Your opinion on the Ability Score cap?

[supergoji18]

This is really a two part question seeing as there are technically two caps: the cap that players can reach without items/class abilities, and the hard cap that none can exceed.

What is your opinion on the Ability Score cap for players at 20? Do you feel it is reasonable/justifiable?

What about the hard cap of 30? Do you feel it is perfect or too low? What would an ideal cap be?

I am fines with the player ability cap, but I feel the hard cap is too low. IMO, 30 is not enough to be able to demonstrate significant differences is power levels. It seems a bit weird to me that the Tarrasque has the same strength as an Ancient Red Dragon. Additionally, I feel that it doesn't leave much room for Deities to show differences in their abilities (I know deities having stats is already a touchy subject, but it is a fact of life that D&D stat pretty much everything). How is Vecna going to be able to show how crazy smart he is if Tiamat is just barely under the cap herself? I know there are other ways that they can display power, but I find ability score to be a good reference point for when determining how powerful something is.

[Myzz]

This is really a two part question seeing as there are technically two caps: the cap that players can reach without items/class abilities, and the hard cap that none can exceed.

What is your opinion on the Ability Score cap for players at 20? Do you feel it is reasonable/justifiable?

What about the hard cap of 30? Do you feel it is perfect or too low? What would an ideal cap be?

I am fines with the player ability cap, but I feel the hard cap is too low. IMO, 30 is not enough to be able to demonstrate significant differences is power levels. It seems a bit weird to me that the Tarrasque has the same strength as an Ancient Red Dragon. Additionally, I feel that it doesn't leave much room for Deities to show differences in their abilities (I know deities having stats is already a touchy subject, but it is a fact of life that D&D stat pretty much everything). How is Vecna going to be able to show how crazy smart he is if Tiamat is just barely under the cap herself? I know there are other ways that they can display power, but I find ability score to be a good reference point for when determining how powerful something is.

I'm fairly certain that any stats you find for Gods will just be their Avatars on the Prime... A bag of meat after all can't handle the divine intellect of one like Vecna!

[themaque]

I think both caps work quite well, and help keep the game from spiraling off into ridiculousness.

There are just enough ways to break the soft cap, but a hard cap keeps things from power creeping.

Oh sure Vecna is a 32, but this new guy is a 33! ha-HA!

[JFahy]

I'm fine with the PC ability cap, and haven't given the hard cap any thought although I can sort
of see your point about how it limits the ability to represent high-end stuff.

Mitigating that, keep in mind that the difference between a stat of 30 and a stat of 20 isn't
"50% more". You can't even look at their stat bonuses, +10 vs. +5, and say the 30 is
"twice as good", really, because in a world of bounded accuracy the benefit of extra pluses
isn't linear. +10 on Str/Dex plus any kind of proficiency bonus means you can hardly
fail to hit (and seriously hurt) even well-armored targets. It means you can do skill checks
rated as 'pretty much impossible' with some regularity.

Some people like the high end of the spectrum to be 'Marvel Comics level' (the Hulk throws
an office building at Thor) and some people like it to be 'DC Comics level' (Mon-El throws
a moon at the Time Trapper). D&D5 is closer to Marvel on the uberness spectrum. :smallwink:

I liked in D&D1 how when one of your stats went above 18, you had to open up a book
entitled Deities and Demigods to see your stat bonuses. That sent a good message. :smallamused:

[DireSickFish]

I like the soft cap as it makes race selection a lot less important. Sure you get to the cap quicker but even a race with no bonuses to the primary stat will get there eventually, and not be super punished along the way.

Having a hard cap is fine for keeping things within bounded accuracy and a challenge for the PC's.

[heavyfuel]

I like it. No more having a Barbarian stronger than Big T, or a Cleric wiser than Pelor himself.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I saw worse in AD&D where only 3 out of 15 rollable stats had any noticeable mechanic advantage and raising them was almost impossible

I do agree that it kinda sucks for things outside of PCs.I remember getting a girdle of Giant strength in the old days as well and suddenly becoming one of the strongest beings in the universe since a 23 was close enough to a 25. Now it wont be as bad here and now but I can see shades of it compared to 3.5

[mephnick]

I think they're trying to differentiate powerful creatures with legendary abilities and things like that, rather than basic math. That said, this would have been the perfect edition to keep deities mysterious and powerful by not giving them stats.

