Ability Cap in 5e

[Aetis]

Hey guys, I was reading through the 5e ruleset and noticed that this game capped the abilities at 20.

Is there a reason for this? Sorry if this is a dumb question. I've played 3.5 and PF years back and haven't played D&D in awhile.

[Amnestic]

There are some ways around it - for instance the Barbarian capstone lets you break the limit, and some magic items.

It's a design choice to try to avoid the number bloat that was common in 3.5/PF where main stats were practically required to climb to super high levels and to help keep things reasonable alongside the bounded accuracy concept.

[Aetis]

Oh, I see.

Are the common DCs in 5e low enough that it would break the game if I played without ability caps?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh, I see.

Are the common DCs in 5e low enough that it would break the game if I played without ability caps?

Yes. 5e is designed around the idea of Bounded Accuracy. Basically, the game math assumes that attack rolls, AC, save DCs, and ability check DCs are all within a relatively narrow range that only marginally improves with level/CR. Capping ability scores is a major part of this.

For example, the highest listed DC is 30. And the vast majority are < 20. Even the highest AC monster tend to only have ACs in the low 20s. The highest attack mod (for CR 30 tarrasque) is only +17.

Basically, don't touch this. It's not going to get you anything except pain.

My big recommendation to anyone coming from earlier editions is to forget everything (mechanical) that you knew. Play 5e as it was designed for a bit. Then, once you understand the system and its workings, start making focused, dedicated changes. Solve real problems that arise. Don't try to play 3.5 in 5e. It will only make you miserable and hate the system.

[MoiMagnus]

1) The cap is rarely relevant if you play with feats (which you probably want to if you come from PF). Taking a feat is often more interesting than raising your main ability.
2) The main reason why a cap exist is that peoples don't feel complied to always increase their maximal ability or "fall behind". It incentives more interesting builds, in particular characters can without two many problems have multiple "main abilities" that are similarly high without being suboptimal.
3) 5e follows the "bounded accuracy" paradigm, which mean that enemy ACs essentially doesn't increase as you level up (ancient white dragon has 20 AC). Enemy attacks increase faster than AC, to compensate for magical armours and shields that PCs tend to have.

Additionally, if the DM really want to allow higher abilities, the books that permanently increase your abilities also increase your maximum on this ability. What the rule is saying is that you can't reach above 20 through normal character creation, but if you want to embark on a quest to find such a very rare magical object, you can.

[Greywander]

Ability scores are capped for players at 20, baring some exception (which I'll get to in a moment), and beyond that there appears to be a hard cap at 30 for all creatures. Exceptions for players include magic items, like the Belt of Giant Strength, or the barbarian capstone, and also the optional rule allowing you to spend epic boons on ASIs that cap at 30 instead of 20.

As for why, it's because of bounded accuracy. As far as I understand it, all bounded accuracy means is that DCs don't increase as you level up. Since DCs don't increase, there isn't really a need to jack up your stats super high. Because of the way the math works, it's usually optimal to increase a stat as high as you can, so one of the benefits of capping is that it permits you to put your ASIs and feats elsewhere, otherwise you'd just increase one stat as high as you could.

The math is specifically designed for ability scores to cap at 20. Interestingly, this makes an ability score modifier, proficiency bonus, and a die roll all roughly equivalent in value. Not sure if that was intentional, but it does mean that features that add an ability mod, prof. bonus, or 1d8 to something are all roughly equal in power. Raising the cap to 30, or beyond, really does break the math, leading to situations such as "PCs are impossible to hit without rolling a 20" (which is possible anyway with the right magic items, spells, and class features), "monsters can't pass saves against the PCs' spells", "PCs can't fail saves", or "the rogue/bard literally can't fail a skill check."

I would strongly advise you to play the game as written first. A cap of 20 works just fine. Once you're more familiar with the game, you can start tweaking it. 5e does seem to cause problems especially for those coming from older editions, and I think a big part of that is that a lot of the same concepts exist in both editions but work differently in 5e. A common pitfall is assuming that 5e works the same way as 3.x just because it uses the same name or term for something (e.g. opportunity attacks). Be sure to thoroughly read through the rules, and don't assume that anything works like it does in 3.5 or PF. Another thing I see on occasion is people trying to houserule 5e to be more like 3.x even before they've played the game, because they think the way 5e handles something is dumb and 3.x did it better. Often when someone does this, it breaks too much in the game and they just don't have fun. The game is built around being the way it is, at least give it a chance before you start changing things. And maybe 3.5 or PF are just better fits for the type of game you want to play.

