|
The game is full of arbitrary limitations. It's like saying a player might take exception to the limit on spells per day and become a problem. Or take exception to the limit on rounds of rage per day and become a problem...
Yes, but the player accepts those when he plays the game, when the GM adds one, even if it's from the very beginning, and even if everyone agrees to it, you never know what will trip the trigger of the player causing them to go off the rails. The more you poke at it, as a GM, the more likely a player is to get annoyed at it. I've actually seen players blow up over rules, even if they were plain as day, so yes the limitation on rages/day can cause a blow up.
Another thing low stats does is shorten the work day, casters can't cast as often, melee characters can't take as many hits, and less gets done in any given day.
Changing stats, the way they work, how many everyone can have, etc. brings about a lot of work for the DM, and as someone who has been on both sides of that particular fence, I know full well the DM already has his plate full, and he shouldn't be adding to it.
|
The game is full of arbitrary limitations. It's like saying a player might take exception to the limit on spells per day and become a problem. Or take exception to the limit on rounds of rage per day and become a problem...Yes, but the player accepts those when he plays the game, when the GM adds one, even if it's from the very beginning, and even if everyone agrees to it, you never know what will trip the trigger of the player causing them to go off the rails. The more you poke at it, as a GM, the more likely a player is to get annoyed at it. I've actually seen players blow up over rules, even if they were plain as day, so yes the limitation on rages/day can cause a blow up.
Another thing low stats does is shorten the work day, casters can't cast as often, melee characters can't take as many hits, and less gets done in any given day.
Changing stats, the way they work, how many everyone can have, etc. brings about a lot of work for the DM, and as someone who has been on both sides of that particular fence, I know full well the DM already has his plate full, and he shouldn't be adding to it.
You play with some immature people then.
Oh yeah, I forgot that I've never been a player, only DM so I have no idea what a player should expect.
|
|
Is that assigning baseless motives to complete strangers silly, using an organized rules structure to sit around with adults and play pretend silly, or telling people they should be ashamed of themselves for making alterations to a game silly?
1)Not if they are fictional characters. Now if they are real people, that is a very quick way to get beat up.
2)No, people want to be entertained, not everyone can be entertained the same way, and if it was truly silly that still wouldn't stop people, as it's still entertaining.3)If they are not paid to develop a game, then they should probably accept the criticism, and more importantly the warnings, of their peers.
Most of that isn't silly, okay the last one is a little, but let's be fair: I was going from the perspective of a player who is more than willing to take a system behind his proverbial woodshed. Don't fix what isn't broken, there is nothing broken about the stat system. Trying to fix it is a dangerous prospect, perhaps even physically (I've seen rules arguments turn violent, though those people were weird and creepy to begin with), but if you intend to bring the monsters down as well, and you are this dedicated to doing THAT much work, then fine. Enjoy your work, because it's far more effort than I'm willing to put into a game.
You play with some immature people then.
Oh yeah, I forgot that I've never been a player, only DM so I have no idea what a player should expect.
Those individuals play in different groups, groups I refuse to join on principle alone, much less the annoyances of dealing with crazies and children.
|
|
I'm not trying to alter it because I think it's broke, I'm thinking of altering it because I don't like it. For the same reason I'm thinking of altering the weapon proficiency rules, for the same reason I've toyed with the idea of completely separating arcane and divine magic (i.e. a spell that is either arcane or divine, you don't get a spell that can be learned by an arcane class and a divine class like a wealth of spells in the game). I do this stuff because I want to make the game different because I've played with it the way it's written and now I want to try it a different way, and I discuss things with my players I don't just force changes on them. I don't game with children and if a person would blow up over things in a game then I don't want to game with them either. In fact I would appreciate if houserules caused someone to blow up at the beginning of the game that way I knew not to have them play at my table.
I like this idea. It works well with my assumption that every +2 to a stat is 1 standard deviation from norm, with 10 being average. Someone with a 30 in a stat is 10 standard deviations from norm, but what does that actually mean? I can undestand how common the 1 in 20 would be (a score of 14), or a 1 in 370 (16), 1 in 15,000 (18), or even a 20 which is 1 in 1.7 million. But a 22 is 1 in 500 million by my interpretation, and these characters are running arround and common by level 8 or so.
I want the players to not be in an arms race against the GM. If the players have 18s, then NPCs need 16s to be relevant. If they have 24s, NPCs really need to be hitting 20s to stay relevant. This just pumps the players to want to go higher, which forces the GM higher, which eventually causes generic mooks to have 1 in 1 million stats.