Sigh. Oh well, I can keep them outside the system in my own game, so it's not that big a deal.

[ZenBear]

I like the caps. Keeps the math simple and the players as characters and not caricatures (I am so agile I could balance on the tip of a needle [DEX30+] but I still can hardly lift a barbell with no weights on it [STR8]).

[supergoji18]

I think they're trying to differentiate powerful creatures with legendary abilities and things like that, rather than basic math. That said, this would have been the perfect edition to keep deities mysterious and powerful by not giving them stats.

Sigh. Oh well, I can keep them outside the system in my own game, so it's not that big a deal.

Only one deity has been stated so far, and as far as I can tell the Tiamat you face was weakened from the summoning anyway (though she is still a TPK). So gods can still be mysterious and stuff. Of course, you could choose to ignore their official stats if you want.

The overall consensus seems to be that the caps are very much welcome, both for players and for monsters alike.

[Narren]

I like the caps, especially in regard to mental abilities. I'm sorry, but no one reading this forum is able to accurately get into the head of a character with an intelligence, wisdom, or charisma of 30+

[TrollCapAmerica]

I like the caps, especially in regard to mental abilities. I'm sorry, but no one reading this forum is able to accurately get into the head of a character with an intelligence, wisdom, or charisma of 30+

Considering alot of the stuff on the 3.5 boards I wonder about that

[Kane0]

Considering alot of the stuff on the 3.5 boards I wonder about that

And thats exactly why when i cant think of am answer my int18, wis 16 character should he able to come up with i turn to the forums. Combined intellect and rules knowledge can simulate high in game intellect pretty well.

[BootStrapTommy]

It certainly caps minmaxing and munchkinry, which brings a bit more balance to the game. But it does seem a bit limiting in the long run.

Certainly dulls down Epic quit a bit.

[Pex]

It's not in a vacuum. The cap is there because of bounded accuracy. How one regards bounded accuracy is the real question.

[Chronos]

The caps are definitely too low. Str 30 isn't at the Marvel superhero level. It isn't even at the Earth normal level. Look up how much a medium-sized Str 30 creature can lift. Now look up how much any non-human ape can lift. Seriously, would a ton have been too much to ask? But you can't even reach that with five tomes and a Bull's Strength.

[supergoji18]

The caps are definitely too low. Str 30 isn't at the Marvel superhero level. It isn't even at the Earth normal level. Look up how much a medium-sized Str 30 creature can lift. Now look up how much any non-human ape can lift. Seriously, would a ton have been too much to ask? But you can't even reach that with five tomes and a Bull's Strength.

The carrying capacity equation assumes your character is following the "Max of 20" rule. A human with 20 strength can carry up to 300 lbs of gear without being slowed down or tired out from long periods of travel. That's impressive even compared to our absolute strongest, most in-shape body builders around. It also assumes you are at least of relatively human-like build (i.e. More muscle in legs than in arms like apes). The equation wasn't meant to be used for creatures who normally do not carry gear as humans/demi humans do.

[heavyfuel]

The caps are definitely too low. Str 30 isn't at the Marvel superhero level. It isn't even at the Earth normal level. Look up how much a medium-sized Str 30 creature can lift. Now look up how much any non-human ape can lift. Seriously, would a ton have been too much to ask? But you can't even reach that with five tomes and a Bull's Strength.

Definitely agree that 30 is too low, but only for monsters. I'm completely happy with PCs being bound to 20.

Personally, I'd make the hard cap for monsters be 40, and say that push, drag, and lif are Str*60 instead of *30.

The implications are that the strongest non-Barb20 guy on D&D can lift 1200pounds (544kg). To compare, Zydrunas Savickas, probably with Str 19, could lift 1155 pounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBFTB7Xjk3U). So it makes sense that a lv-freaking-20 Barb with 24 Str can do a bit better than him (1440 pounds)

Big T, now with 40 Str, can lift up to 2400 pounds (1088kg, little over a ton). Seems fair for such a creature.

