How OP or game-ruining would it be to pierce the 20 ability cap

[djreynolds]

A fighter could possibly obtain a 30 in str, dex, or even con with 7 feats.

A rogue could get a 28, assuming he and the fighter started with 16s.

Obviously there are belts of giant strength, but would it ruin the game.

A barbarian could still obtain a 30 with his cap, if threw everything into strength.

How difficult would it be to bring down a champion sporting a 30 in constitution, if every turn he was healing 5+10?

Would it be worth it, sporting a 30 in dex or strength. Assuming a human variant fighter could select sharpshooter at 1st level, would that ruin the game?

[Giant2005]

The game can't be ruined as long as you have a quality DM.
As long as the DM can accurately gauge the capabilities of the monsters and the players, then they can always come up with suitable challenges. If a change makes the players more powerful on average, then simply throwing stronger (or weaker but more numerous) enemies will prevent that from mattering.

If you are asking whether or not it would make the players more powerful, then yes it would make them more powerful - particularly spellcasters.

[djreynolds]

This is one of the big difference between 3.5 and 5E. And it is not a complaint at all.

1 the ability cap, IMO diminishes SAD classes and what they might be or just forces multiclassing

2 the ability to add dexterity, freely, no feats or classes or PrC, to damage

Now I do not mind number 2. But number 1, does somewhat limit the potential of SAD classes.

I was just thinking what it would be like for a fighter to tank with a 30 constitution.

For me the game really changes at level 12 and on, some classes really begin to blossom, and others kinda wither, not die but just wither.

[Giant2005]

You are better off handing out the benefits as discriminate abilities for certain classes. For example, have the Fighter's extra ASIs at 6 and 14 also increase the ability score cap by 2 each. Have the Rogue's extra ASI at 10 do the same thing.

[Rhedyn]

Leads to more min maxing because that is optimal. Characters are less rounded and combat is more rocket tag.

[AvatarVecna]

For me the game really changes at level 12 and on, some classes really begin to blossom, and others kinda wither, not die but just wither.

Which classes are these, would you say? My assumption is that the withering classes are the ones that just do what they've always done (but more), rather than gaining new abilities that let them restructure reality around them.

If that's the case, I'm afraid this houserule wouldn't solve the problem: martials have more use for feats than casters do, what with getting that attribute to 20 being much more useful than have an 18 with a bunch of extra abilities; the ability to pass that 20 will mean casters can push their save DC and spell attack bonus even further, not to mention whatever other effect having an Int/Wis/Cha greater than 20 will have on their class features beyond spellcasting.

[Gastronomie]

If your DM was good enough to get the game to level 20 without it being OP or game-ruining, I doubt you will have a problem with level 30.

[AvatarVecna]

If your DM was good enough to get the game to level 20 without it being OP or game-ruining, I doubt you will have a problem with level 30.

I think they're talking about the ability score cap, not the character level cap.

[djreynolds]

You are better off handing out the benefits as discriminate abilities for certain classes. For example, have the Fighter's extra ASIs at 6 and 14 also increase the ability score cap by 2 each. Have the Rogue's extra ASI at 10 do the same thing.

This could work. And you're on the money about the two classes I'm talking about.

And yes it does beget minmaxing, but that happen regardless.

Its just a thought to make dipping these two classes, less, and players staying put.

[Logosloki]

As long as there is parity in the party there should be no issue. As a DM though i would up the challenges occasionally so as to test the parties limits more.

[Gastronomie]

I think they're talking about the ability score cap, not the character level cap.Oh, my bad. I for some weird reason assumed it was levels.

I dunno what'd particularly benefit from it... I think Wizards (more spells they can prepare), Warlocks (attacks many times with Eldritch Blast), Fighters (same reason - attacks many times), and Monks (same) would particularly get stronger. In other words, generally, the more times they can get to use those godstats in the same round, the stronger they get from the ability cap being removed.

But it will no doubt make all casters stronger too, especially those which don't focus on multiple stats or the same time or don't use their casting stat much (Moon Druid will not improve much, and Paladins are MAD so they don't gain much from this rule, while Lore Bards and Sorcerers will get a lot stronger).

[Gtdead]

For each +2 over the cap, it's like handing a magic items with a +1 enhancement bonus, but most stats double dip hard.

For example +2 dex is both +1 weapon and +1 armor, and adds a +1 to saves against one of the most common effects. It also makes stealth better, and stealth can be encounter ending by itself.