Anyways, I hope you have fun playing 5e. It's strengths over 3.x are that it's a more streamlined experience, so you get to spend more time actually playing the game and less time consulting obscure rules, rolling on tables, and just generally taking hours to resolve one 6 second round.

[Anonymouswizard]

Changing the cap also messes with the way that ability score progression works. The game assumes you'll cap your main ability score after at most two Ability Score Increases and a half feat, leaving 2+ ASIs to pick up interesting feats or buff secondary stats, and that's assuming that you want to hit the cap (you probably do). Increasing the cap will likely lead to fewer Feats, especially for casters wanting their Save DCs to be as high as possible.

[DwarfFighter]

At level 1 you (usually) have an ability score modifier of up to +3 (e.g. a STR 16 Fighter) and a proficiency bonus of +2, +5 total At level 17 and higher it is not unreasonable to see the max ability modifier of +5 (STR20) and the max +6 proficiency modifier, +11 total.

What this means is that "core" DCs for "special abilities" remain mostly relevant throughout the level progression. The "delta" of low tier specialist check modifiers and top tier are less than the span of 1d20. In 3.x, when specialist modifiers exceeded +20, there ceased to be common ground between the specialist and the amateur.

A good piece of advice I picked up for 5e was to use low DCs for checks: A DC 10 is very achievable regardless of level or socialization, and for most specialized characters it's not a guaranteed success. Bump to DC 15 when the is a significant challenge to the party.

[Kemev]

Oh, I see.

Are the common DCs in 5e low enough that it would break the game if I played without ability caps?

It'd be a small break, but it wouldn't be cataclysmic.

The big change from 3.5 is that you get either an ability score increase, or a feat, but not both. Plus there's no bonus spells/day (you get the same number of spells at INT 17 as you do at INT 28). And on top of that, this edition tends to push point buys/starting arrays that effectively cap starting abilities at 17, so it's much harder to have a high score early on when it would benefit you most.

There are a couple classes that would benefit from playing without an ability cap (Wizards), but in most cases in this edition, I had to choose between a primary ability at 22 or a primary ability at 20 + a feat, I'd take the feat.

[JackPhoenix]

For example, the highest listed DC is 30.

Technically, the highest listed DC is 70, which was aknowledged as an error, but it's not changed in HotDQ's errata.

[Valmark]

It'd be a small break, but it wouldn't be cataclysmic.

The big change from 3.5 is that you get either an ability score increase, or a feat, but not both. Plus there's no bonus spells/day (you get the same number of spells at INT 17 as you do at INT 28). And on top of that, this edition tends to push point buys/starting arrays that effectively cap starting abilities at 17, so it's much harder to have a high score early on when it would benefit you most.

There are a couple classes that would benefit from playing without an ability cap (Wizards), but in most cases in this edition, I had to choose between a primary ability at 22 or a primary ability at 20 + a feat, I'd take the feat.

Well, you do get more spells prepared with an higher stat.

And all spellcasters would gain a lot from being able to push DCs beyond their maximum value, to the point that some monsters would have automatic failures against them.

[noob]

Technically, the highest listed DC is 70, which was aknowledged as an error, but it's not changed in HotDQ's errata.

How do you beat a DC of 70?
Should you be able to walk on clouds with such a sky high check?

[Anonymouswizard]

How do you beat a DC of 70?
Should you be able to walk on clouds with such a sky high check?

Well in 4e you might know that wolves live in family units with such an amazing check :smallwink:

Without any additional information I'd guess it was meant to be DC17, but I don't have any actual information. O maybe it's an athletics check for jumping to the moon.

[Mastikator]

The point of bounded accuracy is to let low CR monsters be relevant in high level situations, since they can still hit you and do damage. There's no horizon where you just become invincible to everything but other super powered enemies.

[rlc]

Well in 4e you might know that wolves live in family units with such an amazing check :smallwink:

Without any additional information I'd guess it was meant to be DC17, but I don't have any actual information. O maybe it's an athletics check for jumping to the moon.

I think it was to break something, if I remember correctly. I never played the adventure that it’s in, though.

[MoiMagnus]

Should you be able to walk on clouds with such a sky high check?

That's for opening a door.


[NPC name] has secured the door to this tower with an arcane lock. It can be opened normally by a giant or by a knock spell. For everyone else, breaking it down is largely impossible, because a DC 70 Strength check is required.