Also, with 40 (+20) in an ability, it makes sure that a commoner with 10 (+0) can't win an opposed check because of luck. Unlike with 30 (+10), where the commoner can still win 12.5% of the time (unless my math is wrong, which it probably is)

[Naanomi]

Don't forget that size category and Bear Totem Barbarianism can effect lift weight as well

[Envyus]

I'm fairly certain that any stats you find for Gods will just be their Avatars on the Prime... A bag of meat after all can't handle the divine intellect of one like Vecna!

According to the DMG. Lesser Gods can be fought and dwell in the planes. Tiamat a lesser gods was fight able and very powerful. However Greater Gods are completely out of a mortals reach and can't be truly interacted with. However they can create avatars that are as powerful as lesser gods.

[TrollCapAmerica]

According to the DMG. Lesser Gods can be fought and dwell in the planes. Tiamat a lesser gods was fight able and very powerful. However Greater Gods are completely out of a mortals reach and can't be truly interacted with. However they can create avatars that are as powerful as lesser gods.

Gods even great one have been killable since 1st ed.It was only Lorraine Williams stink and railroading FR metaplot that ever pretended they werent

I much prefer my D&D this way even if a well played god is nearly invincible anyways

[pwykersotz]

I love the caps. I think it encourages diversification of powers and interesting tactics as opposed to just MOAR POWER!!1!

[BootStrapTommy]

The implications are that the strongest non-Barb20 guy on D&D can lift 1200pounds (544kg). To compare, Zydrunas Savickas, probably with Str 19, could lift 1155 pounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBFTB7Xjk3U). So it makes sense that a lv-freaking-20 Barb with 24 Str can do a bit better than him (1440 pounds)
Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, the Mountain that Rides from GoT, recently lifted 1433lbs (650kg) and took 5 steps with it. As awesome as he is, its safe to say he isn't a lvl20 Barbarian.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I like it. No more having a Barbarian stronger than Big T, or a Cleric wiser than Pelor himself.

I know it's a little player centric to think this way, but I rather like the idea that this is possible. It's likely because I started with 3.5, but when I play D&D, I sort of have the expectation that players can almost grow to be a force of nature, and I love that.

If I want more grounded storylines and characters, I typically look to other systems.

[Strill]

I know it's a little player centric to think this way, but I rather like the idea that this is possible. It's likely because I started with 3.5, but when I play D&D, I sort of have the expectation that players can almost grow to be a force of nature, and I love that.

If I want more grounded storylines and characters, I typically look to other systems.

That's only half the issue. It's ok if the game reaches the point where the player characters become gods, but the game should acknowledge that. As-is, the player characters, as mortals, can exceed the gods, which doesn't make sense. If the players approach that level they should actually become gods.

[Mr.Moron]

The player cap is right where it needs to be. At 20 it's close enough to most start values (15-16) that even a max value won't feel like they're in a different league from a middling score. At 20 it's high enough that a max-score is still a meaningful boost over a low score or middling score. At 20 it's enough that there is room to grow, even if you're at the start maximum (18). At 20 it's low enough you can still reach it even if you're starting with a low score.

I couldn't care one way or the other about monster caps. That's in the realm of the GM and I'm free to break those rules as much or as little as I need to for the health of the game.

[Giant2005]

I think the base cap of 20 is too low only because it is attainable at level 1 and it just feels weird for a level 1 character to be among the strongest on the planet.
As for the hard cap... Does it even exist? This is the first I have heard of a hard cap - I know DM designed Monsters can't get above 30 (Unless the DM thinks that is stupid) in a stat but as far as I knew, players with the right assistance had no hard cap.

[Solusek]

I'm happy with PC's being bound at 20. Capping monsters at 30 is much too low, though. Huge size giant creature should be able to get a STR of greater than 30 and mythic power legendary creatures/deities should certainly be able to get any of their iconic stats over 30.

[supergoji18]

I think the base cap of 20 is too low only because it is attainable at level 1 and it just feels weird for a level 1 character to be among the strongest on the planet.
As for the hard cap... Does it even exist? This is the first I have heard of a hard cap - I know DM designed Monsters can't get above 30 (Unless the DM thinks that is stupid) in a stat but as far as I knew, players with the right assistance had no hard cap.

