Making stats cap at 20


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Eric The Pipe wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
So I'm thinking of making stats for humanoid creatures cap at 20 (something along the lines of their physiology just doesn't get any better), I'm tired of seeing int 28 humans and str 25 dwarves etc. Personally, if there's ever a new edition I want it to focus a lot less on pumping stats as high as they'll go. I was just hoping to get a discussion on what effects this will have on the game. I know that at higher level this means that there'll be more lost saving throws as the game expects players to use magic items to boost stats to blah blah blah. What else could I expect?
oooo, while we are drawing arbitrary lines based on feelings, we should cut down on the number of rings a character can have, two is just to many. and i'm tired of seeing all the characters with the multiple effects coming from rings.

Actually in my game, as long as a ring is a use activated ring you can have as many as you want on your hand as long as no two rings are giving an effect at the same time. So feel free to wear a ring of animal friendship and a ring of the ram on one hand, while your ring of mind blank stays lonely on your other hand.

But hey, hyperbole works for everyone

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I knew I worded that wrong. I'm sorry, long night must have got to me.

When the difference between two characters bonus is larger than the d20, the game is out of whack. Capping ability scores or limiting the different bonuses that stack can fix this.

That still happens at level ~17, see the fighter perception and rogue stealth.

Sovereign Court

Kais86 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I knew I worded that wrong. I'm sorry, long night must have got to me.

When the difference between two characters bonus is larger than the d20, the game is out of whack. Capping ability scores or limiting the different bonuses that stack can fix this.

That still happens at level ~17, see the fighter perception and rogue stealth.

I've never had a game get that far, and now that I run APs, I doubt that I ever will

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kais86 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I knew I worded that wrong. I'm sorry, long night must have got to me.

When the difference between two characters bonus is larger than the d20, the game is out of whack. Capping ability scores or limiting the different bonuses that stack can fix this.

That still happens at level ~17, see the fighter perception and rogue stealth.

Okay, fighter has a base 17, rogue a base 20. Supposing they each spend Skill Focus feats, those cancel out, and we'll guess that the rogue has at invested more in Dex than the fighter has in Wis. Fighters 14 Wis versus at least a 22 Dex for the rogue. Fighter base 19 versus rogue base 24. What am I missing?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I knew I worded that wrong. I'm sorry, long night must have got to me.

When the difference between two characters bonus is larger than the d20, the game is out of whack. Capping ability scores or limiting the different bonuses that stack can fix this.

That still happens at level ~17, see the fighter perception and rogue stealth.
Okay, fighter has a base 17, rogue a base 20. Supposing they each spend Skill Focus feats, those cancel out, and we'll guess that the rogue has at invested more in Dex than the fighter has in Wis. Fighters 14 Wis versus at least a 22 Dex for the rogue. Fighter base 19 versus rogue base 24. What am I missing?

Even with the skill focus only on the rogue, its 19 vs 30. Yeah, not really an issue here. Not sure why he used it as his example.

Grand Lodge

There are several problems with that, for starters most fighters don't have the skill points to actually be able to afford perception, if they want to do anything else, like take advantage of the intimidate rules and use survival. A rogue is also highly likely to take advantage of the Shadow enchantment for their armor, adding +15 to their stealth roll, putting them well past 20 above the fighter.

That said a better example is cavalier, who isn't likely to use Shadow, stealth and rogue perception.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Ah, good, you reminded me of something else that needs fixed. Magic items giving RNG-breaking skill bonuses. Thank you.

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ah, good, you reminded me of something else that needs fixed. Magic items giving RNG-breaking skill bonuses. Thank you.

There isn't a single part of the game that couldn't be broken the way you see it and if it's that bad, play another game. Don't ruin it for others. D&D 4e seems right up your alley.


Kais86 wrote:
There are several problems with that, for starters most fighters don't have the skill points to actually be able to afford perception, if they want to do anything else, like take advantage of the intimidate rules and use survival.

That's a matter of choice, now, isn't it? A human fighter could certainly pull it off with his extra skill point. Anyone with fighter as their favored class could as well and still benefit from investing in intimidate and survival.

Kais86 wrote:


A rogue is also highly likely to take advantage of the Shadow enchantment for their armor, adding +15 to their stealth roll, putting them well past 20 above the fighter.

That's true. But the Greater Shadow property, at nearly 34,000 gp, is also a significant cost and very easy to cut out of a game, if the DM is worried about such things.


Caineach wrote:

Honestly, from what I see in games I think this is a good thing. By the time this really becomes an issue, arround 10+, the players are starting to get overpowered anyway. Scaling this back their peaks will bring them more in line.

As the system is currently ballanced you need some of the big 6. I am in no way convinced that you need all of them.

The problem is you arent scalling back their peaks, you are scalling back their valleys. Peak is when they have a good chance of success, in the case of a fighter, this is attacking a typical opponent of CR 1 or 2 lower then his level on their first attack of a full attack. Its very likely they are going to hit, drop that by a couple to hit points, and the fighter is still very likely to hit.

