I stand very firm against players min/maxing. That being said, I allow them to do whatever they would like within the game mechanics and I dont punish anyone for achieving a strong character though good role playing.
However, Ive always thought about what the limit should be for ability scores. If a human fighter rolls a natural 18 for his strength ability and then, over the course of a campaign progresses from 1 - 20 and puts all 5 points in to his strength raising it to a 23, should it be allowed? Doesnt this seem to everyone to go far beyond human possibility, even in a magical, fantasy world?
Thoughts, opinions?
Why wouldn't you? When they went to 3.0 they kinda changed what the upper limits were. Stats used to stop at 25 and now there really is no upper limit. To me it's fantasy, so why wouldn't a hero be able to go beyond the limits of others? If they didn't min/max but just progressed their character in that direction, then its no big deal.
The important question is "what method of ability generation do you use?" Most of the options in the book make characters that start out with an 18 a rarity, generally speaking a party of four characters is going to end up with only one 18 among them. But the PHB has a chart for bonus spells for stats above 20, and you know your spell caster has seen it, so you can count on wizards especially to try and buff their intelligence as much as possible. If the wizard player gets his way then the barbarian is going to start wanting a 21 strength, even though it doesn't really make as much of a difference for her. The first mistake a DM can make is to allow house rules for character generation that make high stats more common. That's when PCs start getting out of hand.
Of course, with stat buffs given every four levels, stats in the 20's should be expected at mid-levels, especially for characters whose abilities are based largely on a single stat. Strictly speaking, a spellcaster should really be able to get her relative abilty up to 19 by 17th level, or her 9th level spells will be unavailable, but to do that she could start as low as 15 at first level.
Remember that spells and equipment to buff abilities become available at fairly low levels, as well, so if your party's 3rd level barbarian has an 18 strength, that translates into a +12 attack bonus with his masterwork weapon, after getting a bull's strenght from the cleric and then raging. Since at CR 3 ACs tend to be in the 15 to 18 range, this is going to mean a lot of hits, and if he uses a two-handed weapon, we're talking about a +8 damage bonus against targets that probably have around 20 hp, which is going to shorten fights even more.
I agree with Chris...don't worry about disallowing high scores. As a DM it's your job to adapt to the PC strengths and weaknesses!
As ever,
ACE
...raising it to a 23, should it be allowed? Doesnt this seem to everyone to go far beyond human possibility, even in a magical, fantasy world?
Thoughts, opinions?
With D&D 3.x the rules have changed -- 20+ isn't necessarily beyond the human range.
We just have to get used to that.
Jack
All great points to consider. Thanks!
And another thing is dont let them roll stats....buy them!
32 points is plenty and at least you dont get that one guy with two 16's and a 18!!
If the fighter wants to spend all his points on a 18 then he'll pay for having crap stats in everything eles.
Just a point. When we play we roll our stats and sometimes we end up with great stats and sometimes we roll really bad. I had a character roll nothing but a 14 as my highest score adn then below that I had a 12 and the rest were all 10 or below with one even being in the 6 range. Which wasn't horrible, it just made for interesting roleplaying. But I have also had a character who had an 18 and a few 16s but the DM just adapted the NPCs that we ran into. Sure we had great stats but as soon as we past I think level 8 he took his gloves off and nearly killed the entire party several times, so to me stats should be irrelevant to a DM, to a point of course. A good DM can always exploit strengths and weaknesses.
later
Actually, I nearly always use the point-buy system.
Rolling is too random (duh!) for me. If you want characters to be consistent with each others and with the monsters you should use the point-buy system.
The only question is which amount to allow. I find 25 or 28 to be quite low, compared to the average results you get by rolling.
On top of that, I usually use published adventures (Dungeon, mainly) and my experience so far is that they are always a bit harder than their official EL, especially the AoW AP (that's maybe me).
Which is why I think 32 points is a good basis.
Then, there should not be any cap on the ability scores, that's not the spirit of 3.x and if a player wants to invest all his points in Str, why not. After all it will mean that he gets less AC or HP and poorer saves.
Bocklin
No limit to ability scores, that's the rule now.
We play with the roll 4d6 keep the 3 best or more often with "choose what you want and put it where you want".
In fact it's often the same average total, around 80/85 (no point buy method calculation), 6x14=84.
Strong characters but the DM can always add some monsters or augment their hp (I nearly always do) it seems a very good method for me, fights last longer, they spend some more spells but it's not really deadlier.
Doesnt this seem to everyone to go far beyond human possibility, even in a magical, fantasy world?
In D&D the characters are up against some scary stuff. They are expected to face dragons. Gargatnuan horrors the size of houses, breathing fire that can melt steel, strong enough to rip nearly anything to peices in seconds, and it swings it's massive clawed limbs with the skill of a master swordsman. Thats all without considering it's ability to alter reality (spells).
And a squad of human fighters are able to bring it down. Normally the skills and abilities allotted just by their class levels quickly sets them apart from what a real human could ever accomplish. IMHO
Personally, my players get some very high ability scores. (5d6, best 3, roll 7 abilities, choose 6) However, players also know that I am a fairly relentless DM, in that I will have up to six battles in a day. In one campaign the 1st level characters fought seven of six goblins, and a 3rd level goblin wizard with three bodyguards. They did fine.
Reread post and noticed I didn't really answer the question. I have yet to have a character break 26 (racial modifier, magic items, natural 18, ability boosts.) I justify this because my players are heroes. They routinely go for the gold with their actions, and I don't feel this should go unrewarded.
Reread post and noticed I didn't really answer the question. I have yet to have a character break 26 (racial modifier, magic items, natural 18, ability boosts.) I justify this because my players are heroes. They routinely go for the gold with their actions, and I don't feel this should go unrewarded.
I only have one thing to say: Cleric with the Strength domain...so delightful...its only for one round, but man is it fun to have a Strength in the 30-40 range (assuming you are high enough level). Righteous might is one dandy fine spell too, combine that with bull's strength AND the Strength domain special ability, and for one round you are stronger than any mortal could possibly imagine. I usually just use it for intimidation purposes, but one time I was running a huge battle in an arena with the PCs encircled by huge, bladed chariots pulled by dire tigers with gladiators on board. When the cleric of Kord hefted one of the chariots (dire tigers and all) into another one, well, let's just say that was the moment we talked about for weeks...
I have a barbarian/bear warrior in my group and when he transforms into bear form his strength goes to 44. I'll allow infinite abilitiy scores. It's only fair, otherwise make sure they know ahead of time how restricted the game is going to be. Not allowing someone to reach strength 23 when they start with strength 18, is sorry, lame. Want to level the playing field on a strong fighter? Will saves. Seems like a low blow, but it wakes up the rest of the party into overcoming a messed up fighter.
I find this intriguing because when I build a character I sometimes would use the role method. As far as I'm concerned. No rules are being violated here as long as you are within your reasonable rights as a player. As for advancement I GM in a way where you can surpass the max 20 through magic or through mortal innovation.
Coming up with a concept and finding what you want done for your character to succeed. Then I like to propose a side question with various tasks to complete
I'm currently working on a side quest for the main campaign setting. Then there's going to be pickle gear.