Community

Why do we despise race-dependent stat caps, again?

Is this some odd, equal opportunity, fantasy political correctness where halflings should have the same chance at being as strong as a storm giant?

Do stat caps amount to a discrimination that impacts your ability to play interesting characters?

Are they more difficult to ignore than alignment restrictions?

 

Dec 9, 2012 -- 2:09PM, Diffan wrote:

@ mrpopstar: Yes, yes, and yes. Hope that helps.

LOL Alright, fair enough.

Dec 9, 2012 -- 2:20PM, rampant wrote:

It's not that people think every halfling should be as strong as a human, so much as the mathematical issues the penalties cause for classes that don't have the kind of flexibility in stat choice that a fighter generally does.

The negative impact of penalties, I totally agree with. -- Implementing penalties is an issue separate from implementing caps though. A 'Max Strength of 16' clause is different than a 'Strength -2' clause. They succeed at capping (or mitigating) maximum attributes, but the implications are totally different mathematically.

In 3e it costs a half-orc 4 more points to get a 14 int than it would for a human, which means that in addition to being lower int his support scores (namely dex and con) also end up lower. Rolled stats sometimes make this seem like less of an issue, but generally only when you're rolling great anyway.

I wasn't even considering negative modifiers and/or point buy in my equation. The issue, in my eyes, is a simple 'Max Strength of 16' clause.  

I want races to be roughly competent at all classes because it allows for a greater variety of characters to be playable instead of just joke characters.

I do as well, which is also why I'm a propenent of removing stat modifiers from attack rolls. All members of all classes would therefore be competent (in terms of capability), but variance would be evident in terms of impact (stat mods appearing in damage modifiers, save DC's, etc).

To Salla,

You simply saying they can make a stat cap is not the same as having it ruled.  Everyone debating this point seems to forget that there are an enormous amount of players out there that only play at Encounters, or cons, or special events (like the opening of The Hobbit! ).  So it either needs to be a rule or not a rule.

The truth of the matter is the designers have to have the gumption to take a stance.

To Mrpopstar,

Yes, it may seem like political correctness gone awry in your eye.  But, I'm not really sure it is.  I think it's more a case of: "I want an easy button."  My favorite character was a human fighter that had no stat above a 14.  That's what I rolled, and that's what I had to overcome.  It made me a much more creative and intuitive player (at least for a fighter) than making sure everyone at the table was equal.  This is not to say that way is better.  But, I can say, it taught me something that may have taken years to learn otherwise.