If he is instead using a combat manuever that he isnt specialized in, or using his iterative attacks, then the 3 or 4 lost points of stat bonus suddenly turn a somewhat likely to succeed attempt nearly impossible. Dropping out any of the big six items simply to limit power is a poor way to go about things.

Grand Lodge

Bill Dunn wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
There are several problems with that, for starters most fighters don't have the skill points to actually be able to afford perception, if they want to do anything else, like take advantage of the intimidate rules and use survival.

That's a matter of choice, now, isn't it? A human fighter could certainly pull it off with his extra skill point. Anyone with fighter as their favored class could as well and still benefit from investing in intimidate and survival.

Kais86 wrote:


A rogue is also highly likely to take advantage of the Shadow enchantment for their armor, adding +15 to their stealth roll, putting them well past 20 above the fighter.
That's true. But the Greater Shadow property, at nearly 34,000 gp, is also a significant cost and very easy to cut out of a game, if the DM is worried about such things.

So are the truly impressive stats. The most a player character can get without magic or barbarian rage is 24. Whoopee a whopping +7 total and they had to do serious amounts of work to get there. Rolling an 18 (highly unlikely) having a +2 racial modifier on strength (humans and half-Xs only) and spending every point on it. Heaven forbid the highest thing a player rolled was a 14, then they can't even break 20 without magic.

That said, most rogues will take shadow on their armor at one point or another, so what if it's 34k, given that you can just add properties to equipment, it's really not that big a deal.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kais86 wrote:
Don't ruin it for others.

What.

Edit: okay, let me address your post point by point.

1. You think that I should play another game if I think 3.5 is so bad. Thank you, but I reject that advice. You don't get to tell me what to play.

2. Ruin what? The game that my players join of their own free will with complete transparency of the rules I use? If it ruins the game for them they tell me and we work out a compromise. Do you seriously mean to tell me that my posts in this thread are ruining the game for you?

3. I tried 4E. Didn't enjoy it. Didn't want to spend money on it. So, thank you for your opinion. Again, you don't get to tell me what to play. I will do what I want with the 3.5 ruleset, and you are welcome to criticize my posts. But that is it.


Kais86 wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
There are several problems with that, for starters most fighters don't have the skill points to actually be able to afford perception, if they want to do anything else, like take advantage of the intimidate rules and use survival.

That's a matter of choice, now, isn't it? A human fighter could certainly pull it off with his extra skill point. Anyone with fighter as their favored class could as well and still benefit from investing in intimidate and survival.

Kais86 wrote:


A rogue is also highly likely to take advantage of the Shadow enchantment for their armor, adding +15 to their stealth roll, putting them well past 20 above the fighter.
That's true. But the Greater Shadow property, at nearly 34,000 gp, is also a significant cost and very easy to cut out of a game, if the DM is worried about such things.

So are the truly impressive stats. The most a player character can get without magic or barbarian rage is 24. Whoopee a whopping +7 total and they had to do serious amounts of work to get there. Rolling an 18 (highly unlikely) having a +2 racial modifier on strength (humans and half-Xs only) and spending every point on it. Heaven forbid the highest thing a player rolled was a 14, then they can't even break 20 without magic.

That said, most rogues will take shadow on their armor at one point or another, so what if it's 34k, given that you can just add properties to equipment, it's really not that big a deal.

I've never seen a character with lower than a 25 in a stat by mid levels, or arround level 8 when they get their +4.

I have never seen a rogue spend the money on shadow armor enhancement.

Do not assume that your game is the only one. On these boards people discuss from their own experience. Please stop being confrontational when people are only discussing ideas.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Honestly, from what I see in games I think this is a good thing. By the time this really becomes an issue, arround 10+, the players are starting to get overpowered anyway. Scaling this back their peaks will bring them more in line.

As the system is currently ballanced you need some of the big 6. I am in no way convinced that you need all of them.

The problem is you arent scalling back their peaks, you are scalling back their valleys. Peak is when they have a good chance of success, in the case of a fighter, this is attacking a typical opponent of CR 1 or 2 lower then his level on their first attack of a full attack. Its very likely they are going to hit, drop that by a couple to hit points, and the fighter is still very likely to hit.

If he is instead using a combat manuever that he isnt specialized in, or using his iterative attacks, then the 3 or 4 lost points of stat bonus suddenly turn a somewhat likely to succeed attempt nearly impossible. Dropping out any of the big six items simply to limit power is a poor way to go about things.

Who says that the valleys on fighters aren't where I want to scale them back? I don't want itterative attacks to be auto-success against opponents higher CR than their level. And for non-strength based it really does scale back their peaks.

Look at SOD casters. They typically succeed 75% of the time, or more. Drop their int from a 28 to a 22, which is about what I am proposing, and the success rate drops down into the much more acceptable to me 55%.

Add in the fact that that wealth will now be spent on more creative items, and I really like the idea of eliminating the Big 6. In fact, with out the big 6 you could get rid of wealth by level with little affect on the game.

Grand Lodge

Caineach wrote:

I've never seen a character with lower than a 25 in a stat by mid levels, or arround level 8 when they get their +4.

I have never seen a rogue spend the money on shadow armor enhancement.

