Lower maximum ability score + lower threshold to take feats = plausible houserule?

[Arkhios]

I had this arguably ridiculous idea yesterday and I can't get it out my head so I decided to share it anyway.

What if you could only increase your ability scores to a certain point determined by your race.

If you have a +1 increase to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 18.
If you have a +2 increase to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 20.
If you have a no increase or penalty to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 16.
If you have a -2 penalty to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 14. (Thanks Mhl7 for noticing this!)

The reason behind: to lower the threshold for taking feats which are tempting anyway, and to further enforce racial differences. I know, I know, this would pigeonhole certain races to certain roles, but does it matter, really?

Also, if any ability or feature would increase your maximum beyond the preset value, they would work normally.

An alternative for a featless game to this could be that a +2 to an ability score would increase the maximum value from 20 to 22. And likewise a -2 penalty would decrease the maximum value from 20 to 18.

Now, that big question, what do you guys think?

[djreynolds]

I like it, but then we are faced with half elf sorcerers and paladins and half-Orc barbarians and dwarven fighters... wait we still are

I kinda feel 5E has done a good thing with the ability cap, but at a cost

In previous editions, you maxed that important stat as it really defined your character. Now, though a 20 sounds like a huge number, it is only +2 better than a 16

What if you couldn't increase your stats? Like old school

[Arkhios]

I like it, but then we are faced with half elf sorcerers and paladins and half-Orc barbarians and dwarven fighters... wait we still are

I kinda feel 5E has done a good thing with the ability cap, but at a cost

In previous editions, you maxed that important stat as it really defined your character. Now, though a 20 sounds like a huge number, it is only +2 better than a 16

What if you couldn't increase your stats? Like old school

That was part of the initial thought process actually, and I figured this could be somewhat reasonable middle-ground. If you use point buy only, you essentially have to increase your primary ability score only once, maybe twice, leaving the rest of the ability score increases for feats, should you so choose.

To be honest, at first I thought it could be limited to having at most 16 in your ability score, or 18 in case your race would improve it beyond 16, as it often would.

Also, I kinda like the idea that a Half-orc Barbarian or even a Mountain Dwarf Barbarian would shine at being the best barbarians around, with the sole (not including races from Volo's of course) chance of getting the highest possible Strength and Constitution Scores.

[djreynolds]

That was part of the initial thought process actually, and I figured this could be somewhat reasonable middle-ground. If you use point buy only, you essentially have to increase your primary ability score only once, maybe twice, leaving the rest of the ability score increases for feats, should you so choose.

5E is strange as that 20 is whatever versus a 16, isn't too much of a difference.

What if your main stat and a tertiary stat just increased every 5 character levels by 1, or along with your proficiency score increases

And at 4th and whatever, you just took a feat. Players might be more inclined to take keen mind or athlete or actor.

Some many feats go un-used.

And a crazier idea, is what if, say you selected two weapon fighting style it would just come with associated feats at certain levels. At 5th you got dual wielder and a 9th you got defensive duelist

I'm going to run Tomb of Horrors and I have already planned to roll stats for the group, " a powered up standard array" so they will be more inclined to take feats.

[zeek0]

I kinda feel 5E has done a good thing with the ability cap, but at a cost

In previous editions, you maxed that important stat as it really defined your character. Now, though a 20 sounds like a huge number, it is only +2 better than a 16

What if you couldn't increase your stats? Like old school

I'd like to note that it is more powerful than a +2 increase in other editions. In other additions, higher levels required very high DCs: 30 and above. In 5e, the most difficult tasks will be set at 25. In this way, a +2 bonus will *always* provide a 10% better chance to succeed on a given task.

That's why 5e has fewer ASIs than previous editions - increases are much more powerful now.

As to the topic of the thread, I say go for it I that's way your players want. But I rather like the notion I a lithe dragonborn assassin, a brilliant orc detective, or a sagaic tiefling druid. No, it doesn't fit the usual notions, and it's mechanically unoptimal. But heroes as basically unusual, and allowing players to play with that seema a good idea to me.

As a DM, I recognize that 5e is the first D&D game that would even allow these oddities, because 'unoptimal' is no longer a synonym for 'broken'. As noted, players will fit themselves into stereotypes on their own - I see no reason to mandate it.