Reminder: Arcane lock increases by 10 the DC to break through a door. This means that the native DC of the door was 60...

[noob]

That's for opening a door.



Reminder: Arcane lock increases by 10 the DC to break through a door. The mean that the native DC of the door was 60...

They said "can be opened by a giant normally" so there is a giant which can open such a tough and heavy door as if it was a normal door.
While a DC of 60 means it is like a 20 feet thick door or something absurd like that.
The alternative is that they found a way to upcast arcane lock up to the ninth level and beyond.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hey guys, I was reading through the 5e ruleset and noticed that this game capped the abilities at 20.

Is there a reason for this? Yes. Bounded accuracy, bloat prevention. This article explains what's behind it (web.archive.org/web/20140715051206/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604).
From a well written summary (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/134249/22566)

Hence bounded accuracy, where the range of numbers it's possible for a character to roll is kept within tighter limits, or bounds. This shifts the focus of the game away from character optimization (by stacking small bonuses), and toward interacting with the fictional world by searching for in-situation ways to acquire Advantage.

An excerpt from the article by Rodney Thompson:

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience. [...]
This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level. I sometimes refer to this as one of the ways that 5e removes fiddly bits from the game.

For example, the highest listed DC is 30. And the vast majority are < 20. Even the highest AC monster tend to only have ACs in the low 20s. The highest attack mod (for CR 30 tarrasque) is only +17.

Basically, don't touch this. It's not going to get you anything except pain. Cited for emphasis. This is excellent advice.

Ability scores are capped for players at 20, baring some exception (which I'll get to in a moment), and beyond that there appears to be a hard cap at 30 for all creatures. That hard cap seems to have been confirmed by Crawford.

I would strongly advise you to play the game as written first. As do I.

... playing 5e. It's strengths over 3.x are that it's a more streamlined experience, so you get to spend more time actually playing the game and less time consulting obscure rules, rolling on tables, and just generally taking hours to resolve one 6 second round. This too

The point of bounded accuracy is to let low CR monsters be relevant in high level situations, since they can still hit you and do damage. There's no horizon where you just become invincible to everything but other super powered enemies. This also makes it less like a video game ...

[noob]

Yes. Bounded accuracy, bloat prevention. This article explains what's behind it (web.archive.org/web/20140715051206/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604).
From a well written summary (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/134249/22566)


An excerpt from the article by Rodney Thompson:
I sometimes refer to this as one of the ways that 5e removes fiddly bits from the game.
Cited for emphasis. This is excellent advice.
That hard cap seems to have been confirmed by Crawford.
As do I.
This too
This also makes it less like a video game ...

No it does not makes it any less like a videogame.
There is videogame rpgs where your stats have a very slow growth and do not go far beyond the initial stats.
However it makes it be further from hack and slashes.

[Waterdeep Merch]

A side effect I like is how much it makes you pay attention to secondary and tertiary stats, since you're likely to cap your main attribute fairly early. In 4e you usually only ever raised two, in 3.x you typically only raise anything beyond your main attribute high enough to qualify for feats if needed, and I haven't played enough of AD&D and 2e to tell for sure but I don't recall having a good reason to raise anything but your important stat then either. Back then you had to get better at doing your thing and seldom had room or reason to branch out. A low hard cap like this changed that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A side effect I like is how much it makes you pay attention to secondary and tertiary stats, since you're likely to cap your main attribute fairly early. In 4e you usually only ever raised two, in 3.x you typically only raise anything beyond your main attribute high enough to qualify for feats if needed, and I haven't played enough of AD&D and 2e to tell for sure but I don't recall having a good reason to raise anything but your important stat then either. Back then you had to get better at doing your thing and seldom had room or reason to branch out. A low hard cap like this changed that.

Yeah. Having more chances to raise your abilities than you have room under the cap means that (unless you're taking feats) instead of just pushing your main stat up and up you might branch out.

This is especially true for Fighters and Rogues (with their extra ASI and low demand for other stats). People always complain about how they can't do anything, but they're the ones who can be the most widely-capable. Rogues because they've got tons of proficiencies, Fighters because they can afford to put points into other stats. After all, they really only need 1 + CON, and don't have to pump CON. In that sense, feats (and especially the big combat feats) are a negative--they get people focused on going down the rabbit hole of specialization. And since the DCs are generally quite low, specialization really doesn't bring all that much added benefit for its cost (not being able to participate well elsewhere). Unless your entire game is combat, you don't need that specialization.