Do not assume that your game is the only one. On these boards people discuss from their own experience. Please stop being confrontational when people are only discussing ideas.

I'm not, that's why I'm suggesting you play a different one than this, it lacks balance on far too many areas to properly appease most of the posters in this thread. The best way to resolve this is disallow magic items that add to character stats, but even then, it's not going to resolve your problems, you might as well also remove all combat, skill, and save related magic items. You can keep the spell-casting items and the ones with special effects that don't affect combat, but that seems like a waste of perfectly good items.

Fighter CMB for Grappling: +20 (BAB) +4(weapon training) +4(imp/greater Grapple) +5 gauntlets, +2(weapon focus, greater)

Witch CMD for the fighter about to grapple her: +10(BAB) +5(ROP)

Fighter rolls to not fail, which is on a 1 only, even if weapon focus doesn't count toward grappling, it's on a 2+, if the +5 on gauntlets don't count then it's on a 7+, it's still basically rolling to not fail.


Kais86 wrote:
Caineach wrote:

I've never seen a character with lower than a 25 in a stat by mid levels, or arround level 8 when they get their +4.

I have never seen a rogue spend the money on shadow armor enhancement.

Do not assume that your game is the only one. On these boards people discuss from their own experience. Please stop being confrontational when people are only discussing ideas.

I'm not, that's why I'm suggesting you play a different one than this, it lacks balance on far too many areas to properly appease most of the posters in this thread. The best way to resolve this is disallow magic items that add to character stats, but even then, it's not going to resolve your problems, you might as well also remove all combat, skill, and save related magic items. You can keep the spell-casting items and the ones with special effects that don't affect combat, but that seems like a waste of perfectly good items.

Fighter CMB for Grappling: +20 (BAB) +4(weapon training) +4(imp/greater Grapple) +5 gauntlets, +2(weapon focus, greater)

Witch CMD for the fighter about to grapple her: +10(BAB) +5(ROP)

Fighter rolls to not fail, which is on a 1 only, even if weapon focus doesn't count toward grappling, it's on a 2+, if the +5 on gauntlets don't count then it's on a 7+, it's still basically rolling to not fail.

Just a few quick things... How is this an argument AGAINST capping stats? And, IMO, a 20th level fighter ( something I almost never see) SHOULD be able to auto-pin a witch. A fighter's specialty is in their name. The witch, on the other hand, has, at 20th level, so many hexes, touch attack spells, buff spells, etc., that it will be a lot closer fight than you seem to expect.

Frankly, if you are so offended by the OP's idea for how he wants to runs his game, turn around and walk away. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Let LKL, and the other posters who agree with him, play their way, you go off and play yours.

@ LKL... I think your idea has merit. I think 20 before racial as a natural cap is a good bet. Players could still get stat boosting items, but that falls into your hands as the GM to control.
I almost never hand out anything greater than a +2 item. Anything higher the players have to search out, as the higher + items aren't available in every "Crazy Harvey's Magiporium". But that's just my play style, YMMV


Caineach wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Honestly, from what I see in games I think this is a good thing. By the time this really becomes an issue, arround 10+, the players are starting to get overpowered anyway. Scaling this back their peaks will bring them more in line.

As the system is currently ballanced you need some of the big 6. I am in no way convinced that you need all of them.

The problem is you arent scalling back their peaks, you are scalling back their valleys. Peak is when they have a good chance of success, in the case of a fighter, this is attacking a typical opponent of CR 1 or 2 lower then his level on their first attack of a full attack. Its very likely they are going to hit, drop that by a couple to hit points, and the fighter is still very likely to hit.

If he is instead using a combat manuever that he isnt specialized in, or using his iterative attacks, then the 3 or 4 lost points of stat bonus suddenly turn a somewhat likely to succeed attempt nearly impossible. Dropping out any of the big six items simply to limit power is a poor way to go about things.

Who says that the valleys on fighters aren't where I want to scale them back? I don't want itterative attacks to be auto-success against opponents higher CR than their level. And for non-strength based it really does scale back their peaks.

If those iterative attacks dont hit very often it means the fighter is doing very similar amounts of damage at level 15 as he was at level 5. If thats ok by you and your players thats fine, but its something to seriously consider.

Quote:

Look at SOD casters. They typically succeed 75% of the time, or more. Drop their int from a 28 to a 22, which is about what I am proposing, and the success rate drops down into the much more acceptable to me 55%.

This wont just hit SOD casters, it will hit all casters, and all classes that have stat based effects with saves. Stunning fist with a 55% or less success rate becomes more or less extraneous doesnt it? And think very seriously about that 55% success rate. I know the numbers I generally prefer battlefield control or save or suck rather then save or die, but assuming the 55% is accurate, that means around half of rounds, a caster using a save effect will have no impact on the fight. Half. Imagine if you sat out every other round? Would that be fun. I have been on the recieving end of a dm that had issues with his monsters failing saves, to the point where I was more or less ignoring spells that have save values, because having spells fail consistently just isnt fun. I would sooner trim out SOD spells from spell lists then make it less likely for a player to have an impact on a regular basis.