[Arkhios]

I'd like to note that it is more powerful than a +2 increase in other editions. In other additions, higher levels required very high DCs: 30 and above. In 5e, the most difficult tasks will be set at 25. In this way, a +2 bonus will *always* provide a 10% better chance to succeed on a given task.

That's why 5e has fewer ASIs than previous editions - increases are much more powerful now.

As to the topic of the thread, I say go for it I that's way your players want. But I rather like the notion I a lithe dragonborn assassin, a brilliant orc detective, or a sagaic tiefling druid. No, it doesn't fit the usual notions, and it's mechanically unoptimal. But heroes as basically unusual, and allowing players to play with that seema a good idea to me.

As a DM, I recognize that 5e is the first D&D game that would even allow these oddities, because 'unoptimal' is no longer a synonym for 'broken'. As noted, players will fit themselves into stereotypes on their own - I see no reason to mandate it.

You're absolutely right of course. Pigeonholing is rather restrictive from a player's perspective, and I probably wouldn't enforce this "houserule" unless all the players wanted to use it. It's just an idea I had, and an idea that even I find a tad ridiculous.

[Cespenar]

It seems logical and minimal enough of a change. I wouldn't have any problems with it.

But many people take their "limitations" too seriously, so I wouldn't see them using something like this.

[djreynolds]

I don't really know if increases are that much more powerful.

It really can be argued either way. The high end of AC of most creatures is 15-19, coupled with the ease of obtaining advantage and spells like bless, most players land a good portion of their attacks

Now table DnD is different than forum DnD. What you or I wouldn't do, is exactly what my players do not do? They choose stuff because it sounds cool, very seldom are they even close to optimized.

I want players to use all the feats. I'm hoping someone playing in Tomb of Horrors takes dungeon delver and someone else takes keen mind, they look to be important.

So I like this idea of perhaps switching it up.

I think I might go the opposite way and allow players to go past the maximum.

And I might separate feats and ASI, I might just hand out feats based on the style you like.

Big great sword, here is GWM and savage attacker, because its the traps and levels of exhaustion that are going to kill you.

[Arkhios]

I'd like to point out that feats are optional rule, and every DM is entitled to let their players to attempt anything they come up with, with or without the feats. In a featless game you could just as well let a player do something along the lines of a feat, using the feat as a guideline to that attempt.

[Mhl7]

If you have a +1 increase to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 18.
If you have a +2 increase to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 20.
If you have a -2 penalty to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 16.


What is the cap for the abilities for which you have no racial modifier?

[Arkhios]

What is the cap for the abilities for which you have no racial modifier?

Haha, good catch! I honestly didn't think about that :smallbiggrin:

I guess it could be 16, which would mean that with -2 penalty the ability score maximum would likewise be 14.

[Mhl7]

I like it.

Also, I would add the rule that ASI from feats can push the boundary up (to a maximum of 20).

[djreynolds]

I like the idea, really.

1 it gives a reason to play a race, as there is a catch now

2 it also gives a negative and a positive

But I can see the flip side, as 5E was trying to get away from this,

But with bonuses to ability scores and standard array, it really amounts to the same thing as players will more than likely play a Halfling or an elf as a dexterous ranger rather than a mountain dwarf who's strength bonus maybe wasted on a dexterous ranger

If anything, it would be a good shake up at the game table for players who feel the game is stale, as I find with many of my players

I'm thinking of awarding "team" feats for my players. Since Tomb of Horrors is like 11th level, my idea is that when the original party members are together they benefit from each other, because they have known each other so long.

[Sirdar]

I had this arguably ridiculous idea yesterday and I can't get it out my head so I decided to share it anyway.

What if you could only increase your ability scores to a certain point determined by your race.

If you have a +1 increase to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 18.
If you have a +2 increase to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 20.
If you have a -2 penalty to an ability score from your race, you can only increase the ability score up to 16.

The reason behind: to lower the threshold for taking feats which are tempting anyway, and to further enforce racial differences. I know, I know, this would pigeonhole certain races to certain roles, but does it matter, really?

Also, if any ability or feature would increase your maximum beyond the preset value, they would work normally.

An alternative for a featless game to this could be that a +2 to an ability score would increase the maximum value from 20 to 22. And likewise a -2 penalty would decrease the maximum value from 20 to 18.

Now, that big question, what do you guys think?

It would only pigeonhole optimizers into certain races, which isn't really a problem in my opinion (I am quite of an optimizer myself).