On the other hand, +1 str is +1 to weapon, +1 to athletics and strength checks. It's a good bonus to have, but not like +2 dex.

Same for Wisdom vs Intelligence. Boosting intelligence will increase wizard's offense, knowledge skills and investigate. Int saves are extremely uncommon . Wisdom however boosts offense, the most common debuff save and perception which is probably the most used skill in a game.

This is important because consider how many items would be needed to emulate a +2 str bonus, and do the same for a +2 dex. The difference is vast.
Now of course, it really depends on the campaign and DM. You can give a +4 dex to a dex based class and seem like a mild bonus. Just make sure you know what you are getting into.

[djreynolds]

You are better off handing out the benefits as discriminate abilities for certain classes. For example, have the Fighter's extra ASIs at 6 and 14 also increase the ability score cap by 2 each. Have the Rogue's extra ASI at 10 do the same thing.

But this ^^^^^^ is a good idea, what if fighters and rogue could only get this? Giant2005 has a good thought they are the only class with extra ASI, even if it was the champion and thief, the original archetypes, initially they seemed powerful when the first PHB was floating around... but their staying power waned. Now someone might go 20 levels in champion or thief, or at least until 14th and 10th respectively.

I don't know. With standard array, the highest the fighter would get is a 24 and that is by level 14. A rouge would have a 22 by 10th.

[Spacehamster]

I would just make it so a +1 to an ability score lets you put maximum 22 in it and a +2 lets you put it to 24. :) makes the + to scores mean more then just if you can get 16 in it from the start. :)

[JellyPooga]

My issue with removing the cap is nothing to do with game balance or "being OP", but rather my suspension of disbelief.

A Lvl.12 Fighter, for example, having 20 Strength means he's stronger than an Ogre. That's fine for me. He's a powerful adventurer, possibly a Hero in many peoples eyes. He has a Conan-esque physique and defeats things with the power of his mighty thews. It's cool.

A Lvl.20 Barbarian having 24 Strength makes him stronger than some of the lesser Giants (Hill, Frost and Stone, Formorian, etc.). This already makes my SoD creak a little, but I can go with it; lvl.20 is the pinnacle of a characters development and, well, mighty thews dude, mighty thews. I can dig it.

A 6ft dude (or worse a Halfling) with 30 Strength though? Stronger than the greatest of Giants? Than a Purple Worm or a Roc? As strong as the Tarresque itself? No, this leaves my SoD broken and bleeding in the corner, wishing it had never come to the table. That kind of strength is reserved for the big boys (Huge+) and you need to be a "big boy" to compete on that stage. Or use magic.

The cap of 20, for me, has little to do with bounded accuracy or balance and everything to do with the limits of (demi-)human capability. Remove the cap and you remove that limit. If you're happy with that, that's fine, but for me it's a big no.

[Giant2005]

Jellypooga, keep in mind that a strength score isn't the only deciding factor in how strong one is. A medium-sized character with a Str of 24 can't hope to be able to lift as much as any of the Giants, even if their Str scores are lower. They are still much stronger than him.

[Shaofoo]

Anything you add in the game can be OP or game-ruining, even an out of place magic item can ruin campaigns.

It is less how can it ruin you and better how can you prepare to deal with the complications and if there can still be a challenge.

You can probably have a campaign where you give out several artifact tier weapons and epic abilities yet the campaign is balanced because the challenge is still there despite the huge power.

If the campaign is heavily combat oriented then adding to the score cap is probably about as balanced as giving a +x magic weapon except with a feat cost. A Belt of Giant Strength could be the equivalent of a +x magic weapon in how attacks are resolved. Of course abilities are also affected but you also can't deal with a nonmagic resistant or immune enemy.

[Chambers]

I have a DM'ing experience related to this (I was the DM). We didn't raise the ability score limit but the Fighter (Champion) did receive a Belt of Cloud Giant Strength after defeating the boss of a campaign. The party was level 9 at the time and that particular belt was decided on by the roll of the dice. I went with it because the boss actually was a Cloud Giant so I thought it fit the story well.

That campaign ended about 6 sessions later (we rotate campaigns & DM's) and during that time I didn't feel that it was unbalanced to have the level 9 Fighter with superhuman (or superhalforc in this case) strength. The character's melee damage was amazing with the -5/+10 feat but was still "just a fighter" so it didn't break the party balance. No one in the party had an issue with it either and it'll always be a character the players remembers fondly, so I think it was worth it.