Quote:


Add in the fact that that wealth will now be spent on more creative items, and I really like the idea of eliminating the Big 6. In fact, with out the big 6 you could get rid of wealth by level with little affect on the game.

This is mostly true but not completely. There are somethings that remain important, bags of holding, ability to fly, ability to deal with incorporal things or things with DR, those still have some wealth requirements. But certainly if you eliminate the need for the Big 6 the WBL becomes much less important. I am pretty much committed to all of my future pathfinder games having the big six abilities internalized as special abilities all characters get as they level, and eliminating them as magic items, so that when a magic sword turns up, all that matters is the flavor, and not how much +X it gives you.

Grand Lodge

The Eel wrote:

Just a few quick things... How is this an argument AGAINST capping stats? And, IMO, a 20th level fighter ( something I almost never see) SHOULD be able to auto-pin a witch. A fighter's specialty is in their name. The witch, on the other hand, has, at 20th level, so many hexes, touch attack spells, buff spells, etc., that it will be a lot closer fight than you seem to expect.

Frankly, if you are so offended by the OP's idea for how he wants to runs his game, turn around and walk away. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Let LKL, and the other posters who agree with him, play their way, you go off and play yours.

@ LKL... I think your idea has merit. I...

I'm stating that the issues the other posters have are problems inherent in the system, things that happen unless you change everything, which you might as well be playing a different game altogether if you want to change them all. I'm stating that if they want a more balanced system then they shouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all, they should try Dungeons and Dragons 4e or Warhammer Fantasy/40k RPG. I'm arguing to either give them ideas and/or to show that this probably isn't the system for them, if they want to continue playing it, then they should learn to deal with the fact that it's impossible to balance using one or two minor changes.

Real life isn't balance, I don't expect the games I play to be balanced either.

Also: the example I was using was just that an example, the fighter in question could have also done some work (given that he's not spending much on his current equipment) to make sure he could accomplish it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kais86 wrote:
The Eel wrote:

Just a few quick things... How is this an argument AGAINST capping stats? And, IMO, a 20th level fighter ( something I almost never see) SHOULD be able to auto-pin a witch. A fighter's specialty is in their name. The witch, on the other hand, has, at 20th level, so many hexes, touch attack spells, buff spells, etc., that it will be a lot closer fight than you seem to expect.

Frankly, if you are so offended by the OP's idea for how he wants to runs his game, turn around and walk away. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Let LKL, and the other posters who agree with him, play their way, you go off and play yours.

@ LKL... I think your idea has merit. I...

I'm stating that the issues the other posters have are problems inherent in the system, things that happen unless you change everything, which you might as well be playing a different game altogether if you want to change them all. I'm stating that if they want a more balanced system then they shouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all, they should try Dungeons and Dragons 4e or Warhammer Fantasy/40k RPG. I'm arguing to either give them ideas and/or to show that this probably isn't the system for them, if they want to continue playing it, then they should learn to deal with the fact that it's impossible to balance using one or two minor changes.

Real life isn't balance, I don't expect the games I play to be balanced either.

Also: the example I was using was just that an example, the fighter in question could have also done some work (given that he's not spending much on his current equipment) to make sure he could accomplish it.

Actually, most of these problems we are seeing aren't inherrent in the system. They have accumulated arround the system. Some have come to affect how the game ballances, but they are not inherrently a part of it. Nothing in the system says you have to allow stat boosting items. NOTHING. In fact, most d20 systems I have seen do not include ways to boost your stats other than through level. The game has developed a ballance arround it in things like monster stats, which is why we are disscussing how the ballance will be affected by a change like this. But scaling challenges appropriately is one of the jobs of the GM, and is accounted for by the system.

We are also discussing what it means from an RP perspective. You no longer have superhumans, as people get brought down into reletively realistic ranges. As the OP said, if Steven Hawking is an 18 int, and my character is 20, I have a rough gauge on how much of a genius I am. If Steven Hawking is an 18 and I am a 28, somehow I am more above one of the most brilliant minds currently alive as he is above the average person. It becomes impossible to conceptualize, and that is an issue.


Kolokotroni wrote:
This wont just hit SOD casters, it will hit all casters, and all classes that have stat based effects with saves. Stunning fist with a 55% or less success rate becomes more or less extraneous doesnt it? And think very seriously about that 55% success rate. I know the numbers I generally prefer battlefield control or save or suck rather then save or die, but assuming the 55% is accurate, that means around half of rounds, a caster using a save effect will have no impact on the fight. Half. Imagine if you sat out every other round? Would that be fun. I have been on the recieving end of a dm that had issues with his monsters failing saves, to the point where I was more or less ignoring spells that have save values, because having spells fail consistently just isnt fun. I would sooner trim out SOD spells from spell lists then make it less likely for a player to have an impact on a regular basis.

If a caster can only hit an I win button with 50% success rate, I'm ok with that. Fighters aren't guaranteed to do something every round, and it even takes them multiple rounds to kill most relevant monsters. Why should a wizard be able to reliably eliminate threats every round? The only reason they can is because they can boost the DCs up to unreasonable success rates through stats.

