a femur? Good luck. But breaking ribs, arms, lower legs, etc plenty humans inflict on themselves and eachother daily. Oh, and a spine you don't have to "crack." Soft tissue is all holding the vertebrae together. Tear up those ligaments and you're set. And I don't see a reason not to let an ogre be able to do so with his bare hands. 

Personally I get the feeling that every one is over analyzing this issue!
Dungeons & Dragons has been and should always stay a fantasy role playing game!
who's to say that I can't invision my character having 20+ Ability scores at higher levels?
What I want to see is ability scores that can be as high as I choose to take them as a player!
So can we please put the abilty cap Ideas in as an optional rule? 

Maximums help characters that start with stats that aren't 18s reach the 'maximum' even though they didn't start there. Without it, the pluses just keep piling on, which is something I feel is a good thing to try to avoid. 

Nov 2, 2012 -- 11:37PM, Chris_Lee66 wrote:

Oct 18, 2012 -- 8:39PM, warrl wrote:

Oct 15, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Gwathir wrote:

The caps are in place to keep a sense of realism. A human with the strength of a giant just doesn't make sense - even in fantasy.

In spite of actually being present in the mythos of many cultures. Hercules, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Roland, to name just a few.

Those individuals aren't human, they're divine beings, and would be well outside of the scope that DNDN seems to have established.  That's the sort of thing that modules or suppliments are for.

I'm also all for an attribute cap.

At least two of those I named - Beowulf and Roland - were about as divine as you are.

The stat inflation problem in 4E is *not* ability scores. In fact, a fighter can have a higher Str by level 20 in 5E (current playtest) than in 4E; the maximum at level 20 in 5E is very close to the maximum at level 30 in 4E. (And to hit that maximum in 4E, the fighter has to make certain choices of epic destiny which is essentially a prestige class that begins at level 21; in 5E, the fighter has to make certain choices about how he keeps his pants up. Rather less character-defining.)

The stat inflation problem in 4E is excessive bonuses. Overall, your bonuses on defenses and your attack roll are supposed to go up - on average - by +1 per level. And the maximum portion of that which derives from ability scores is about one part in six. WotC did a pretty good job of keeping PCs and same-level monsters in balance, but many people think that lower-level monsters become obsolete too quickly. (I'm agnostic; I think what they did works and a substantially slower - but still properly balanced - bonus growth rate would work differently but similarly effectively.)
 

So I take it that every one beleaves that a non-hero characters / NPCs have base 10 stats?
I personally think that the Player characters / hero are the characters with the higher then normal stats that's what makes them heros! 
So at what point does a hero's stats come into conflict with fantasy? 
I see a wizard character having a higher then average intellegence score and sense a wizards powers / spells are usually based on his / her intellegence score the higher the intellegence score the more powerful the wizard!
same goes for the fighter except the fighter is based on strength so why would I want to play in a system where all my ability scores are limited to a maxium of 20 ever I personally see puttinga cap on ability scores as going in the wrong direction!

Just to make a point most fantasy heros are children of a god hercules & perseus  both sons of zeus or so the mithology goes! And might I add that most Player Characters have higher then average stats!

Who says that the RPGA needs to infulance every aspect of the game  

Nov 6, 2012 -- 6:10AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

same goes for the fighter except the fighter is based on strength so why would I want to play in a system where all my ability scores are limited to a maxium of 20 ever I personally see puttinga cap on ability scores as going in the wrong direction!

A lot of people are in favor of ability caps for gameplay reasons, rather than thematic or story reasons.  While it's all well and good to have super-strong semi-divine fighter types, if there is no cap in place then that means every fighter will be obligated to keep pumping Strength (or Dex) at every opportunity or else they will be much weaker than they would otherwise be.

By saying that 20 is the cap, you allow every fighter to differentiate by improving Con or Wisdom or whatever else they feel like, instead of just mindlessly pumping Strength (or Dex).

Nov 6, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Saelorn wrote:

Nov 6, 2012 -- 6:10AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

same goes for the fighter except the fighter is based on strength so why would I want to play in a system where all my ability scores are limited to a maxium of 20 ever I personally see puttinga cap on ability scores as going in the wrong direction!