On the topic of raising ability score limits across the board for all characters...I'm not sure it would have that great an impact during the normal course of play (levels 1-20). If all you do is raise the cap the characters still have the limit of available ASI's to improve those scores. A character that raises one ability score as high as they can will have great success with using that score, but the way 5e doesn't really have a lot of "X stat to Y bonus" means that the overall impact of that ability score across the rest of the characters ability will be less meaningful.

[D.U.P.A.]

One of problem is that lightly armored characters will end with greater AC than heavy armored ones.

[Naanomi]

Spell DCs are where I would expect the most problems; and perhaps some aspects of resisted skill checks that work similarly (grapple? stealth?)... though I doubt it would 'break' the game. I just don't see it as terribly necessary, I'm not sure what it would 'fix' or improve upon compared to the existing system

[JellyPooga]

Jellypooga, keep in mind that a strength score isn't the only deciding factor in how strong one is. A medium-sized character with a Str of 24 can't hope to be able to lift as much as any of the Giants, even if their Str scores are lower. They are still much stronger than him.

True, but we're not just talking about Strength. What about the character with Charisma 30? That's the same force of presence as a Solar, a literal being of pure law and good, the right-hand men of the gods themselves. This is not the realm of mortal men.

Yes, there's an argument that any character over level X is going beyond the realms of mortal capability, but for me that hard-cap that can only be broken by magic is an important delineation between the mundane and the supernatural. PC's frequently step over this line with magic, but they should require magic to do so, not through mere training or innate ability (unless of course they are playing a supernatural character, like a undead, fey or elemental, but 5ed doesn't yet provide for a player to do so and remain as a PC).

[Sigreid]

I think you would find the combats have to become a lot harder. I mean you're talking about a fighter with sharp shooter potentially being able to launch 8 attacks at +13 to hit and +20 to damage with a non-magic longbow. That's a very good chance of doing 160 damage in one round before any dice are rolled. There are some on this forum that complain sharp shooter is too powerful now.

Edit: To put it another way, that's a good chance of a fighter killing an ancient dragon in 2 rounds, by himself.

[RickAllison]

I think you would find the combats have to become a lot harder. I mean you're talking about a fighter with sharp shooter potentially being able to launch 8 attacks at +13 to hit and +20 to damage with a non-magic longbow. That's a very good chance of doing 160 damage in one round before any dice are rolled. There are some on this forum that complain sharp shooter is too powerful now.

Edit: To put it another way, that's a good chance of a fighter killing an ancient dragon in 2 rounds, by himself.

Meanwhile, the wizard is able to drop spells with save DC of 24. That means that the Balor is auto-failing his saves to avoid Disintegration, Ancient Red Dragons only make a Feeblemind on a 20, and that's just against end-game, ultimate-level opponents. At this point, the wizard can use spells like Mass Suggestion that most NPCs will not have a chance to succeed on. Use Dominate Person on a barbarian and he will fight for hours (assuming an 8th level slot) until death without a chance to break out of it.

The way the DCs are set now, anyone who has an 8 or above in an ability can succeed against PCs on a 20. This kind of breaks that. I may be overstating things, but this does have some worrying effects.

[Toofey]

Doesn't all of this end up balancing out because the bonuses being made to hit that DC 24 (For instance) are also benefiting from the cap being removed?

[Naanomi]

Doesn't all of this end up balancing out because the bonuses being made to hit that DC 24 (For instance) are also benefiting from the cap being removed?
A wizard has spells that hit every save and only need to boost intelligence... Offense wins over defense

[Toofey]

Yes, but that's true without the stats going above 20 as well, the chances of a stat being comparable to the DC setting stat of the attacking spellcaster is the same.

[bid]

Yes, but that's true without the stats going above 20 as well, the chances of a stat being comparable to the DC setting stat of the attacking spellcaster is the same.
Save with typical Wis14 = +2:
- Int20 = DC19 -> 17+ = 20%
- Int26 = DC22 -> 20+ = 5%

That +15% save can easily half your chances.

[Slipperychicken]

I like the ability cap because it means I don't spend every ASI on the same thing, and it forces me to branch out a little.