Quote:
This is mostly true but not completely. There are somethings that remain important, bags of holding, ability to fly, ability to deal with incorporal things or things with DR, those still have some wealth requirements. But certainly if you eliminate the need for the Big 6 the WBL becomes much less important. I am pretty much committed to all of my future pathfinder games having the big six abilities internalized as special abilities all characters get as they level, and eliminating them as magic items, so that when a magic sword turns up, all that matters is the flavor, and not how much +X it gives you.

Yes, but all of those things should be accounted for by the GM when he is looking at encounters. A high level group doesn't all need the ability to fly, and bags of holding aren't maditory.

Grand Lodge

Caineach wrote:

Actually, most of these problems we are seeing aren't inherrent in the system. They have accumulated arround the system. Some have come to affect how the game ballances, but they are not inherrently a part of it. Nothing in the system says you have to allow stat boosting items. NOTHING. In fact, most d20 systems I have seen do not include ways to boost your stats other than through level. The game has developed a ballance arround it in things like monster stats, which is why we are disscussing how the ballance will be affected by a change like this. But scaling challenges appropriately is one of the jobs of the GM, and is accounted for by the system.

We are also discussing what it means from an RP perspective. You no longer have superhumans, as people get brought down into reletively realistic ranges. As the OP said, if Steven Hawking is an 18 int, and my character is 20, I have a rough gauge on how much of a genius I am. If Steven Hawking is an 18 and I am a 28, somehow I am more above one of the most brilliant minds currently alive as he is above the average person. It becomes impossible to conceptualize, and that is an issue.

Stat enhancements have been around as long as the game has been around, every d20 game (modern, star wars, D&D) has a method through which to gain superhuman stats (in modern, it's chemistry, in star wars it's powered armor, in D&D it's magic, just to name a few)and the monsters in the higher levels are built expecting the player characters to have those stats, ergo it is inherent in the system.

There is a pretty good way to conceptualize it, for starters don't try to assign stats to real people, it's very difficult to do, strength being the only stat you can probably calculate properly, and even then once you get to the high ends of realistic strength, most people have a skill/feat/something that they add to bolster their strength into the truly ridiculous ranges. If you want a good example of what incredible amounts of stats looks like, use comic books, as they are about as crazy as Pathfinder is.

Intelligence: Reed Richards, Hank Pym, Peter Parker, Amadeus Cho, etc. Wisdom: Mantis.... okay, so most superheroes are foolish, most characters in fiction suffer from this, but they would have to be fools to go off and nearly get killed on a day to day basis anyway, use Iroh from Avatar the Last Airbender. Charisma: Captain America, Thor, Peter Parker, Mary Jane, Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Dick Grayson, The Flash (all of them). This is how you conceptualize what those stats look like,

Also: giving Stephen Hawking a mere 18 is an insult to the man, he's probably got something on the order of 24+, he's definitely a min-maxer.

Sovereign Court

Kais86 wrote:
Also: giving Stephen Hawking a mere 18 is an insult to the man, he's probably got something on the order of 24+, he's definitely a min-maxer.

Not if you consider that an 18 is the upper limit of what a person can be naturally born with. And no offense, I don't think stephen hawkins has any levels, just that he was born with a brain that is absolutely the best that a human can achieve naturally. Which if you consider dice rolls an 18 is. If you have a pinnacle then you can place people on the scale. You see I don't think anyone else living is an 18, I think 18 is rare. I think there are a few 17s out there, and then that there are even more 16s etc. down the line, but if you have a range with a cap. Then yes it's easy to assign people on the scale, because you know where the top tier is. Which is why I put Hawkins on the top tier of int and the current title holder of the worlds strongest man competition at the top tier of str. It's only hard to do so, when there is no upper limit, which is why you say you can't do it with the current system. Keep in mind that the game give the elite array, but the book says that only about 10% of the population has it, the elite array has a 15 as its highest stat. which means after racial mods the highest stat is 17. Meaning saying hawkins is an 18 (and considering that he has no levels IMO) means that he naturally was gifted with an intelligence greater than what only 10% of the world population has.

what I think stephen hawkins stats are:
str 1 dex 1 con 6 Int 18 wis 15 cha 8

Dark Archive

Don't like stat inflation, but don't feel comfortable with arbitrary stat caps? Or maybe you can't decide where the cap should reasonably be? (18? 25? 30?) Or maybe you just don't like the prospect of having to reviewing every, single monster and possibly hving to modify it?

Well, you could try the E6 mod

I've got some players in one of my groups talking it up - so we might try it in the near future.

Or you could always go retro - 1e and 2e had (different) stat caps. Heck 1e even had level caps (unless you were human) and multi-classing limitations. (I wonder if you could give 1e or 2e the PF treatment?)

That said, I think PF plays fine as-is. Of course, I haven't seen any truly crazy builds (yet).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kais86 wrote:
Don't ruin it for others.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

What.

Edit: okay, let me address your post point by point.

1. You think that I should play another game if I think 3.5 is so bad. Thank you, but I reject that advice. You don't get to tell me what to play.