[noob]

I do not think 5e would need an ability cap if it did not hand out ability raises as if it was inexpensive flour.

[Jason]

A side effect I like is how much it makes you pay attention to secondary and tertiary stats, since you're likely to cap your main attribute fairly early. In 4e you usually only ever raised two, in 3.x you typically only raise anything beyond your main attribute high enough to qualify for feats if needed, and I haven't played enough of AD&D and 2e to tell for sure but I don't recall having a good reason to raise anything but your important stat then either. Back then you had to get better at doing your thing and seldom had room or reason to branch out. A low hard cap like this changed that.
In 2nd Edition you didn't have regular attribute raises by level. You could only raise your attributes with lots of wish spells or certain rare magical items.
"Bounded accuracy" was effectively baked into the system with slower level progression than 3rd and no real stat or skill increases unless you were a thief. Hit point progression became a fixed number with no Con bonuses after 9th level. Your spell save DCs were dependent on the HD/level of what you were casting on rather than your own attributes or level.

[noob]

Dnd 5e gives +2000 tons of stats everywhere then caps out stats at 20 which turns out to be equivalent to just making all stats be 20 after a few levels.
I think they kept stats influencing your combat performances significantly only as a holdover from 3.5 and that they wanted to remove the option to get stat randomly: instead you get 20 everywhere from megatons of asis raining all over the place(like +2 stat point per 4 levels or something similarly ridiculous and a fighter gets even more which is pointless since fighters are not multiple attribute dependant so there is no point in getting even more stat bonuses)

It would have been simpler to just make stats not influence gameplay mechanics: it would have roughly the same effect but without all that complexity.

[JNAProductions]

Dnd 5e gives +2000 tons of stats everywhere then caps out stats at 20 which turns out to be equivalent to just making all stats be 20 after a few levels.
I think they kept stats influencing your combat performances significantly only as a holdover from 3.5 and that they wanted to remove the option to get stat randomly: instead you get 20 everywhere from megatons of asis raining all over the place(like +2 stat point per 4 levels or something similarly ridiculous and a fighter gets even more which is pointless since fighters are not multiple attribute dependant so there is no point in getting even more stat bonuses)

It would have been simpler to just make stats not influence gameplay mechanics: it would have roughly the same effect but without all that complexity.

Erm...

Standard Array is 15 14 13 12 10 8. That leaves you 48 points away from all 20s.
The most ASIs you can get from race is +6 (Standard Human). 42 now.
Fighter gets the most ASIs, at seven, each worth +2. So 28.

You'd need an average stat of 17 to get all 20s by level 20, and be a Standard Human, Half-Elf, or Mountain Dwarf.

[Anonymouswizard]

Dnd 5e gives +2000 tons of stats everywhere then caps out stats at 20 which turns out to be equivalent to just making all stats be 20 after a few levels.

:smallconfused:

Assuming you use the standard array you get 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8, including most often four extra stat points from race, more often three. 76 raw stat points at 1st level, maybe a little higher if you go for broader stats. You get 7 ASIs as a Fighter, the class who gets the most, which consist of two stat points, so that's another fourteen. That's a total of 90 stat points for a 19th level Mountain Dwarf or Half-elf Fighter. Actually a little higher if you're a 20th level Barbarian, but that breaks the cap.

With six stats that cap at twenty there are a total of 120 stat points in the game. So our high level Fighter with all the stat points in the game is still missing thirty.

Now there's ways of getting more, but unlike magic weapons they really aren't factored into system maths. But as characters don't have every stat at 20 they do clearly matter, even if not as much as they used to.

EDIT: totally forgot about standard human, because IME nobody plays it of they get the option.

[Valmark]

Dnd 5e gives +2000 tons of stats everywhere then caps out stats at 20 which turns out to be equivalent to just making all stats be 20 after a few levels.
I think they kept stats influencing your combat performances significantly only as a holdover from 3.5 and that they wanted to remove the option to get stat randomly: instead you get 20 everywhere from megatons of asis raining all over the place(like +2 stat point per 4 levels or something similarly ridiculous and a fighter gets even more which is pointless since fighters are not multiple attribute dependant so there is no point in getting even more stat bonuses)

...*looks at his own characters* I think we have WAY different experiences with 5e. Do you only play with rolled stats? Because Point Buy makes it kinda difficult to get more then two stats at 20.

Personally, I generally always have something at 8- nowhere near enough ASIs to max everything.