A lot of people are in favor of ability caps for gameplay reasons, rather than thematic or story reasons.  While it's all well and good to have super-strong semi-divine fighter types, if there is no cap in place then that means every fighter will be obligated to keep pumping Strength (or Dex) at every opportunity or else they will be much weaker than they would otherwise be.

By saying that 20 is the cap, you allow every fighter to differentiate by improving Con or Wisdom or whatever else they feel like, instead of just mindlessly pumping Strength (or Dex).

^ This is the major reason for a cap. I love that you could play an intelligent fighter and not suffer serious loss because there is a cap! Any DM could do away with the cap on their own. Leave the cap in for a 'regular' game. 

I too am in favor of the cap for ability scores.  There is no need for any player character to have a score about 20 anyways.  Accoring to the playtest material, only deities or very powerful monsters would have scores higher than 20.

Nov 6, 2012 -- 6:10AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

So I take it that every one beleaves that a non-hero characters / NPCs have base 10 stats?
I personally think that the Player characters / hero are the characters with the higher then normal stats that's what makes them heros! 
So at what point does a hero's stats come into conflict with fantasy? 
I see a wizard character having a higher then average intellegence score and sense a wizards powers / spells are usually based on his / her intellegence score the higher the intellegence score the more powerful the wizard!
same goes for the fighter except the fighter is based on strength so why would I want to play in a system where all my ability scores are limited to a maxium of 20 ever I personally see puttinga cap on ability scores as going in the wrong direction!

Just to make a point most fantasy heros are children of a god hercules & perseus  both sons of zeus or so the mithology goes! And might I add that most Player Characters have higher then average stats!

Who says that the RPGA needs to infulance every aspect of the game  

You do realize that most literary heros gained that name by triumphing over adversity right? There are PLENTY of examples, even in greek mythology, of guys who just used their wit and human inginuity to overcome an overwhelming opponent, or situation and are called heroes. Hero does not mean superhuman, hero means heroic. A commoner, with his all 10s, who rescues his neighbor from a bandit camp makes him a "hero". A commoner suddenly gaining 8 strength does not. You can have heroic characters without needing high stats. You just want big characters.

Merriam Webster : "Hero - a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities"

Nov 6, 2012 -- 11:17AM, Saelorn wrote:

A lot of people are in favor of ability caps for gameplay reasons, rather than thematic or story reasons.  While it's all well and good to have super-strong semi-divine fighter types, if there is no cap in place then that means every fighter will be obligated to keep pumping Strength (or Dex) at every opportunity or else they will be much weaker than they would otherwise be.

By saying that 20 is the cap, you allow every fighter to differentiate by improving Con or Wisdom or whatever else they feel like, instead of just mindlessly pumping Strength (or Dex).

Exactly

My group rolls stats. But we take it a bit too far to kinda incintivize the whole individuality of your people.

First you number you scores 1-6

Your first roll 4 d6 drop the lowest goes to what ever you numbered 1 rince repeat till you have all your scores filled out.

You get one do over cause sometimes it just gets wierd. (Wizard with 18 str but only 9 int was my last do over) Makes for unique chars though.






Anyhow back on topic. I like the idea of capped stats, My biggest turn off in 4E was that min maxxing was so appealing. We ended up in situations where the right combination of class and race had a monk (see heavy striker) had AC exceeding the fighter in godplate armor using just a few feats that scaled up the AC gain for his Dex. Cant remember the feat name... Unarmored warrior or something. It was cause of this that our DM ended up banning both shardminds and monks from the game. To me capped stats would help bring balance back into the game and while I don't like the idea that eventually everyone will be at 20 all around, there are ways to mitigate this and keep people specialized. (Or jack of all trades good at everything but great at none)

Just my opinion though 

Nov 6, 2012 -- 6:10AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

So I take it that every one beleaves that a non-hero characters / NPCs have base 10 stats?

As per the Bestiary, a Human Commoner has 10 for every stat. An Adventuring human which is a player character, receives +2 to one chosen stat and +1 to every other stat. So Players characters will already have a stat advantage over a commoner. Not to mention having a class means that 1st level characters are already superior to the common people.

Nov 6, 2012 -- 6:10AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

I personally think that the Player characters / hero are the characters with the higher then normal stats that's what makes them heros! 
So at what point does a hero's stats come into conflict with fantasy? 