And it is ridiculous that the strongest halfling can match the strongest goliath (or even the strongest human). Pippin and Merry can become good fighters when levelling up, but why should they be as physically strong as Boromir? No, I think you should explore this concept further. It may not be for all groups, but some will certainly like it. At least I do! :smallsmile:

[Pex]

I would have reservations because it reads too much DM control of how I will create my character. The DM does legitimately have some control. If the campaign is about the Holy Order Of Saintly Do-Gooders I have no business creating a cleric whose point is to spread poison and disease. If Dragonborn do not exist in the gameworld then I don't create a Dragonborn character. However, this control is about atmosphere and flavor text. When it comes to the mechanics, the game math, that's my business as a player. It's my character. It's the only thing in the game I have any control over, and when the DM takes that away what's the point of me being there?

[Arkhios]

I would have reservations because it reads too much DM control of how I will create my character. The DM does legitimately have some control. If the campaign is about the Holy Order Of Saintly Do-Gooders I have no business creating a cleric whose point is to spread poison and disease. If Dragonborn do not exist in the gameworld then I don't create a Dragonborn character. However, this control is about atmosphere and flavor text. When it comes to the mechanics, the game math, that's my business as a player. It's my character. It's the only thing in the game I have any control over, and when the DM takes that away what's the point of me being there?

That's completely understandable. I was thinking that this might still work for a campaign where race differences were much more pronounced. I have to agree with sirdar that it's ridiculous that a halfling barbarian could have Strength 24 as much as a goliath barbarian could, with the only difference being that a halfling couldn't wield a Heavy weapon effectively and thus couldn't benefit from GWM without using a class feature to offset the disadvantage. While the latter two points certainly are meaningful already, the first part just doesn't make much sense. Especially because being small doesn't make your carrying capacity any different from medium and you're effectively equally strong with that equal ability score value. It's weird, when you think about it.

[Coidzor]

It'd **** up the Barbarian capstone, since no race gets a +2 to Strength and Constitution.

[Arkhios]

It'd **** up the Barbarian capstone, since no race gets a +2 to Strength and Constitution.

Wrong. Mountain Dwarf does.

Also, it wouldn't. Barbarian capstone only increases the current (and maximum) by 4. Wouldn't break anything; a barbarian 20 would still be above the curve.

[dejarnjc]

That's completely understandable. I was thinking that this might still work for a campaign where race differences were much more pronounced. I have to agree with sirdar that it's ridiculous that a halfling barbarian could have Strength 24 as much as a goliath barbarian could, with the only difference being that a halfling couldn't wield a Heavy weapon effectively and thus couldn't benefit from GWM without using a class feature to offset the disadvantage. While the latter two points certainly are meaningful already, the first part just doesn't make much sense. Especially because being small doesn't make your carrying capacity any different from medium and you're effectively equally strong with that equal ability score value. It's weird, when you think about it.

I mean I get arguments like this, I really do. But then you have instances in the game where a dwarf barbarian with the Grappler feat can successfully pin (quite easily too) an Ogre (9 ft. tall close to 1k lbs) or a Polar Bear (7-9 ft long and if male close to 1k lbs as well). I mean, let's be real. This is just as ridiculous as your Goliath vs. Halfling example :)

[Mith]

If the Dwarf knocks them down and pins the prone creature by the head, it would work IMO.

[dejarnjc]

If the Dwarf knocks them down and pins the prone creature by the head, it would work IMO.

Eh I still have to disagree. You just *don't* pin something that's 5-10x your weight/size. It's like a rottweiler pinning a 6'0 200lb man. It just doesn't happen. Anyway my only point being that we just kinda have to accept the fantasy of DnD at face value otherwise we find implausible stuff like this everywhere.

[Coidzor]

Eh I still have to disagree. You just *don't* pin something that's 5-10x your weight/size. It's like a rottweiler pinning a 6'0 200lb man. It just doesn't happen. Anyway my only point being that we just kinda have to accept the fantasy of DnD at face value otherwise we find implausible stuff like this everywhere.

That's funny, 6'0", 200 pound men certainly don't act like they're immune to rottweilers.

[Sigreid]

It could be fine, if your players agree to it. You could also accomplish something similar with allowing races with a +2 bonus to an attribute to exceed the 20 limit, but only as an ASI pick after say, level 16. So the most graceful of elves truly have noticeably inhuman grace, for example.

I'd set the minimum level to stop the dash for a 22.