[MoiMagnus]

Dnd 5e gives +2000 tons of stats everywhere then caps out stats at 20 which turns out to be equivalent to just making all stats be 20 after a few levels.

At level one, your the standard array is "15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8", adding a +1/+2 from racial bonuses, you obtain "16, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8". Assuming no feats (which IMO would be a little sad), by the level 10 [end of most campaigns] you can reach "20, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8" without counting the magical objects. There are other ways to do it, but apart from fighter, you won't be able to reach a double 20 by level 10.

Most magical objects that increase abilities are Very Rare, so probably not the kind of objects you will obtain before level 11 (so non-existent in most campaigns). [There are few exceptions, but they "fix" your ability rather than giving a bonus].

I agree that Tier 4 can get crazy with abilities (and Tier 3 too if the DM makes magical objects very easy to obtain), but that's high level. But at those levels, you start dropping magical objects that also increase your cap in those abilities.

[noob]

...*looks at his own characters* I think we have WAY different experiences with 5e. Do you only play with rolled stats? Because Point Buy makes it kinda difficult to get more then two stats at 20.

Personally, I generally always have something at 8- nowhere near enough ASIs to max everything.

You do not understand: most classes depends on very few stats.
(very few classes promotes mad: nearly only classes that are supposed to cast and use weapon attacks do so)
So if you get 2 20 then you probably maximised nearly all the stats that you used.
Also are you playing with feats?
Feats are an optional rule and if you play without feats you have way more stats.
So It usually turns into "the stats this class uses are at 20 and we do not care about the others"
You could take in account multiple attribute dependant classes just by making them get to pick a penalty to one thing that corresponds to one of their dependencies and simulate the effect of the stat system without having it.

[JNAProductions]

You do not understand: most classes depends on very few stats.
(very few classes promotes mad: nearly only classes that are supposed to cast and use weapon attacks do so)
So if you get 2 20 then you probably maximised nearly all the stats that you used.
Also are you playing with feats?
Feats are an optional rule and if you play without feats you have way more stats.

Okay, so Mountain Dwarf Point Buy Fighter. 17 Strength, 17 Constitution, no other stats strictly needed.

Three ASIs (level 8) to max out your primaries, leaving you with four to go. But you probably want to bump Wisdom, if you're playing featless, since Wisdom saves are both common and dangerous. So if you had a 14 Wisdom, that leaves you with one ASI to spare for Dexterity (good for initiative) or a more fluffy stat, namely Charisma or Intelligence.

Then again, most tables (at least here on the Playground and in Adventurer's League) run with feats. So, taking the same Fighter, you'll probably be maxed at level 12, since you'll want GWM or PAM. Might be pushed back to 14 if you want both.

Not to mention, level 20 is a tiny fraction of gameplay. Most gameplay is NOT Tier 4.

[Willie the Duck]

Hey guys, I was reading through the 5e ruleset and noticed that this game capped the abilities at 20.
Is there a reason for this? Sorry if this is a dumb question. I've played 3.5 and PF years back and haven't played D&D in awhile.


Oh, I see.
Are the common DCs in 5e low enough that it would break the game if I played without ability caps?

Other people have commented on the what and why and how of the situation, and that seems well in hand.
Here's a bigger picture point/piece of advice -- don't think of 5e as a 3e/PF redux. Despite some very similar components on the front end -- mostly the same classes, attributes give roundown(stat/2)-5 as a modifier, multiclassing work in much the same way, the game is missing a bunch of TSR-era things you may or may not be familiar with, etc. -- the game at the mechanical core is running on a different engine. One that works best when the numbers are in a particularly zone (and most of the big modifiers end up being on whether you get to roll at all, or whether you roll twice and take the better/worse result, rather than just adding a bunch of numbers to both sides of the equation). Give this new system a shot before you get out the surgical gear and start shaping the thing back to the system with which you are familiar. You can still play a really strong/smart/charismatic character, only now you don't have to constantly worry whether you are keeping up with a specific level of acceptable advancement to keep pace with your challenges.

[Valmark]

You do not understand: most classes depends on very few stats.
(very few classes promotes mad: nearly only classes that are supposed to cast and use weapon attacks do so)
So if you get 2 20 then you probably maximised nearly all the stats that you used.
Also are you playing with feats?
Feats are an optional rule and if you play without feats you have way more stats.
So It usually turns into "the stats this class uses are at 20 and we do not care about the others"
You could take in account multiple attribute dependant classes just by making them get to pick a penalty to one thing that corresponds to one of their dependencies and simulate the effect of the stat system without having it.