Currently this edition of D&D allows starting players to achieve higher stats on average than previous editions. Doesn't this meet your criteria  Plus the stat cap wasn't added because of a conflict, it was added for purely mechanical reasons.

Nov 6, 2012 -- 6:10AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

I see a wizard character having a higher then average intellegence score and sense a wizards powers / spells are usually based on his / her intellegence score the higher the intellegence score the more powerful the wizard! same goes for the fighter except the fighter is based on strength so why would I want to play in a system where all my ability scores are limited to a maxium of 20 ever I personally see puttinga cap on ability scores as going in the wrong direction!

Well the average stat for a commoner if 10. Due to the 4d6 drop the lowest, the median average stat for a player will generally be 13. When you add the racial bonus, then the stat bonus for picking a Wizard, you are looking at a possible 15 int. But honestly Stats don't make the character special. Its your class which sets you apart from NPCs. How many commoners can wear Plate Mail or take multiple wounds from a dagger without flinching? 

Nov 6, 2012 -- 6:10AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

Just to make a point most fantasy heros are children of a god hercules & perseus  both sons of zeus or so the mithology goes! And might I add that most Player Characters have higher then average stats!

If you have a player with a 20 strength consider this. That player can Lift Drag 1000 pounds. This puts that player on par with real life World Record Holders. A hill giant weighs between 800 to 1100 pounds. This means that with a 20 Strength you could topple a Giant pretty easily. Not to mention an opposed Strength check, you could reproduce Hercules club grab parry that was highlighted on the Tv show numerous times.

See whats funny is previous to 3e stats played little overall importance. Go back through second edition material and look at the NPCs that people idolized. Drizzit for example ranks in as Str:13 Int:17 Wis:16 Dex:20 Con:15 CHA:14. Whats funny is that he is considered overpowered as it comes and yet he doesn't break 20 on a single stat. How about the Epic level Elminster? Try Str:13 Int:18 Wis:18 Dex:18 Con:14 CHA:17. Kinda brings things into perspective when arguably the most powerful magic user in a high magic setting is only rocking an 18 Int eh?

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:52AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

What's the deal with giving us a ability score table with a format that could be expanded on just to limit the maximum ability score to 20 ever! I thought Wizards was bringing back the original system not revamping it!
I prefer being able to build a character that can have stat's as high as I want them!

And what about the tomes of Clear thougth and the manual of Gainful Exercise magic Items I always thought these were a fun part of D&D!

In the original system you could never get a score over 19 without magic. you didn't get to add points to your abilities as you level you never got anything better tha the numbers you rolled. 

If you base originality on anything other than OD&D or AD&D then you aren't basing your arguments on facts.

To be honest I'd prefer that ability scores return to their original states with their original bonuses. The changes introduced in 3e is a good part of what has gone wrong with D&D since WotC took over the franchise. 

Too bad it had to get so out of hand before they realized the problem and decided to attempt to fix it. 

I'm fine with the concept of ability score maximums, but would rather they be likely maximums rather than hard caps.

What do I mean?

I mean that it is not easy to increase scores beyond a certain threshold and frankly I'd rather that threshold default to 18, or 19 for certain races.

Automatic level bumps? Well not so automatic. How about choosing a couple of stats  at level 4 and rolling 3d6 (+1 if it's a racial advantage), and if you beat your current score it bumps by 1. So increasing a 10 is about 50% likely whereas that 17 probably won't easily happen.

Now that 3d6 could be exchanged for 4d6dl, maybe 5d4, or even 4d6 if you're fine for breaking the 20 barrier. Anyway, give the player a choice of chance without certainty and you've got a likely maximum.

Fail to increase? Drat, but the game doesn't assume you always do so the monster math isn't marching on without you any way. Strike it lucky by hitting your maximums early and score the tome to break the ceiling? Cool, but high attack chance doesn't affect your AC & HPs so you're still playing the same game - it's just you're really good in one of your facets.

Wishes, tomes, an deck-of-many-things can still exist to allow immediate rerolls with generous chances or outright automatic stat bumps.

Nov 6, 2012 -- 12:41PM, Jaden.Shadowcraft wrote:

Accoring to the playtest material, only deities or very powerful monsters would have scores higher than 20.

Unless you have a Belt of iant Strength, in which case **** that noise.