Personally, I prefer the idea of getting rid of the stat increasing items and inherrent bonuses from wish. After that, not much raises stats and its not that big of a deal. A player who starts with a 20 and adds all of his level bonuses is a 25. Sure he is stupidly rare, but he is also a 20th level character who was naturally gifted. This is a major change to ballance though, as monsters assume you have the big 6 in their stats.
Personally, I prefer the idea of getting rid of the stat increasing items and inherrent bonuses from wish. After that, not much raises stats and its not that big of a deal. A player who starts with a 20 and adds all of his level bonuses is a 25. Sure he is stupidly rare, but he is also a 20th level character who was naturally gifted. This is a major change to ballance though, as monsters assume you have the big 6 in their stats.
Indeed npcs are probably pretty easy to manage with an ability score cap for the players. Monsters are a different story. You cant really cap monsters it would not only impact their abilities and attacks and such, but it also wouldnt make sense. A colossal dragon shouldnt have only a slightly higher strength then an olympic weight lifter
Indeed npcs are probably pretty easy to manage with an ability score cap for the players. Monsters are a different story. You cant really cap monsters it would not only impact their abilities and attacks and such, but it also wouldnt make sense. A colossal dragon shouldnt have only a slightly higher strength then an olympic weight lifter
Personally, I prefer the idea of getting rid of the stat increasing items and inherrent bonuses from wish. After that, not much raises stats and its not that big of a deal. A player who starts with a 20 and adds all of his level bonuses is a 25. Sure he is stupidly rare, but he is also a 20th level character who was naturally gifted. This is a major change to ballance though, as monsters assume you have the big 6 in their stats.
I would place the cap on humanoids only, and I think this adds to the game. No longer will you have players stronger than adult dragons. Sure, players could wrestle a grizzly bear (str 21), but they wont seriously outclass them like they can now.
|
Yes, but the player accepts those when he plays the game, when the GM adds one, even if it's from the very beginning, and even if everyone agrees to it, you never know what will trip the trigger of the player causing them to go off the rails. The more you poke at it, as a GM, the more likely a player is to get annoyed at it. I've actually seen players blow up over rules, even if they were plain as day, so yes the limitation on rages/day can cause a blow up.
Sounds like you have some serious player issues which are making your life more difficult. I've been fortunate on this front, the few problem players I've had in the past are gone.
|
|
I would place the cap on humanoids only, and I think this adds to the game. No longer will you have players stronger than adult dragons. Sure, players could wrestle a grizzly bear (str 21), but they wont seriously outclass them like they can now.Indeed npcs are probably pretty easy to manage with an ability score cap for the players. Monsters are a different story. You cant really cap monsters it would not only impact their abilities and attacks and such, but it also wouldnt make sense. A colossal dragon shouldnt have only a slightly higher strength then an olympic weight lifter
Personally, I prefer the idea of getting rid of the stat increasing items and inherrent bonuses from wish. After that, not much raises stats and its not that big of a deal. A player who starts with a 20 and adds all of his level bonuses is a 25. Sure he is stupidly rare, but he is also a 20th level character who was naturally gifted. This is a major change to ballance though, as monsters assume you have the big 6 in their stats.
Yeah my cap plan was for humanoid only as well. That's type, so anything that falls under that category, but not monstrous humanoids.
|
|
Yeah my cap plan was for humanoid only as well. That's type, so anything that falls under that category, but not monstrous humanoids.
Have you considered instead making the cap based on pre-racial adjustments?
So a human or a half orc could get a 20 strength, an orc could have a 22 strength, an elf could only get an 18 strength, gnomes and halflings only a 16.
Or possibly cap them at racial max plus XXX.
I hate to break this to you but there is zero correlation between player enjoyment and ability scores.... ZERO ZILCH ZIP.
I've seen players unhappy playing a character with low scores. Apparently, it just wasn't correlated. ;-)
I would place the cap on humanoids only, and I think this adds to the game. No longer will you have players stronger than adult dragons. Sure, players could wrestle a grizzly bear (str 21), but they wont seriously outclass them like they can now.
Certainly that makes sense and I imagine that is what LKL is looking for, but eventually you have an effect similar to E6/E8(though much more muted), big bad monsters like dragons and demons become far more deadly then the game intends, and LKL will need to accomodate that, either in play style or by adjusting stats, or by giving his players edges in other ways.
|
|
I hate to break this to you but there is zero correlation between player enjoyment and ability scores.... ZERO ZILCH ZIP.I've seen players unhappy playing a character with low scores. Apparently, it just wasn't correlated. ;-)
Hah busted! Yeah, I guess I should have set aside player expectations.
"I only have a 16 intelligence? But it's a wizard I have to have a 20 or I'll suck!"