This is way different from saying "you can have all 20s easy" and it still isn't accurate. Low stats are a big hole in a character's defenses, especially without feats.

[MaxWilson]

Hey guys, I was reading through the 5e ruleset and noticed that this game capped the abilities at 20.

Is there a reason for this? Sorry if this is a dumb question. I've played 3.5 and PF years back and haven't played D&D in awhile.

You're making me wonder why they didn't cap it at 18 instead. Wouldn't that be more natural, since 18 is the highest you can roll? 20 is a weird place to put the boundary. Maybe it's because you can roll an 18 and then get a +2 from racial modifiers, but they could have just said "if you roll above 18 initially you can keep it, but once play has started you can't raise stats above 18."

[Unoriginal]

You're making me wonder why they didn't cap it at 18 instead. Wouldn't that be more natural, since 18 is the highest you can roll? 20 is a weird place to put the boundary. Maybe it's because you can roll an 18 and then get a +2 from racial modifiers, but they could have just said "if you roll above 18 initially you can keep it, but once play has started you can't raise stats above 18."

Part of it is tradition, another part is that with the cap at 18 a lot of characters would have their main stat capped at lvl 4 with the standard array, a third part is how a wider range allows more variation/growth, and the fourth is that limiting the PCs to a +4 mod at maximum would have messed with the proficiency bonus and the AC/DC calculations, since the rolls are made using a d20.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Part of it is tradition, another part is that with the cap at 18 a lot of characters would have their main stat capped at lvl 4 with the standard array, a third part is how a wider range allows more variation/growth, and the fourth is that limiting the PCs to a +4 mod at maximum would have messed with the proficiency bonus and the AC/DC calculations, since the rolls are made using a d20.

This, and also don't underestimate the power of nice numbers. A range of 1-20 (matching the d20) with modifiers in [-5,+5] is much nicer than a range of 3-18 and [-4,+4]. At least to me.

[Willie the Duck]

You're making me wonder why they didn't cap it at 18 instead. Wouldn't that be more natural, since 18 is the highest you can roll? 20 is a weird place to put the boundary. Maybe it's because you can roll an 18 and then get a +2 from racial modifiers, but they could have just said "if you roll above 18 initially you can keep it, but once play has started you can't raise stats above 18."

20 makes sense if you assume that some people will always want to roll for stats, and some people really like racial attribute mods, and some people really get bent out of shape if they can't eventually work up to the benefit that fellow-player-over-there got just by rolling really well and choosing a race to match (the first two towards the 'most D&D of D&Ds' mentality they supposedly had and the later in the 'we know players and what chaffs their hide'). Personally, I would have been fine with a BX/BECMI '3d6 w/o racial mods' or a modified 'best 3 of 4d6' with no adds and an 18 max.

[MaxWilson]

20 makes sense if you assume that some people will always want to roll for stats, and some people really like racial attribute mods, and some people really get bent out of shape if they can't eventually work up to the benefit that fellow-player-over-there got just by rolling really well and choosing a race to match (the first two towards the 'most D&D of D&Ds' mentality they supposedly had and the later in the 'we know players and what chaffs their hide'). Personally, I would have been fine with a BX/BECMI '3d6 w/o racial mods' or a modified 'best 3 of 4d6' with no adds and an 18 max.

Even if that was the goal, they could have said "racial attribute mods raise your maximum by the same amount." 20 is still a weird boundary.

[Willie the Duck]

Even if that was the goal, they could have said "racial attribute mods raise your maximum by the same amount."

Yes, and then the people who want to eventually get up to what the half-orc got to at L1 with a lucky roll would still be sore.

[Jason]

Even if that was the goal, they could have said "racial attribute mods raise your maximum by the same amount." 20 is still a weird boundary.
It matches character level, which is also arbitrarily capped at 20. And hey, you roll a 20-sided die for most things in-game too.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, and then the people who want to eventually get up to what the half-orc got to at L1 with a lucky roll would still be sore.

They can play half-orcs or dwarves then, and "work up to" 20 too.

[GooeyChewie]

Even if that was the goal, they could have said "racial attribute mods raise your maximum by the same amount." 20 is still a weird boundary.

I feel like the fact that you're having to add a rule to get around rolled 18s with racial bonuses means that 20 is a significantly less weird boundary than would be 18.

Plus there's the "nice numbers" aspect PhoenixPhyre pointed out. People like round numbers, and 20 already holds a special significance in D&D.