That's part of my issue with ability score caps atm. They say only certain monsters and deities will have over 20, then immediatly release a magic item that gives you a score of 21 STR at minimum.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 8:51AM, Bulmunk wrote:

Anyhow back on topic. I like the idea of capped stats, My biggest turn off in 4E was that min maxxing was so appealing.

I guess you REALLY hate 3xE then.

We ended up in situations where the right combination of class and race had a monk (see heavy striker) had AC exceeding the fighter in godplate armor using just a few feats that scaled up the AC gain for his Dex.

And by your own account the problem is the feat, not the character attribute.

4E allows higher "natural" character attributes than 1E and I think than 3.5E, but it has essentially no magical enhancement of them. For example, the 4E Belt of Giant Strength adds a bonus to Strength checks and Athletics skill checks - but not to attack or damage rolls, and not to your ordinary carrying capacity. The Elixir of Giant Strength adds a similar bonus to Strength checks, Strength-based skill checks (that is... double checking... Athletics), and damage (melee and thrown weapons only), but still not to attack rolls or to carrying capacity - plus it expires, sometimes prematurely.

In comparison, the 5E Belt of Giant Strength says "your Strength is" a certain number. Affecting everything that is based on Strength. And that number is very close to the maximum possible attribute for a 4E character at level 30 - significantly above the maximum possible at level 20.

So, 4E actually limits character attributes more strictly than 5e currently does.

4E's problem with soaring numbers (if it is a problem), lies in other bonuses. From level 1 to level 30, if you focus your periodic attribute-boosts on two attributes that will give you a maximum of +5 to the attribute bonuses for those attributes. But the total of *all* expected increasing "static" bonuses that will increase your attack rolls, many of your damage rolls, your AC, and at least one (probably two) of your NADs, is +29 (and the other NADs get at least +22, probably +26). And then there are situational and temporary bonuses.

I don't happen to think that's a problem - as long as the overall system is consistent (it is, mostly) and the consequences of having those soaring bonuses are properly accounted for (they are, mostly).

On the other hand, NOT having those soaring bonuses would not be a problem either - as long as the overall system is consistent and the consequences of a relatively flat bonus structure are properly accounted for. (5E is currently in pre-alpha testing, so no comment.)

Cant remember the feat name... Unarmored warrior or something. It was cause of this that our DM ended up banning both shardminds and monks from the game.

He'd hate this one character I built. Hybrid Monk|Cleric. Designed to go into melee combat with a necklace and an earring.

To me capped stats would help bring balance back into the game

I don't understand what sort of balance you think is missing in 4E. 1st-level PCs are well balanced (in general) alongside each other and against 1st-level monsters. 25th-level PCs are well balanced alongside each other and against 25th-level monsters. So what is it you are looking for?

It can be more balanced for a variety of reasons. For one, everyone can get to the same Max eventually. My 15 str fighter is nit at a permanent disadvantage. Neither of them are likely to ever get a god str belt so lets be clear.

What more? How about allowing someone to contribute for longer or monsters to be viable for longer. Both are benefits from this math.

Nov 10, 2012 -- 9:26PM, FluxPoint wrote:

It can be more balanced for a variety of reasons. For one, everyone can get to the same Max eventually. My 15 str fighter is nit at a permanent disadvantage. Neither of them are likely to ever get a god str belt so lets be clear. What more? How about allowing someone to contribute for longer or monsters to be viable for longer. Both are benefits from this math.

Ah. Well, PCs can already contribute for 30 levels in 4E regardless of class (except for a few late-addition classes that started out lame and never got much support). And since there ARE only 30 levels, I don't see the difficulty.

Monsters... well obviously a monster that is a threat at low levels won't be a threat when one's attack bonuses and defenses go up by +20 or more... unless the monster is also adjusted. Fortunately that's really easy in 4E. Plus there are a decent assortment of monsters at all levels.

And making it almost impossible to not max your critical attributes is one way to deal with minmaxing, I suppose. But it makes a lot of character concepts almost impossible in the long term. I mean, how can you play the fighter who is a bit weaker than others but makes up for it in smarts, when you're as strong as it's possible to be?

Whatever... different strokes and all.