In the RAW, stats only go up to 30 for monsters. There are no listed benefits for stats above 30, and no monster, not even the goddess Tiamat, has stats over 30. Players are also subject to this limit.

I suppose you could homebrew a system with higher scores, but that can be difficult to balance due to Bounded Accuracy. The 5e system was designed to be balanced within certain limits. Changing those limits will change the balance of the system.

[gameogre]

The Cap is WAY WAY WAY too LOW!

Me STRENGTH score is BIG and needs room to grow BIGGER! As Big as it can BE!

20? I had a 20 at birth! 30? I needed a 30 strength just to lift me Binky as a Baby Barb!

YOU NO CAP ME! I CAP YOU!

[heavyfuel]

Don't forget that size category and Bear Totem Barbarianism can effect lift weight as well

Totally forgot about size categories..


Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, the Mountain that Rides from GoT, recently lifted 1433lbs (650kg) and took 5 steps with it. As awesome as he is, its safe to say he isn't a lvl20 Barbarian.

I was pretty sure he was able to do something like that, but my quick google search revealed no such thing, so I went with what I found. Maybe he has a homebrewed feat :smallbiggrin: Still, I think *60 is much closer to reality, though I might make it *80


I think the base cap of 20 is too low only because it is attainable at level 1 and it just feels weird for a level 1 character to be among the strongest on the planet.
As for the hard cap... Does it even exist? This is the first I have heard of a hard cap - I know DM designed Monsters can't get above 30 (Unless the DM thinks that is stupid) in a stat but as far as I knew, players with the right assistance had no hard cap.

I'm 99% sure the designers intended for people to use the Standard Array, and were strongarmed into making 4d6 drop lowest the primary rule because someone didn't want to change the classic way. Even during the Bruenor example, they use the array.

While there is no 30 hard cap written, it pretty much is one. Tiamat herself is capped at 30 so...


I know it's a little player centric to think this way, but I rather like the idea that this is possible. It's likely because I started with 3.5, but when I play D&D, I sort of have the expectation that players can almost grow to be a force of nature, and I love that.

If I want more grounded storylines and characters, I typically look to other systems.

The thing is, you can achieve these things pretty easily. Why would a Cleric that has 5 levels before he goes epic ask for his deity's advice, when he's wiser than he's? Just doesn't make much sense.

[supergoji18]

The Cap is WAY WAY WAY too LOW!

Me STRENGTH score is BIG and needs room to grow BIGGER! As Big as it can BE!

20? I had a 20 at birth! 30? I needed a 30 strength just to lift me Binky as a Baby Barb!

YOU NO CAP ME! I CAP YOU!

Me thinks we just found the party's missing barbarian



The thing is, you can achieve these things pretty easily. Why would a Cleric that has 5 levels before he goes epic ask for his deity's advice, when he's wiser than he's? Just doesn't make much sense.
That's the issue with stating deities in general really. I never really liked the way they were stated in previous editions, as I felt the stats were too low (some of the Demon Lords and Archdevils actually had better stats than the gods themselves, and while that isn't as bad as a mortal exceeding the gods it is still unrealistic IMO).

[Naanomi]

Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, the Mountain that Rides from GoT, recently lifted 1433lbs (650kg) and took 5 steps with it. As awesome as he is, its safe to say he isn't a lvl20 Barbarian.
If he is a bear totem barbarian his strength doesn't have to be too high. All weightlifters are totem barbarians?

[JFahy]

If he is a bear totem barbarian his strength doesn't have to be too high. All weightlifters are totem barbarians?

"With a carrying capacity like that, he's a tote-'em barbarian!"

(runs for cover)

[supergoji18]

"With a carrying capacity like that, he's a tote-'em barbarian!"

(runs for cover)

*throws tomatoes*

[Chronos]

Here's the thing: I want it to be possible for a PC to become stronger than the gods. This is not to say I actually want it to happen: It's OK if it's so incredibly difficult that I'll probably never see it. But I still want that chance to be there, the assurance that, no matter how powerful I get, I can always get more powerful.