Without it, I'd feel like I have to put every ASI into the attack stat because that gives me bigger numbers to do my job better. Also it would violate bounded accuracy and really throw off the game's math regarding hit frequency, damage output, skill and save DCs, and opposed checks. Even a +1 to hit and damage is a big deal in 5e; getting an extra +5 before magic items means you'd be absolutely trashing enemies that should have been challenging. That kind of buff is where we got that "I feel bad because I am so strong" thread.

So in short, I don't see the benefit to it, and it could lead to characters being minmaxed for ever-bigger attack numbers that the game wasn't built for, instead of putting ASIs into new options or covering weaknesses. Also, it's a powerful buff to fighters, who are already considered quite strong compared to other martials.

[Pex]

True, but we're not just talking about Strength. What about the character with Charisma 30? That's the same force of presence as a Solar, a literal being of pure law and good, the right-hand men of the gods themselves. This is not the realm of mortal men.

Yes, there's an argument that any character over level X is going beyond the realms of mortal capability, but for me that hard-cap that can only be broken by magic is an important delineation between the mundane and the supernatural. PC's frequently step over this line with magic, but they should require magic to do so, not through mere training or innate ability (unless of course they are playing a supernatural character, like a undead, fey or elemental, but 5ed doesn't yet provide for a player to do so and remain as a PC).

That's fighters don't get nice things thinking of 3E. Spellcasters can do whatever they want because magic, but let a fighter do anything a real life human couldn't possibly do and it destroys realism ruining the game. Better to use verisimilitude, not realism. When the spellcaster can teleport across the world in an instant or bring the dead back to life with nothing but a fingernail, I have no problem with a warrior beating a Cloud Giant in an arm wrestling contest.

The problem with the idea is what has been said, spell DCs. You already get worse at your saving throws as you level since you can't raise them all yet spellcasters are raising their DC. At low level when the DC is 13 or 14, your 8 dump stat and 10 not as dumped stat are just weaknesses. At higher levels when the DC is 18 or 19 they're devastating. Personal opinion it's a flaw of the system. Go higher than that every attack spell becomes roll a 20 or die paladins and monks might only need an 18, figuratively speaking. By on purpose design choice 5E was made to do away with big numbers for as long and few as possible. Personal taste whether that's a good thing or bad thing, but increasing the frequency and amount of the high numbers will break the math of the game to unplayability. You'd have to redesign the whole game.

[RickAllison]

Save with typical Wis14 = +2:
- Int20 = DC19 -> 17+ = 20%
- Int26 = DC22 -> 20+ = 5%

That +15% save can easily half your chances.

What is interesting is that EKs actually win in this race if they dedicate themselves to magic. An EK 16/Wizard 4 may only have low level spells, but they can be +2 DC over a pure wizard.

[Axorfett12]

As a side note, the Tome of Leadership and Influence and its sister items "Your STAT increases by 2, as does your maximum for that score." You can use the book once a century, so a drow undying warlock (lives 9000 years) would get 90 uses from it. That's a 200 in Charisma with just the one book. From a RAW standpoint it works. RAI not even gods can go higher than 30.

[ImSAMazing]

As a side note, the Tome of Leadership and Influence and its sister items "Your STAT increases by 2, as does your maximum for that score." You can use the book once a century, so a drow undying warlock (lives 9000 years) would get 90 uses from it. That's a 200 in Charisma with just the one book. From a RAW standpoint it works. RAI not even gods can go higher than 30.

That needs a magic item to work, and 5e is NOT designed around magic items. If you try to apply this cheese in my game I would let a dozen of empyreans come and get you to escort your character to a prison in the Lower planes.

[RickAllison]

That needs a magic item to work, and 5e is NOT designed around magic items. If you try to apply this cheese in my game I would let a dozen of empyreans come and get you to escort your character to a prison in the Lower planes.

So a player has travelled across the land, seeking out a legendary magic item. He then lies in wait for hundreds of years, using an ability that rarely comes into play that effectively makes him an NPC. And now you want to say "Haha, screw you. I won't let your former character have a happy ending or even a real ending just because you effectively made use of resources." That's just bad DMing. I know that there isn't supposed to be a bad way to DM, but I think that is it.

[Axorfett12]

If one of my players tried that, I would cap them at 30. My scenario was an illustration of how broken it can get when utilized in a efficient manner under a wiling dm. In addition, because of the time restraints inherent in this approach, this would never happen in game. Should the character get retired, then by all means, you might see them as an npc with a ridiculous score, but not as a player. Saying "Rocks fall, you die" is not how a DM should approach such a situation. Work around it. Realize the new strengths and plan accordingly.