2. Ruin what? The game that my players join of their own free will with complete transparency of the rules I use? If it ruins the game for them they tell me and we work out a compromise. Do you seriously mean to tell me that my posts in this thread are ruining the game for you?

3. I tried 4E. Didn't enjoy it. Didn't want to spend money on it. So, thank you for your opinion. Again, you don't get to tell me what to play. I will do what I want with the 3.5 ruleset, and you are welcome to criticize my posts. But that is it.

TOZ, please stop ruining Kais' game. Also, the fact that you have a different opinion from his is hurtful to him. Please stop that as well. Thanks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I appreciate the support, but I don't think that was called for. Kais did not choose to respond to my post, so I can only guess it was not worth his time to argue something that would not change. I have chosen not to belabor the point myself for the same reason. I'm not here to change his opinion, nor waste his or my time with bickering.


Stephen hawking an 18? Not hardly. Intelligence in 2e equated to roughly IQ*10. That puts hawking at at least a high 20 maybe even low 30. That's using 2e logic where there was a cap of 25. Also let's remember that when playing pathfinder you're in a world where your stats can be magically enhanced.

Further more you want to know "how to role-play a 22 Int?" Right? I would like to know how a socially awkward person like myself is even supposed to be capable of role-playing a 16 Chr? How is my average intelligence friend supposed to RP an 18 intelligence? How does one without any common sense role-play a high wisdom? You can't really, with effort I can role-play down the scale but if I could role-play a 16 Chr I would be alot better off in my career and in life in general. We as humans have limits to who we are and the only way to act smatter wiser or more charming than we are is by the use of numbers that fill in the gaps that our own limitations create when roleplaying characters that are better than us in certain areas. By your logic since I can't effectively role-play a 16 CHR we should cap my CHR at 13, the highest I would be willing to say my CHR is. And my friend he's stuck playing a 14 INT character.

Again it's your game and if you want to cap scores for any reason you're welcome to do so, but as with any rule make sure you actually know why you're doing it, and personally I think your reason of not being able to roleplay a 22 mental stat is not a valid point as very few people can actually roleplay an 18 in any given mental stat, let alone all three.

Also for physical stats you're saying that a halfling barbarian is capable of being stronger while raging than a magically enhanced human fighter who has spent his entire life training his muscles?

Hafling puts x in stat -2 for race +5 for levels +8 for mighty rage = x+11 max 28
Human puts x in stat +2 for race +5 for levels = x+7 max 20

Sorry but I don't see how you can roleplay a human fighter body builder who can't wrestle a hafling. I know it's built into the system and even if you allow magical equipment you have the same problem but as the system stands now they would be within 4 in your system it's an 8 point difference. Doesn't work for roleplaying to me.


Did a quick search and according to a website I found his iq is actually only 160. I don't by it cause that's what my iq is.

However the same site quotes Marylin Vos Savant as an iq of 228, that's basically a 23 INT.
link

Liberty's Edge

Diskordant wrote:

Did a quick search and according to a website I found his iq is actually only 160. I don't by it cause that's what my iq is.

However the same site quotes Marylin Vos Savant as an iq of 228, that's basically a 23 INT.
link

Hawking's IQ is widely reported to be in the 160 range by various internet sites (and we all know that the internet never lies). Hawking has refused to divulge his IQ, saying something along the lines of people who brag about their IQs are losers.

That being said, Hawking may have a 16 or 18 INT and a huge number of skill ranks in Physics. Maybe he's a 20th level Expert.

How smart can he really be, though? I've seen pictures of him, and his Headband slot is empty...

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Heymitch wrote:
Diskordant wrote:

Did a quick search and according to a website I found his iq is actually only 160. I don't by it cause that's what my iq is.

However the same site quotes Marylin Vos Savant as an iq of 228, that's basically a 23 INT.
link

Hawking's IQ is widely reported to be in the 160 range by various internet sites (and we all know that the internet never lies). Hawking has refused to divulge his IQ, saying something along the lines of people who brag about their IQs are losers.

That being said, Hawking may have a 16 or 18 INT and a huge number of skill ranks in Physics. Maybe he's a 20th level Expert.

How smart can he really be, though? I've seen pictures of him, and his Headband slot is empty...

His glasses might count.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
Heymitch wrote:
Diskordant wrote:

Did a quick search and according to a website I found his iq is actually only 160. I don't by it cause that's what my iq is.

However the same site quotes Marylin Vos Savant as an iq of 228, that's basically a 23 INT.
link

Hawking's IQ is widely reported to be in the 160 range by various internet sites (and we all know that the internet never lies). Hawking has refused to divulge his IQ, saying something along the lines of people who brag about their IQs are losers.

That being said, Hawking may have a 16 or 18 INT and a huge number of skill ranks in Physics. Maybe he's a 20th level Expert.

How smart can he really be, though? I've seen pictures of him, and his Headband slot is empty...

His glasses might count.

I'm pretty sure he only has about 5 ranks in knowledge(physics) because I'm certain my greatax can kill him in one hit, and even with his con of 8 that's 12 HP if he rolled all minimums.