Quoth Mr.Moron:

The player cap is right where it needs to be. At 20 it's close enough to most start values (15-16) that even a max value won't feel like they're in a different league from a middling score.
And that's exactly why it's too low. The strongest man in the world should be in a different league than a middling man.

[heavyfuel]

And that's exactly why it's too low. The strongest man in the world should be in a different league than a middling man.

That's a fault that's existed since forever in D&D. The strongest mundane man has Str around 18, while average is 10. There's no way the first guy should ever lose to the second in a Str competition, yet, it happens a lot because the d20 a fickle girl.

[newsman77]

I think the ability caps are right on. It keeps me feeling heroic without getting into the ridiculousness that was 3.5... and lets the story telling/characters choices matter more than min/maxing.

Let me tell you from experience, it's no fun playing at a table with a munchkin who's doing 3 attacks a round for 300+ damage a hit and the rest of the team is well under that. We could all do that, but what's the point when you lose out on all the fun story choices.

The tough pill to swallow is no magic item shops, but in a way I like it too. It adds a certain flavor and appeal of when you find something cool.

[Zilzmaer]

We could all do that, but what's the point when you lose out on all the fun story choices.

If you're losing out on fun story choices because you got stronger with levels, you're roleplaying wrong. There is zero in-character difference between a Str 6 character and one with Str 30, except that one can do more. It doesn't affect their personality or choices unless you want it to.

Re: Stormwind fallacy.

[newsman77]

If you're losing out on fun story choices because you got stronger with levels, you're roleplaying wrong. There is zero in-character difference between a Str 6 character and one with Str 30, except that one can do more. It doesn't affect their personality or choices unless you want it to.

Re: Stormwind fallacy.

You don't see a roleplaying difference between someone with 6 strength and someone with 30? Clearly you're the one who's doing it wrong. Plus you missed the point. Go back and re-read the post. Bottomline: Ability caps are fine as they are.

[Magic Myrmidon]

You're sort of both right.

It's true, having a 30 strength will LIKELY have some sort of impact on a character's outlook, personality, choices, etc. He'll probably take the fact that he can benchpress boulders into account when trying to get past a locked door, for instance.

However, the character doesn't HAVE to be roleplayed differently. There's nothing really stopping a character with 30 strength being afraid of breaking down doors because he thinks he'll fail, or not having the confidence to climb that cliff. He can make the same choices, have the same personality, and have the same outlook as a 6 strength character, even though his stats say he's clearly capable of doing more.

[rollingForInit]

If you're losing out on fun story choices because you got stronger with levels, you're roleplaying wrong. There is zero in-character difference between a Str 6 character and one with Str 30, except that one can do more. It doesn't affect their personality or choices unless you want it to.

Re: Stormwind fallacy.

I interpreted newsman77's post to mean that it can be tough to play with a 100% min/maxer if you want to create a character for the story's and character's sake rather than creating a farfetched ultra-optimised character. That is, you might want to take feats because they're fun and fits the character (e.g. a Wizard might want to learn more languages, get some better knowledge skills, etc). If you can super-optimise all the way, you'll end up much worse in combat that way, though. Or at least you could in earlier editions. So the gap between their combat effectiveness could become so great it makes for a really unbalanced party.

In 5e, that's a whole lot more difficult. Even if you start with 16 in your primary score, and only take fluff feats instead of ABI's, for instance, you'll still only be two modifiers behind the optimised character. The optimised character would still be better in combat, but the gap would likely be much less significant.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Well, pure contests of strength have nothing to do with luck, so if you have any luck factor at all it's going to distort the results. Using a d20 at all is corrosive to expectations. You should only roll if something other than pure strength is involved in a contest.

Also, if you just rely on strength/athletic scores you're going to get some weird crap. Someone with Expertise in athletics is better at strength contests than huge animals and dragons and things. How far does Judo go, anyway?

Ultimately the DM needs to account for plausibility when ability contests are occur and apply bonuses/advantage/etc. accordingly.

[Chronos]

Remember, cats can trip humans. Obviously, there's some means of tripping a creature multiple size categories larger than you. Though it doesn't seem to be based on Str.