[LaserFace]

I don't know exactly at what number the game becomes "ruined", but I imagine DM skill can compensate for some wonky numbers. 30 can probably be managed, if you're experimentally pumping up monsters and other challenges as well. I suspect you'd have to tailor these challenges specifically to address any given mega-stats. My inclination might be towards giving more enemies magic resistance to counter huge spellcasting abilities, stuff like that. Go much higher statwise and I suspect you may get awkward and unfun results.

When it comes to Tomes/Manuals, I personally just have them vanish or describe them as one-shot, or otherwise put additional uses out of players' minds. Campaigns are never going to last long enough for some hypothetical dork to get two uses out of one, let alone all the way to 200 CHA or whatever. And, although I would hesitate to punish a player who felt they needed boundless stats as an epilogue for their character, I'd have to wonder wtf is wrong with them unless this is legit for the setting.

[Shaofoo]

A much easier way to deal with the whole "infinite stat gains with immortal book reading" is just say that you can only gain a stat up by a specific book once because the point is to learn and you can't really learn any more than what the book can give you (even if magic is involved but still) which should also stop any other NPcs from trying the infinite immortal book reading as well.

[RickAllison]

A much easier way to deal with the whole "infinite stat gains with immortal book reading" is just say that you can only gain a stat up by a specific book once because the point is to learn and you can't really learn any more than what the book can give you (even if magic is involved but still) which should also stop any other NPcs from trying the infinite immortal book reading as well.

I think this is a good ruling. If a character wants to continue to increase his abilities, he has to seek out a new book each time.

[Sigreid]

I think this is a good ruling. If a character wants to continue to increase his abilities, he has to seek out a new book each time.

Unless your campaign is on a very, very long time scale it shouldn't be an issue. Sure, the wizard with clone or long lived race is going to toss it on the shelf to read again next century, but if your campaign is active on a time scale that covers centuries you either have long adventuring breaks that would allow the players to master every tool and skill, or you need to have figured out what epic levels look like anyway.

[Axorfett12]

Unless your campaign is on a very, very long time scale it shouldn't be an issue. Sure, the wizard with clone or long lived race is going to toss it on the shelf to read again next century, but if your campaign is active on a time scale that covers centuries you either have long adventuring breaks that would allow the players to master every tool and skill, or you need to have figured out what epic levels look like anyway.

Precisely.

[JellyPooga]

That's fighters don't get nice things thinking of 3E. Spellcasters can do whatever they want because magic, but let a fighter do anything a real life human couldn't possibly do and it destroys realism ruining the game.

I've got to disagree.

It's the point of wizards that they can do magical things. (Non-EK) Fighters and other "mundanes" are defined by their inability to do the magical, unless they have some kind magical assistance. They can perform amazing feats that normal people cannot even dream of but they don't exceed the physical or mental capabilities of their race. A Fighter should never be able to jump over a 10 story building without assistance (magical or otherwise), but he could, if it were on fire, run into the same building, to the top floor, rescue the kid he saw in the window from outside and get safely back out...and he wouldn't do it by casting a spell or being supernaturally tough or fast, but through being the very pinnacle of (demi-)human capability.

The Fighter arm-wrestling a Cloud Giant? That guy needs a magical belt of giant strength or something to even participate, let alone compete in that contest. This is not to say he "can't have nice things"; I've no issue with his ability to defeat a giant in one-on-one combat. There are many things that Fighter can do to fell that proverbial tree that don't involve him somehow having the strength of a giant without magical assistance. He can target a weak spot, he can set a trap or use a siege weapon, but even the strongest un-augmented human absolutely cannot take a Cloud Giant by the hand and force it to the table; yet you would have me accept that this unlikely scenario is possible because "Fighters should have nice things too".

If you want magical Fighters in your game, that's fine, but that's all a little too Dragonball-Z for me. As I said before; the idea of a magical, (literally) super(demi-)human Fighter breaks my suspension of disbelief because, for me, Fighters aren't supposed to be magical. "Nice things" don't have to be magical or superhuman.

[krugaan]

I've got to disagree.