Grand Lodge

lastknightleft wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Also: giving Stephen Hawking a mere 18 is an insult to the man, he's probably got something on the order of 24+, he's definitely a min-maxer.
Not if you consider that an 18 is the upper limit of what a person can be naturally born with. And no offense, I don't think stephen hawkins has any levels, just that he was born with a brain that is absolutely the best that a human can achieve naturally.

Except in Pathfinder the most a human could possibly be born with in intelligence is 20. Also, it's absolutely silly to suggest people don't become more intelligent as they grow, look at teenagers, they tend to be dumber than they were as children, and once they grow out of that they become adults, and sometimes their intelligence (not just their innate knowledge and wisdom) grows, that's why old people in Pathfinder get mental stat bonuses. At venerable age, –3 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha. Yes? Then he would have a 20 because of his age even if his baseline was 18, which his baseline should be 20, if he was born with the highest possible baseline intelligence a human can have, giving him a 22 (23 next year). Yes, there's stat inflation, but it is inherent in the system, even the stat cap of 20 is broken once they get old.

By the way, the GM should help you roleplay being smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than you can on your own, especially if it could affect the plot, because clearly not every player who plays a paladin is a charismatic, fearless, super-man.

Good examples of incredibly high-charisma people in real life: Oscar Schindler, he talked his way around the freaking SS, Liam Neeson, Heath Ledger, Robert Downey Jr., Steve Buscemi, Marylin Monroe, Madonna, Sharon Stone, Charlize Theron, Liv Tyler, and while some of these can be debated into the dirt, many of them are so insanely charismatic, they have built fortunes on that alone.


Kais86 wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Kais86 wrote:
Also: giving Stephen Hawking a mere 18 is an insult to the man, he's probably got something on the order of 24+, he's definitely a min-maxer.
Not if you consider that an 18 is the upper limit of what a person can be naturally born with. And no offense, I don't think stephen hawkins has any levels, just that he was born with a brain that is absolutely the best that a human can achieve naturally.

Except in Pathfinder the most a human could possibly be born with in intelligence is 20. Also, it's absolutely silly to suggest people don't become more intelligent as they grow, look at teenagers, they tend to be dumber than they were as children, and once they grow out of that they become adults, and sometimes their intelligence (not just their innate knowledge and wisdom) grows, that's why old people in Pathfinder get mental stat bonuses. At venerable age, –3 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha. Yes? Then he would have a 20 because of his age even if his baseline was 18, which his baseline should be 20, if he was born with the highest possible baseline intelligence a human can have, giving him a 22 (23 next year). Yes, there's stat inflation, but it is inherent in the system, even the stat cap of 20 is broken once they get old.

By the way, the GM should help you roleplay being smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than you can on your own, especially if it could affect the plot, because clearly not every player who plays a paladin is a charismatic, fearless, super-man.

Good examples of incredibly high-charisma people in real life: Oscar Schindler, he talked his way around the freaking SS, Liam Neeson, Heath Ledger, Robert Downey Jr., Steve Buscemi, Marylin Monroe, Madonna, Sharon Stone, Charlize Theron, Liv Tyler, and while some of these can be debated into the dirt, many of them are so insanely charismatic, they have built fortunes on that alone.

I'm not saying that people can't have high charisma I'm asking how do you quantify it?

The whole point of this thread as I read it, and I may be wrong, is that the OP wants to cap stats at 20 because he doesn't know how to RP a 28 over a 26. My point is simply that no one in my personal group has, as near as I can tell, an 18 CHR and therefore cannot RP it. That's what dice are for. Furthermore he wants to cap stats at below human capability because of this when there are examples of humans with greater int than this, as shown by my example in 2e int*10 = iq it's obvious that pathfinder uses a different scale as the average human has an iq of 90 not 105. So what would be an 18 in 2e is more like a 20 now. And 25 was the cap as I remember it in 2e so if he is going to place a cap it needs to be higher, like 30.

Grand Lodge

Diskordant wrote:

'm not saying that people can't have high charisma I'm asking how do you quantify it?

The whole point of this thread as I read it, and I may be wrong, is that the OP wants to cap stats at 20 because he doesn't know how to RP a 28 over a 26. My point is simply that no one in my personal group has, as near as I can tell, an 18 CHR and therefore cannot RP it. That's what dice are for. Furthermore he wants to cap stats at below human capability because of this when there are examples of humans with greater int than this, as shown by my example in 2e int*10 = iq it's obvious that pathfinder uses a different scale as the average human has an iq of 90 not 105. So what would be an 18 in 2e is more like a 20 now. And 25 was the cap as I remember it in 2e so if he is going to place a cap it needs to be higher, like 30.

An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several different standardized tests designed to assess intelligence. The term "IQ" comes from the German Intelligenz-Quotient. When modern IQ tests are constructed the median score is set to 100 and a standard deviation to 15. Today almost all IQ tests adhere to the assignment of 15 IQ points to each standard deviation but this has not been the case historically. Approximately 95% of the population have scores within two standard deviations of the mean. If one SD is 15 points, then 95% of the population are within a range of 70 to 130.