Nov 10, 2012 -- 10:21PM, warrl wrote:

Nov 10, 2012 -- 9:26PM, FluxPoint wrote:

It can be more balanced for a variety of reasons. For one, everyone can get to the same Max eventually. My 15 str fighter is nit at a permanent disadvantage. Neither of them are likely to ever get a god str belt so lets be clear. What more? How about allowing someone to contribute for longer or monsters to be viable for longer. Both are benefits from this math.

Ah. Well, PCs can already contribute for 30 levels in 4E regardless of class (except for a few late-addition classes that started out lame and never got much support). And since there ARE only 30 levels, I don't see the difficulty.

Monsters... well obviously a monster that is a threat at low levels won't be a threat when one's attack bonuses and defenses go up by +20 or more... unless the monster is also adjusted. Fortunately that's really easy in 4E. Plus there are a decent assortment of monsters at all levels.

And making it almost impossible to not max your critical attributes is one way to deal with minmaxing, I suppose. But it makes a lot of character concepts almost impossible in the long term. I mean, how can you play the fighter who is a bit weaker than others but makes up for it in smarts, when you're as strong as it's possible to be?

Whatever... different strokes and all.

My 1st level PC can't contribute to a 30th level game in very many editions of D&D. With caps, at least I might be able to hit!

Sure anybody can add more monsters or level up a monster. Wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to?

How can you ever play a fighter who is also almost as smart as he is strong if you have to level up str or be even futher behind, ALL the time?  Yeah I have 30 STR finally but my int is 13 still  I guess 4e let you level two stats so that helped. With a cap though, it can let you be good or close in more than one area. For example, instead of a non-str guy being 20 stat points behind, he is only going to be 12 stat points behind in the usual worst case and only a handful in an average case.

Besides, its actually much more boring than: str maxed, what now? con? dex? int? wis? cha? <-- and with interesting backgrounds, each one might get a different tilt.

Nov 10, 2012 -- 11:01PM, FluxPoint wrote:

My 1st level PC can't contribute to a 30th level game in very many editions of D&D. With caps, at least I might be able to hit!

This is a situation that should never come up. If you're in a level 30 game, you're level 30, not level 1.

A part of me wonders if the cap has anything to do with saving throws and skills.

You've reached the cap of your Strength score....maybe it would be a good idea to perhaps increase another stat to improve your saving throws and skills?  I don't mind a cap (because I'm a masochist and I love Dark Souls) and having a limitation makes magical items desirable to obtain.  Yes, you improve, though I'd have to agree that I'd never want to meet a walking mass of muscle just because he leveled his Strength up to 30.  20 is still pretty high for the norm.

I guess, should your group want, you can deside if you want to play a Fantasy game or Super Fantasy game.

Fantasy = normal game with stat cap to reflect that you will reach a peak and you can never be as strong as a frost giant without magical assistance.

Super Fantasy = no stat cap.  If your group runs the over-the-top combat encounters similar to Final Fantasy's Advent Children movie, by all means, go ahead.

Remember, they are guide lines.  If EVERYONE (not just you) is having fun, I'd say it's a winner. 

Nov 10, 2012 -- 11:05PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Nov 10, 2012 -- 11:01PM, FluxPoint wrote:

My 1st level PC can't contribute to a 30th level game in very many editions of D&D. With caps, at least I might be able to hit!

This is a situation that should never come up. If you're in a level 30 game, you're level 30, not level 1.

It's an extreme example but I don't agree that it could never come up.  PCs might have lower level henchmen.  Should a DM be required to make a henchman 20th level just so they can contribute?  The Cohort rules in 3e were held hostage to this concept, although the way xp works means a long-term henchman will eventually catch up (allowing them a percentage of the PC's xp is an appropriate compromise in my view but I digress).

Certainly in 1-3e we most often played in campaigns where PCs were different levels - 7-12 the usual spread but we did play in a campaign where one player had a level 2 ranger cleric and he didn't live that long - so there will always be issues if the gap is too large.  I think allowing PCs of 5 levels lower to particpate successfully allows a lot more flexibility in the game.

I once played in a campaign that doesn't follow the 'normal' rules. We could take down stuff meant for groups 6-7 levels higher. If you want to break stat caps, you'll likely have to play in that kind of game. I think stat caps make more sense for the base game than not. Allowing my 'followers' to contribute at level 1 when I'm name level  (9th? 10th?) is pretty neat. I once joined an epic level campaign at lowly level 1 just for the giggles. I survived the first fight and leveled like 11 times. It was pretty hilarious for all involved. Needless to say, I couldn't contribute unless I rolled a 20.

Allowing a goblin to at least be able to do damange sometimes (without 20s) no matter what level you are is way more interesting. The thing is, leaving the stat cap in leaves both options available to both groups. Taking it out, removes the stat cap option. Leave it in.

Nov 10, 2012 -- 9:07PM, warrl wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 8:51AM, Bulmunk wrote:

Anyhow back on topic. I like the idea of capped stats, My biggest turn off in 4E was that min maxxing was so appealing.

I guess you REALLY hate 3xE then.

I actually jumped from 2e to 4e after (Deity of choice)  knows how many years and only started 4e last summer. So I may just not like 3xE never played it so cant judge.

We ended up in situations where the right combination of class and race had a monk (see heavy striker) had AC exceeding the fighter in godplate armor using just a few feats that scaled up the AC gain for his Dex.

 

And by your own account the problem is the feat, not the character attribute.

4E allows higher "natural" character attributes than 1E and I think than 3.5E, but it has essentially no magical enhancement of them. For example, the 4E Belt of Giant Strength adds a bonus to Strength checks and Athletics skill checks - but not to attack or damage rolls, and not to your ordinary carrying capacity. The Elixir of Giant Strength adds a similar bonus to Strength checks, Strength-based skill checks (that is... double checking... Athletics), and damage (melee and thrown weapons only), but still not to attack rolls or to carrying capacity - plus it expires, sometimes prematurely.

In comparison, the 5E Belt of Giant Strength says "your Strength is" a certain number. Affecting everything that is based on Strength. And that number is very close to the maximum possible attribute for a 4E character at level 30 - significantly above the maximum possible at level 20.

So, 4E actually limits character attributes more strictly than 5e currently does.

4E's problem with soaring numbers (if it is a problem), lies in other bonuses. From level 1 to level 30, if you focus your periodic attribute-boosts on two attributes that will give you a maximum of +5 to the attribute bonuses for those attributes. But the total of *all* expected increasing "static" bonuses that will increase your attack rolls, many of your damage rolls, your AC, and at least one (probably two) of your NADs, is +29 (and the other NADs get at least +22, probably +26). And then there are situational and temporary bonuses.

I don't happen to think that's a problem - as long as the overall system is consistent (it is, mostly) and the consequences of having those soaring bonuses are properly accounted for (they are, mostly).

On the other hand, NOT having those soaring bonuses would not be a problem either - as long as the overall system is consistent and the consequences of a relatively flat bonus structure are properly accounted for. (5E is currently in pre-alpha testing, so no comment.)

I agree that the belt of giant strength and potion of giant strength  are a bit too much and if anything it should be a modifier to the base str rather than having it break the cap as a set in stone number. What I don't agree on is that there should be a soft cap rather than hard... How to phrase this... It discourages branching out in order to have a well rounded charicter useful in all three spheres (social, puzzle, combat) of the game. Because of the fact that there is a soft cap and the game scales to keep up with this fact, two of these spheres become much less important unless your class's combat focuses on an atribute that encompases two of these spheres.

To me capped stats would help bring balance back into the game

I don't understand what sort of balance you think is missing in 4E. 1st-level PCs are well balanced (in general) alongside each other and against 1st-level monsters. 25th-level PCs are well balanced alongside each other and against 25th-level monsters. So what is it you are looking for?

A feeling of potential without the feeling that you are being peanalized if you dont focus on one area. I feel hard cap's afford that much more nicely than soft cap's do.

But to be honest "I don't know what balance I am looking for" is a better answer. Very rarely are things truely balanced in ways that keep the game interesting. I'll get back to you if I find something that does.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:52AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

What's the deal with giving us a ability score table with a format that could be expanded on just to limit the maximum ability score to 20 ever! I thought Wizards was bringing back the original system not revamping it!
I prefer being able to build a character that can have stat's as high as I want them!

And what about the tomes of Clear thougth and the manual of Gainful Exercise magic Items I always thought these were a fun part of D&D!

I know this is somewhat dated, but...

I am not sure what the OP is referencing?  Is he talking about Strength, Charisma, Wisdom etc. ability scores?

If so the older D&D systems (AD&D1 and 2), limited mortals to 18 in each category, except Strength, which was 18/00 just a tad short of 19.

There were some magical items that could give you higher scores of temporary effect (ie girdle of giant strength etc.), and in rare cases they could be raised by Artifacts or by the Gods.

Even still, should some mortal gain 20s in some of their ability scores, they don't get the powers and enhancements that come with it according to the rules in Deities and Demigods/Legends and Lore.

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:02PM, trebor_rjf wrote:

i don't like the cap at 20. a fighter starting with a 17 strength will cap it out at level 12. i'd rather have the cap expand to allow character to pump the same stat all the way to level 20 without hitting a ceiling.

 it could probably be a good case for an optional rule that a DM could pick when he starts a campaign.

I agree with trebor_rjf each character class in D&D will hit a Stat level cap at either 12th or 13th level depending on their starting stats!

For instance an Elven Wizard that Starts with 17 Intelligence at First Level will cap it at level 12 and sense a wizards magic is based on Intelligence the wizards spell start becoming less effective so a Stat Cap of 20 is basically useless 

And suggesting that we rely on magic items to inprove our Stats beyond 20 takes away the novality of the magic Items there by making Magic Items a requirement and not the reward that they have been in Editions prior to 4th Edition! 

Ironically, I would like to see a game where everyone having 16, 17, and 18 in an ability score is not the norm at even 20th level.  I know that is not going to happen.  I find it exciting to see a high level fighter with a 13 strength 12 dex 10 constitution that is so darn good that he can beat the heck out of 8th level fighter with 20 strength and 20 constitution.  But I know that isn't going to happen.

Mar 31, 2013 -- 9:22AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:02PM, trebor_rjf wrote:

And suggesting that we rely on magic items to inprove our Stats beyond 20 takes away the novality of the magic Items there by making Magic Items a requirement and not the reward that they have been in Editions prior to 4th Edition! 

I guess I don't understand the nexus here.  What does somehow gaining 19+ ability scores have to do with magical items being a reward or requirement?  When did being able to have ability scores of 19 and above become automatic?

I'm thinking that is part of the reason for the decline in RPGs.  Everyone thinks they are entitled to God like characters.

Mar 31, 2013 -- 10:52AM, OldOnes wrote:

Mar 31, 2013 -- 9:22AM, J_Stillfeather wrote:

Oct 14, 2012 -- 10:02PM, trebor_rjf wrote:

And suggesting that we rely on magic items to inprove our Stats beyond 20 takes away the novality of the magic Items there by making Magic Items a requirement and not the reward that they have been in Editions prior to 4th Edition! 

I guess I don't understand the nexus here.  What does somehow gaining 19+ ability scores have to do with magical items being a reward or requirement?  When did being able to have ability scores of 19 and above become automatic?

I'm thinking that is part of the reason for the decline in RPGs.  Everyone thinks they are entitled to God like characters.

I guess it comes down to Magic Items that enhance ability scores such as girdle of giant strength and the like becoming a requirement to play like in 4th edition when in earlier editions such magic items were not required to play beyound 2rd - 3rd level based on the DM & campain 

So either we have a Stat cap needing to replace Magic Items  with better magic items to continue to play Like in 4th Edition or no stat cap with magic items as rewards not requirements the way they used to be prior to 4th Edition!

Ability score caps should always be an optional rule not part of the core system! 

The cap establishes meaningful ranges to help designing level appropriate monsters, encounters, and modules. The cap also prevents an arms race between player characters and foes in a bounded accuracy system.

Meh, I don't have a problem with ability caps. With the way saves work and the game in general works you should always have useful stats to put points into.

Having high stats still will make you awesome. We don't want 4e-style monster scaling anymore (if I see another slow ass creature with +15 to iniative...) so stat caps will have to be there to keep the min/maxers from 1-shotting everything. As someone who can power-game with the best of them it doesn't bother me at all.


My only problem right now is classes like the ranger and paladin that don't get much past level 8-10. Hopefully we'll see more in the future as the spells they get at higher levels are pretty boring, especially the poor ranger (commune is the only level 5 spell??? really???).

I've never played anything other than D&D Basic and AD&D 1&2.  I didn't see where the OP was pertaining to anything else.  I have no idea how D&D 3+ are played.  I think I tried to look at the rules, but they were too foreign from the orginal games.