It's the point of wizards that they can do magical things. (Non-EK) Fighters and other "mundanes" are defined by their inability to do the magical, unless they have some kind magical assistance. They can perform amazing feats that normal people cannot even dream of but they don't exceed the physical or mental capabilities of their race. A Fighter should never be able to jump over a 10 story building without assistance (magical or otherwise), but he could, if it were on fire, run into the same building, to the top floor, rescue the kid he saw in the window from outside and get safely back out...and he wouldn't do it by casting a spell or being supernaturally tough or fast, but through being the very pinnacle of (demi-)human capability.

The Fighter arm-wrestling a Cloud Giant? That guy needs a magical belt of giant strength or something to even participate, let alone compete in that contest. This is not to say he "can't have nice things"; I've no issue with his ability to defeat a giant in one-on-one combat. There are many things that Fighter can do to fell that proverbial tree that don't involve him somehow having the strength of a giant without magical assistance. He can target a weak spot, he can set a trap or use a siege weapon, but even the strongest un-augmented human absolutely cannot take a Cloud Giant by the hand and force it to the table; yet you would have me accept that this unlikely scenario is possible because "Fighters should have nice things too".

If you want magical Fighters in your game, that's fine, but that's all a little too Dragonball-Z for me. As I said before; the idea of a magical, (literally) super(demi-)human Fighter breaks my suspension of disbelief because, for me, Fighters aren't supposed to be magical. "Nice things" don't have to be magical or superhuman.

That's fine and all, but then you get into "morality is one of Captain America's superpowers" territory of plot balancing. 5E is supposed to be more balanced than 3.x in that regard.

3E is the Avengers. 5E is Civil War (Thor and Hulk are missing).

[Shaofoo]

That's fine and all, but then you get into "morality is one of Captain America's superpowers" territory of plot balancing. 5E is supposed to be more balanced than 3.x in that regard.

3E is the Avengers. 5E is Civil War (Thor and Hulk are missing).

It seems that classes are balanced so far. Wizards can't really steal the thunder of Fighters without risking themselves becoming useless in the long run.

[krugaan]

It seems that classes are balanced so far. Wizards can't really steal the thunder of Fighters without risking themselves becoming useless in the long run.

Yeah, I tend to agree, but you have to admit casters are *still* more powerful than martials, generally speaking. In versatility, if not in actual damage output.

[Shaofoo]

Yeah, I tend to agree, but you have to admit casters are *still* more powerful than martials, generally speaking. In versatility, if not in actual damage output.

I disagree on both counts.

Rogues are the best at skills (If we count all martials) with their expertise, take 10 and take 20 actions. Fighters are much less at skills but their extra ASIs can be used to compensate for that fact, a Fighter that spends all his ASI on fighting stuff only doesn't care about skills.

And damage I truly disagree damage at least if we count sustainable DPR, cantrips have the worst damage DPR in the entire game unless you count things like Agonizing Blast and even then it pulls into being somewhat high. Other spells can do better but they depend on the situation.

Casters are only more powerful in certain cases, in other cases martials will be the top contenders because the spells will at best do something that the martial can do for free anyway.

They can try to be on top but they will risk being useless when it really counts.

[Pex]

I've got to disagree.

It's the point of wizards that they can do magical things. (Non-EK) Fighters and other "mundanes" are defined by their inability to do the magical, unless they have some kind magical assistance. They can perform amazing feats that normal people cannot even dream of but they don't exceed the physical or mental capabilities of their race. A Fighter should never be able to jump over a 10 story building without assistance (magical or otherwise), but he could, if it were on fire, run into the same building, to the top floor, rescue the kid he saw in the window from outside and get safely back out...and he wouldn't do it by casting a spell or being supernaturally tough or fast, but through being the very pinnacle of (demi-)human capability.

The Fighter arm-wrestling a Cloud Giant? That guy needs a magical belt of giant strength or something to even participate, let alone compete in that contest. This is not to say he "can't have nice things"; I've no issue with his ability to defeat a giant in one-on-one combat. There are many things that Fighter can do to fell that proverbial tree that don't involve him somehow having the strength of a giant without magical assistance. He can target a weak spot, he can set a trap or use a siege weapon, but even the strongest un-augmented human absolutely cannot take a Cloud Giant by the hand and force it to the table; yet you would have me accept that this unlikely scenario is possible because "Fighters should have nice things too".

If you want magical Fighters in your game, that's fine, but that's all a little too Dragonball-Z for me. As I said before; the idea of a magical, (literally) super(demi-)human Fighter breaks my suspension of disbelief because, for me, Fighters aren't supposed to be magical. "Nice things" don't have to be magical or superhuman.