90 and 105 are well within human norm, though the average (median) is, always has been, and always will be 100. Going so far as to make the tests harder as time goes on, because people become smarter. Given that 3.5 was in a very medieval setting and Pathfinder is a bit closer to the start of the American Civil war, in terms of technology, it's pretty fair to say that stat inflation is acceptable to some degree. Especially as time has moved on and we see genuine super-humans popping up on the scene. This world, the one we live in, has several low-tier super-humans, people capable of doing things that it is utterly impossible for an average person to train to.

How do you quantify Dex? Con? You really can't. You can attempt to perform the tests of Con to determine what someone has, but it will never meet up with the predetermined numbers in Pathfinder, because it's partially built on a willing suspension of disbelief. A good example: a long-distance runner, probably has running feats, and endurance. He would also have a very high Con score to be able to run as far as he can as fast as he can, however this also means he could hold his breath for fundamentally super-human periods of time, and that just isn't going to happen.

Dex on the other hand is right out. I for example have really good reflexes, which is good because I'm also pretty clumsy, so when I accidentally knock stuff over, I can usually catch it before it hits the floor. This is something you CANNOT duplicate properly in Pathfinder. Certainly not with how impressively good my reflexes are in relation to how incredibly clumsy I am.


I will admit you seem to know more about iq then I do, I remember reading that 80-100 was human average iq, so 90 would be the median number. But I will concede that point to you.

However there is no way to roleplay a 20 CHR if you don't have one, or an 18 for that matter and the only difference someone attempting to roleplay these two meaningless numbers is by adding 1 to all CHR based rolls. The same goes for int or wis or dex or con or even str. And really in my experience people only attempt to RP less than 10 numbers, or exceptionally high numbers. I admit I don't know every RPer out there but I have never had a player play a 13 int different than a 15 int, even though 15's an entire deviation better, so why does it matter between a 20 and a 22? Should there be a cap? Yes. Where? I say about 40, where the game naturally caps it.

Grand Lodge

For the most part your characters aren't really going to show a huge difference in their mental stats. A great example is 3 of my friends, each one representing one of the mental stats (I kid you not), my first friend is a nuclear engineer, and by his behavior and words you could never tell he's brilliant enough to operate and maintain nuclear submarines, but that's what he does in the Navy.

My second friend is incredibly charismatic, yes it shows a little, but you don't realize how incredibly charismatic he is until you realize he runs what is pretty much the largest comic book and gaming store (no, he doesn't sell electronics, don't ask) in the entire midwest US, to make things weird, he does this in Oklahoma. There might be larger stores in Chicago or Dallas/Ft. Worth, but I have serious doubts about it.

My next friend is incredibly wise, he's also really smart, but he's definitely not charismatic. I go to him for all of my questions about things I have 0 experience in, because I can pretty much guarantee he has an answer that can help me. I have never regretted following a piece of his advice and we've been friends for years now. Well, okay maybe this one is a bit weak, but I still trust his judgment before pretty much anyone else's judgment.

The only one of these you could really tell if you just talked to them is my charismatic friend. The other two are basically impossible to determine just how much higher their "stats" are than everyone else' "stats" until you get to know them well.

You could, in theory, break 40 in stats, but it would be expensive. Pathfinder allow you to build up your stats as high as you want, provided you have the money to make it happen, through the use of magic items.


I have to agree that the open ended scores are an issue, at least to some extent, although my reasons are different.
My issue it the if 18 is the normal human max and the character has a 28, it becomes difficult to portray that in character, at least for the mental stats.

Most players cannot think on the level of Hawking or Gandhi, much less someone who is numerically twice as smart or wise. As a result they act in ways contrary to their super high scores.

Currently I treat the ability scores as extremely abstract and just let the character design act as their functional score.


I hope the OP has checked into 5th ed.

Yay my first thread necro. :P

I was thinking of capping at 20 for an upcoming game, and searched to see if the idea had been discussed, I was surprised it had been discussed so long ago. On the other hand, it's refreshing to see that all the comments I expected were posted. Saves the trouble of hearing them again. Thanks from the future.

Hitting things won't be an issue. I'm rewriting large chunks of the system, so basic assumptions no longer apply. Skill DC won't become unreachable because those will also be adjusted/capped. Sounds like I'm in the "won't know until I try it" area again.

Liberty's Edge

It's not a terrible idea but I think a little more thought needs to go into the house rule than an arbitrary cap of 20. The strongest half-orc should be stronger than the strongest human (as an example). Also, as others have suggested some work would need to go into adjusting monster DCs on things like monster SLAs and poisons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A stat cap of 20 would probably work best with an earlier level cap like e6 or e8.


I could see a stat cap being acceptable in some ways. But I think it should be a cap only naturally. The barbarian can have only 20 strength by itself. If it rages, grows in size, and is wearing a +6 item, I see no problems with that raising it. +stat manuals? Wishes and miracles raising stats? I could maybe see those going over 20.

I'm not able to speak for other editions or systems very well, but I think 5e has a stat cap.

20 prior to bonuses? Eh. Gotta work to reach it sometimes. 20 after bonuses? Easy towards higher levels. Essential even.

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Making stats cap at 20 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules