|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 9:42AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
If a fighter was not limited to 20 Strength, there would be no point to increasing any other stat. It would remove the freedom to choose, which is a great appeal of the current system.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 10:26AM
#22
|
|
|
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.
Basically, stats are not just a plus to add to your die, they are there to gauge your character's capabilities, so that when you create an PC or NPC you can picture a personage like in a novel or movie and assign stats accordingly.
If your DM wants to condone power gaming and min/maxing then by all means, remove the cap - remember the rules are meant to be a guideline, its your game.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 10:29AM
#23
|
|
|
I think the cap is one of the best ideas in 5e and I am actually disappointed that certain items allow to break the cap. With a cap of 20 it's much easier to balance monster AC for the Str 20 and the Str 16 melee character than in a party with a Str 26 and a Str 16 melee character
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 10:47AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
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.
And yet a Human with a STR 20 is as strong as a Giant. That's why i think the cap is still too high since we can't reduce the Strenght of Giants, the cap should go down to 18.
Yan Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 11:04AM
#25
|
|
|
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.
And yet a Human with a STR 20 is as strong as a Giant. That's why i think the cap is still too high since we can't reduce the Strenght of Giants, the cap should go down to 18.
Well yes that is definatelly a problem as well, either the cap needs to be adjusted or the creatures.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 11:18AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
I agree, if they're going back to 1e giant strength then they should drop the cap to 18. It makes more sense to up the giant cap so that the ogre strength starts at peak human (i.e. 20) and build giant strength on top of that (i.e. 21-26)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 1:29PM
#27
|
|
|
Here is what I am leaning toward.
Heroes use a slightly above average array: 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9.
Then +1 class.
Then +1 race.
So a maximum possible score at level 1 is 16 for the primary ability.
Then +1 background to a nonprimary ability.
Results include:
16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9 16, 13, 12, 11, 10, 10 15, 15, 12, 11, 10, 9
Then allow abilities to improve at levels 5, 10, 15, 20, so the primary ability possibly reaches 20, at level 20.
Magic could add on top of this, but magical boosts would make any expected ranges for abilities a joke, and DMs should probably avoid magical boosts. Items such as Books, Belt of Giant Strength, and Circlets of Intellect, can provide their effect temporarily, thus keeping the expected Strength and Intelligence within reason.
I hope the designers rethink the stats for the Human race, so it works more smoothly, using the same mechanics as other races. Hopefully the Human racial ability adjustment is +1 any, along with racial features that represent Human desire, aggression, cooperation, and adaptation. Several forumers have suggested excellent features along these lines.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 2:11PM
#28
|
|
|
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.
And yet a Human with a STR 20 is as strong as a Giant. That's why i think the cap is still too high since we can't reduce the Strenght of Giants, the cap should go down to 18.
While I would love the idea of capping it at 18, wouldn't that do wierd things to race/class bonus choices? Say you roll an 18, but your next highest score is a 14. If you put the 18 in intelligence, let's say, then it would pretty much force you to not play a high elf, since you would lose the bonus int. The same with the wizard int bonus. But if you put the 14 there, you can't get 18.
Just something that jumped out at me.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 4:00PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
With stacking bonuses from race and class, the cap has to be there to retain balance. Without it, if you don't pick a race that grants a bonus to your primary stat, and choose that stat for your class bonus, you'll always be less effective than someone of a difference race. With a cap, at least you'll catch up later, so an "optimal" choice is less critical.
Personally, I prefer the 13th Age method, where both race and class grant +2 to a stat, from a list of appropriate choices, but they don't stack. So an elf fighter would get +2 Str from being a fighter, and either +2 Dex or +2 Wis from being an elf, but an elf rogue might take the +2 Dex from being an elf, then take a secondary option from rogue (e.g. +2 Cha).
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 15, 2012 - 9:18PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2009
|
Do I have to remind every one that in earlier editions of D&D there was no ability max and the system worked and I don't like the idea of being told how to play a character or having any kind of maximum stat! why is wizards completely redesigning something that worked quite well! I can see putting a maximum on a ability score eventually eliminating play-ability! The higher the monsters stats the harder they are to kill with limited character stats!
|
|
|