[Mr.Moron]

And that's exactly why it's too low. The strongest man in the world should be in a different league than a middling man.

Here's the thing at least for me. I don't care if the system can model the strongest man in the world vs a middling man. If I was looking to run a game of Track Meets & Fields with a focus on athletics, I'd want something more robust than what we have here.

In the heroes-work-together-to-save-the-world context, all I'm really looking for a system that can keep a challenge relevant to the whole party without wholly invalidating specialization. If I want to include a gap, where the most immediate solution is jumping across I might want that jump to be something the whole party can interact with meaningfully.

If you auto-fail the jump across, you can't interact with it meaningfully.
If you auto-succeed the jump across, you can't interact with it meaningfully.

I want a system that frames things such that I can have a gap that Mr.WeakLegsWorstJumper(+0) and Mr.StrongLegsBestJumper(+17) both have a chance succeed or fail at (DC 19). Even where there are things that Mr.WeakLegsWorstJumper will always fail (DC 21) and Mr.StrongLegsBestJumper will always succeed (DC15).

Now I don't need that universal meaningful interaction for every challenge, It's nice to have things that are auto-successes or failures for some characters at some points. However, where characters have access to the same mechanics I want to avoid classes of challenges driven by those mechanics that will always be auto-fail or auto-succeed for one character in order for another to interact with them meaningfully.

I really don't want PCs leaving each others leagues in with a mechanic as universal as skills. If Mr.StrongLegsBestJumper can get a +40, than his minimum [DC 41] is well out of the reach of even Mr.OkayLegsPrettyGoodJumper[+15 Jump]. At this point Jumps will always be failing to interact with some party members meaningfully. That's workable in isolation but what's good for Jumps is good for Persuasion and good for Perception. There's a good chance having every challenge be mutually exclusive among the party.

Strict and narrow caps just kind of fit my style better.

[JFahy]

In the heroes-work-together-to-save-the-world context, all I'm really looking for a system that can keep a challenge relevant to the whole party without wholly invalidating specialization. If I want to include a gap, where the most immediate solution is jumping across I might want that jump to be something the whole party can interact with meaningfully.

/hug :smallsmile:

[Easy_Lee]

PC stat cap can't be viewed on its own. We have to keep in mind the fact that feat and stat increases are combined this edition. We also have to consider bounded accuracy.

If one takes away the stat cap, then suddenly feats become very rare on anyone who's not a variant human. The best use of an ASI is to put it in the main statistic.

Furthermore, fighters, rogues, and barbarians become more powerful because their stats go 2-4 points higher than everyone else. By rolling stats and getting lucky, a half-orc fighter or barbarian can reach 34 strength, which is stupid high in a bounded accuracy system. Though barbarians already have a similar advantage, it only results in a +2 over everyone else, which is not insurmountable.

[Yagyujubei]

i think its fair. looking at it mechanically 30 in any stat is bat**** broken in the bounded accuracy system. considering that you will likely be max level by the time you can achieve such a high stat, that means you'll be getting a +18 to attack rolls (+20 for archers) which by extension means that you'll hit nearly anything with a roll of 5 or more. that's insane.

thinking about it from a raw damage perspective, a fighter with polearm master is going to be rocking +50 dmg from STR modifier alone before you even take weapon dice into account. add action surge to that and you're talking 150~ dmg (around half the hp of ancient dragons) in one attack round even without a crit. pretty GD strong if you ask me.

[Chronos]

Quoth Mr.Moron:

In the heroes-work-together-to-save-the-world context, all I'm really looking for a system that can keep a challenge relevant to the whole party without wholly invalidating specialization. If I want to include a gap, where the most immediate solution is jumping across I might want that jump to be something the whole party can interact with meaningfully.
So the best jumper in the party jumps over carrying one end of a rope, and the rest of the party climbs over on the rope. Or, if the disparity in scores is large enough, the best jumper carries the others over one by one (this is how Dorothy and her companions crossed a chasm in the book The Wizard of Oz: The Lion carried everyone). Everyone has now interacted with the chasm, and the big strong guy gets to be the hero for that particular encounter. Later on, there will be a chance for the agile guy and the smart guy to shine, and it's important that they're all a team instead of each individually making the same jump check that they could if they were on their own.

[Mr.Moron]

So the best jumper in the party jumps over carrying one end of a rope, and the rest of the party climbs over on the rope. Or, if the disparity in scores is large enough, the best jumper carries the others over one by one (this is how Dorothy and her companions crossed a chasm in the book The Wizard of Oz: The Lion carried everyone). Everyone has now interacted with the chasm, and the big strong guy gets to be the hero for that particular encounter. Later on, there will be a chance for the agile guy and the smart guy to shine, and it's important that they're all a team instead of each individually making the same jump check that they could if they were on their own.

That is fine to an extent, but it isn't what I wanted. Besides as I said I'm fine with not every challenge being universally accessible in the way outlined, some things in the auto-fail/succeed category are fine.

What I want is a system that doesn't preclude a universally relevant challenge. If players can can have score differences larger than extremes of the RNG it necessarily precludes the possibility of a universally relevant challenge.

Another way to frame is in terms of versatility. If the range is from say +0 to +15 I can still put out challenges ONLY achievable by the +15 guy (21 to 25), I can still put in challenges that are auto-pass for the +15 guy (0 to 15), I can still put in challenges that are impossible for everyone (50) or auto-pass for everyone (0 to 1) not that a universal auto-pass is particularly challenging.

The only thing putting in the hugely disparate modifier does is take the possibility of an overlapping challenge off the table. It shrinks the possibility space, it does nothing but remove a dynamic. The +40/+0 system has exactly two possibilities and those are both already covered by the system with smaller disparities.

[Chronos]

The thing is, though, even a range of 15 points doesn't really overlap. If your pit is one that the good jumper can't auto-succeed on, it's got a DC of at least 16. That means that if I'm the +0 guy, I have only a 1 in 4 chance of succeeding. If the penalty for failure is falling into a deep pit, there's no way I'm going to even attempt to jump over that pit with those odds. The DC 16 pit and the DC 50 pit are effectively the same thing as far as I'm concerned, because both have a difficulty of "don't even bother".

[Mr.Moron]

The thing is, though, even a range of 15 points doesn't really overlap. If your pit is one that the good jumper can't auto-succeed on, it's got a DC of at least 16. That means that if I'm the +0 guy, I have only a 1 in 4 chance of succeeding. If the penalty for failure is falling into a deep pit, there's no way I'm going to even attempt to jump over that pit with those odds. The DC 16 pit and the DC 50 pit are effectively the same thing as far as I'm concerned, because both have a difficulty of "don't even bother".

That's a matter of personal taste and risk aversion, it is also dependent on what the failure consequences are. Just because you're willing to put your foot down on 1-in-4 chances being "don't even bother" without context does not mean 1-in-4 and impossible are the same thing. It just means that you're personally unwilling to take long shots under any circumstances, which is fine but not exactly relevant to my point* in any way.

(*huge modifier disparities in a d20 system have the effect of reducing the amount of design space the GM has to work with, without really adding any room for new player experiences)

[Naanomi]

The thing is, though, even a range of 15 points doesn't really overlap. If your pit is one that the good jumper can't auto-succeed on, it's got a DC of at least 16. That means that if I'm the +0 guy, I have only a 1 in 4 chance of succeeding. If the penalty for failure is falling into a deep pit, there's no way I'm going to even attempt to jump over that pit with those odds.
That seems to be a factor determined by what is chasing you.

Also jump probably isn't the best example, optimized jumpers can clear 900ft without a skill check...

[Chronos]

If something's chasing us, then I'm going to be really pissed off at the guy with the good modifier for leaving me stranded on this side with the monster, instead of staying to help fight it or helping me across.

[Naanomi]

Well if what is chasing you is a wall of lava or something... Sure he could help you, but then that DC 30 check becomes DC 40 for carrying you right?

[JFahy]

If something's chasing us, then I'm going to be really pissed off at the guy with the good modifier for leaving me stranded on this side with the monster, instead of staying to help fight it or helping me across.

...and now we've got a dramatic adventure story. :smallamused:

[Baptor]

I love the caps. Love them love them love them.

I love the level cap too.

I love there being a standard, and a pinnacle. So if my fighter reaches a 20 str, he knows he's a strong as any human alive. If he reaches level 20, he's among the best fighters in the entire world.

It was annoying in 3.5 when you'd get to 20, and know there are easily level 30's out there, and rules for going as high as 50 without breaking a sweat.

My friends and I used to play a game so old now almost no one knows about it though some have called it the very first graphics based MMORPG (though apparently that's debatable). It's called Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds, and yes it's still out there.

It was, when we played it, a MMO that looked a lot like Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.

Anyways.

It had no real level cap. Once you hit level 99, you could earn exp and trade it in for more hp or mp, which was all the game really was. This could go on indefinitely. You had around 10-20 thousand hp or mp at 99, but some players went on to have several million hp or mp eventually.

While I loved the game in many ways, the "endless adventure" really ticked me off. There was simply no way I'd ever catch up to anyone at the high end. Ever.

Here's one example. A newbie starting at level 1 could catch up to the second highest level warrior in the game quicker than the second highest could catch up to the first highest warrior. That's how big some power-gaps became.

I realize in most 3.5 games, that kind of shenanigans never happened. But the idea that a mortal PC could out do a god was pure insanity.

[Garimeth]

I think the base cap of 20 is too low only because it is attainable at level 1 and it just feels weird for a level 1 character to be among the strongest on the planet.
As for the hard cap... Does it even exist? This is the first I have heard of a hard cap - I know DM designed Monsters can't get above 30 (Unless the DM thinks that is stupid) in a stat but as far as I knew, players with the right assistance had no hard cap.

Let's be real here though, the entire attribute system is not very good though. It works well enough, but seriously the idea that higher level people are stronger and smarter doesn't make much sense. More experienced and knowledgable sure, and maybe they bulked up or worked on their endurance and what not, but its entirely feasible for someone who is low level to just already be incredibly strong, especially because well - Heroes.


Well, pure contests of strength have nothing to do with luck, so if you have any luck factor at all it's going to distort the results. Using a d20 at all is corrosive to expectations. You should only roll if something other than pure strength is involved in a contest.

Shoe has it. The problem with contested checks is that most of the time there should not even be a die roll, but DMs want to give players a shot, or don't just want to say no, and so they allow a roll. Silliness ensues.

[Fwiffo86]

What is your opinion on the Ability Score cap for players at 20? Do you feel it is reasonable/justifiable?

What about the hard cap of 30? Do you feel it is perfect or too low? What would an ideal cap be?


Part 1) I think the attribute caps are perfectly reasonable and completely justified. Short of paranormal influence, a race can only be so strong, or dexterous, etc. I would like to see the return of the attribute caps based on actual race. No more 20 STR halflings for instance.

Part 2) The hard cap is a function of the system. BA requires it. While I don't think it's too low, others will feel otherwise. STR 30 for instance is impressive (take a look at the encumbrance rules to see how). If you're looking for mountain smashing equivalence, you would need paranormal inclusion I would think.

[Chronos]

STR 30 for instance is impressive (take a look at the encumbrance rules to see how).
That's precisely how I know that it's unimpressive. The lifting capability of a 30 Str medium-sized creature is about half that of a gorilla. That's the absolute maximum allowed by the system, the strength that Kord, God of Strength would sport... and it's less than that of a natural, unmagical creature from our own world. And this is a fantasy world: I would darned well expect that there would be creatures, even nonmagical ones, that are even stronger than in our world.

[JNAProductions]

Look at Easy-Impossible DCs, and think about how literally impossible they are to people at 20 or below.

That's a bit better comparison than the encumbrance rules, featuring the most common houserule of "No one cares about them". :P

[Vogonjeltz]

Remember, cats can trip humans. Obviously, there's some means of tripping a creature multiple size categories larger than you. Though it doesn't seem to be based on Str.

Blind luck and circumstance? I mean, it's really the humans who are tripping on the cat, rather than the cat tripping the human, per se. If the Giant doesn't see the human and walks into them, then I guess that would work similarly, though the human is likely to be crushed to death in the process. Cats typically survive that because the person isn't trying to kill them.