Actually, you are agreeing with my point that it's fighters don't get nice things thinking. What you disagree with is considering that a bad thing. Instead, it's something you applaud.

[djreynolds]

You are better off handing out the benefits as discriminate abilities for certain classes. For example, have the Fighter's extra ASIs at 6 and 14 also increase the ability score cap by 2 each. Have the Rogue's extra ASI at 10 do the same thing.

I think this giant ^^^^^, pardon the pun, has very good idea. The max a fighter could get in strength/or dex/ or con would be a 24 and he would have to be at least 14th level

And the rogue would be a 22 say in dex and this would be at least 10th level.

It would be a sacrifice in a sense because the fighter would have to be 14th level, it would be a requirement you may have a 24 strength/dexterity but only if you have 14 levels in fighter. And for rogue a 22 in dex.

Of all the classes, these two classes get extra ASI, and their whole character are built around these stats. It may make players want to stay put in these classes. It could be very cool. We are not going to 30 in an ability score.

[darkdragoon]

You can get to 30 via rules in the DMG.

[djreynolds]

You can get to 30 via rules in the DMG.

I know, I was just wondering in say a low magic world, if this would be nice for these two classes. It doesn't seem OP, it kinda feels right that perhaps the thief or champion could do this.

[JellyPooga]

Actually, you are agreeing with my point that it's fighters don't get nice things thinking. What you disagree with is considering that a bad thing. Instead, it's something you applaud.

I am? I'm pretty sure the words "I disagree", "Fighters aren't magical" and "nice things don't have to be magical" are fairly contrary to the notion of "fighters don't get nice things".

If you consider magical abilities to be the only "nice things" then yeah, I suppose I do agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. As Shaofoo pointed out, Classes in 5ed are largely balanced. Fighters get their "nice things" with some of the best consistent DPR and they don't need magic or supernatural powers to achieve this.

What I applaud is this adherence to non-magical Fighters being competent in a world of magical things and still being capable of pulling their weight. What I would not want to see is Fighters being forced to delve into the realms of the supernatural or magical in order to keep pace. It's not about them not getting "nice things" it's about changing the dynamic of the game from "nice things can be non-magical" to "nice things have to be magical" and that's what I think removing the 20-stat cap would achieve.

[djreynolds]

The fighter is designed to attack. My first character was a champion, I thought this was the 3e weapon's master, it was not.

The fighter is supposed to be at the pinnacle of fighting and strength and endurance. IMO, what happened was the first four class were introduced, Life, evoker, thief, champion and then other classes were made, etc. But these classes, especially the last 2 were not "fixed"

I played a featless and non multiclass game, I was maxing strength and con by 12th level. My stat at 1 mountain dwarf was 16/13/16/12/12/8 and at 20 it would've been 20/15/20/14/14/8. What is the point of the last 3 ASI, I threw 1 ASI in wis, dex, and int? I mean I could've had an 18 in wis or 19 in dex. Thankfully we stopped at 8th level

I feel these extra ASI were for more than a small bonus to wisdom.

Imagine if the fighter could increase his con, or dex past 20. We are talking about a guy does nothing else, literally, but train.

Having feats helps, resilient wisdom is much more profitable than even placing 3 ASI into wisdom.

This could be a fix, that would.... might make you think, "hey at 14th level I could have a 24 in dex or str or even con, I've put in the work and I'm the best with the bow or S&B. Otherwise people are taking 3-4 levels in me and leaving, same with rogue.

I want to play 20 levels in barbarian and paladin, not in fighter. But with a 24 in dex at level 14, those next levels at 16 and 19 are looking better, now those 4 attacks at 20 are looking a bit better.

And this could be easily installed, its not game breaking, the class is still doing its same old thing and instead of hitting with a +11, you're hitting with a +13.

[Shaofoo]

The fighter is designed to attack. My first character was a champion, I thought this was the 3e weapon's master, it was not.

The fighter is supposed to be at the pinnacle of fighting and strength and endurance. IMO, what happened was the first four class were introduced, Life, evoker, thief, champion and then other classes were made, etc. But these classes, especially the last 2 were not "fixed"

I played a featless and non multiclass game, I was maxing strength and con by 12th level. My stat at 1 mountain dwarf was 16/13/16/12/12/8 and at 20 it would've been 20/15/20/14/14/8. What is the point of the last 3 ASI, I threw 1 ASI in wis, dex, and int? I mean I could've had an 18 in wis or 19 in dex. Thankfully we stopped at 8th level

I feel these extra ASI were for more than a small bonus to wisdom.

Imagine if the fighter could increase his con, or dex past 20. We are talking about a guy does nothing else, literally, but train.

Having feats helps, resilient wisdom is much more profitable than even placing 3 ASI into wisdom.

This could be a fix, that would.... might make you think, "hey at 14th level I could have a 24 in dex or str or even con, I've put in the work and I'm the best with the bow or S&B. Otherwise people are taking 3-4 levels in me and leaving, same with rogue.

I want to play 20 levels in barbarian and paladin, not in fighter. But with a 24 in dex at level 14, those next levels at 16 and 19 are looking better, now those 4 attacks at 20 are looking a bit better.

And this could be easily installed, its not game breaking, the class is still doing its same old thing and instead of hitting with a +11, you're hitting with a +13.

I am not really sure what you are saying here.

You want to have a 24 in Dex at level 14... yet your Dex is 15 in your theoretical build?

I think that if you were to continue you should've gone for 20/20/20 instead of just leaving Dex hanging at 15 because you could use Dex for your ranged attacks and initiative. In your build that would take up 4.5 of your ASI which leaves you with 2.5 ASI left.

It isn't really a fix to have Fighters break the cap, they can use Dex and Con and unless you rolled high. Even a plate wearing Fighter would still appreciate Dex since being able to attack from range is very important.

[Pex]

I am? I'm pretty sure the words "I disagree", "Fighters aren't magical" and "nice things don't have to be magical" are fairly contrary to the notion of "fighters don't get nice things".

If you consider magical abilities to be the only "nice things" then yeah, I suppose I do agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. As Shaofoo pointed out, Classes in 5ed are largely balanced. Fighters get their "nice things" with some of the best consistent DPR and they don't need magic or supernatural powers to achieve this.

What I applaud is this adherence to non-magical Fighters being competent in a world of magical things and still being capable of pulling their weight. What I would not want to see is Fighters being forced to delve into the realms of the supernatural or magical in order to keep pace. It's not about them not getting "nice things" it's about changing the dynamic of the game from "nice things can be non-magical" to "nice things have to be magical" and that's what I think removing the 20-stat cap would achieve.

I said nothing about fighters having magic. If the idea is to go above 20 then a fighter by his own effort can achieve a 30 strength to out wrestle a Cloud Giant, and that is a concept I have absolutely no problem with. You do. You want warriors to be limited by what can be done normally. I don't. You're defining anything that is done beyond normality as magic. That is not necessarily the case. A warrior could just be that naturally stronger than a giant in the stats above 20 system. You don't like a human warrior being stronger than a cloud giant. That's fighters can't have nice things. Magic has nothing to do with it.

[Vogonjeltz]

A fighter could possibly obtain a 30 in str, dex, or even con with 7 feats.

A rogue could get a 28, assuming he and the fighter started with 16s.

Obviously there are belts of giant strength, but would it ruin the game.

A barbarian could still obtain a 30 with his cap, if threw everything into strength.

How difficult would it be to bring down a champion sporting a 30 in constitution, if every turn he was healing 5+10?

Would it be worth it, sporting a 30 in dex or strength. Assuming a human variant fighter could select sharpshooter at 1st level, would that ruin the game?

It would allow for characters whose saving throw DC's that are unpassable, so that's a problem right there. With the current system there's still a 5% chance of passing the DC even if you have a +0 and no proficiency because the DC caps at 19 when stats cap at 20.

So yes it imbalances the game.
Such a game might still be fun, but the game is already fun, so I'm not seeing a benefit to tinkering here.

[JellyPooga]

A warrior could just be that naturally stronger than a giant in the stats above 20 system.

Mmm...no. That's pretty much the definition of a supernatural circumstance and when I say "supernatural" I include such things as being magical. Yes, a Fighter having better-than-giant strength would be a "nice thing", but it is also outside the bounds of what can be defined as non-magical. Giants have giant-strength because of their massive size. If you're not at least giant-sized then having giant-strength is magical.

Just because I think a Fighter can't have all "nice things", is not to say they can't have any "nice things". Wizards don't get all "nice things" either and shouldn't, despite being defined by their ability to use magic.