... Having stat maximums is silly, the average player character gets to be superhuman at one point or another in every game system, why limit one of those points? I wouldn't play in a game with maximum stats, it doesn't make sense to me. The monsters can get stats in the 30s-40s, why can't the PCs?Quite frankly, life just isn't about being equal or fair. There is no such thing as a level playing field. Compared to a lot of people, I grasp new ideas, concepts, and skills quickly, applying everything I learn much faster than others. Compared to others, not so much. From my perspective it doesn't make sense to NOT have limits.
I feel the same way. Why should a human be able to be as strong as a dragon, giant, or other creature 10 times his size.
I feel the same way. Why should a human be able to be as strong as a dragon, giant, or other creature 10 times his size.
Quite frankly, life just isn't about being equal or fair. There is no such thing as a level playing field. Compared to a lot of people, I grasp new ideas, concepts, and skills quickly, applying everything I learn much faster than others. Compared to others, not so much. From my perspective it doesn't make sense to NOT have limits.
Depends on the human or what you mean by human, and what you mean by human. Heracles for instance was quite literally as strong as some giants, so were plenty of other legendary heroes, and plenty of super heroes.
Depends on the human or what you mean by human, and what you mean by human. Heracles for instance was quite literally as strong as some giants, so were plenty of other legendary heroes, and plenty of super heroes.I feel the same way. Why should a human be able to be as strong as a dragon, giant, or other creature 10 times his size.
Quite frankly, life just isn't about being equal or fair. There is no such thing as a level playing field. Compared to a lot of people, I grasp new ideas, concepts, and skills quickly, applying everything I learn much faster than others. Compared to others, not so much. From my perspective it doesn't make sense to NOT have limits.
Herculese: 1/2 god. Not really human.
Superheroes are their own can of worms. They follow no logical laws, and as such any logic goes out the window.Most other legendary heroes I can think of are similar. They often have some background which makes them not human. Those that are human are not usually described as being solely stronger. They may prove superior strength or cunning, but that is just as much a function of training and conviction as it is raw power. BAB goes into grappling after all.
Herculese: 1/2 god. Not really human.
Superheroes are their own can of worms. They follow no logical laws, and as such any logic goes out the window.Most other legendary heroes I can think of are similar. They often have some background which makes them not human. Those that are human are not usually described as being solely stronger. They may prove superior strength or cunning, but that is just as much a function of training and conviction as it is raw power. BAB goes into grappling after all.
Well the op is talking about humanoid not exclusively human. There are definately humanoid heroes who have tremendous strength.
|
|
Yeah my cap plan was for humanoid only as well. That's type, so anything that falls under that category, but not monstrous humanoids.Have you considered instead making the cap based on pre-racial adjustments?
So a human or a half orc could get a 20 strength, an orc could have a 22 strength, an elf could only get an 18 strength, gnomes and halflings only a 16.
Or possibly cap them at racial max plus XXX.
In otherwords basically saying that an 18 is the pinnacle of stats, but a racial adjustment is the only thing that can exceed that. Sorta, but then I worry about making it a thing that pushes players more towards playing specific race/class combos even more than the game already favors.
I think (part of) the underlying question is whether we attribute another value that isn't numerical to stats or not.
If like in AD&D, the stats "means" something more than 26 = +8 modifier, than capping the stat to something we can clearly imagine and roleplay as being "human perfection" makes sense to me (especially concerning mental stats).
Personally, I think 20 would be good as the typical "one notch above ideal", but I understand that the game assumes higher stats to work within its mathematical frame.
'findel
|
|
I think (part of) the underlying question is whether we attribute another value that isn't numerical to stats or not.
If like in AD&D, the stats "means" something more than 26 = +8 modifier, than capping the stat to something we can clearly imagine and roleplay as being "human perfection" makes sense to me (especially concerning mental stats).
Personally, I think 20 would be good as the typical "one notch above ideal", but I understand that the game assumes higher stats to work within its mathematical frame.
'findel
which is what I'm going for, 18s are rare enough rolls, I think in the past four games I've played in I've seen 1 rolled. So on average with stat mods most games I've played in or DMed have started with one character with an 18 as a stat. Now if 18 is the pinnacle of humanoid ability, and with magic, rare birth, or experience you can be just slightly better then I'm okay with that. You can wrap your brain around that, and you can say okay your character is now smarter than stephen hawkins (18 int) or stronger than Zydrunas Savickas (18 str) I'm okay with that. But how does a player or DM really conceptualize the difference between a 26 int and a 28 int. Okay you were already smarter than anyone who has ever lived ever and are now slightly smarter, roleplay that. At least Str was somewhat easier, okay you were stronger than a rhino, now you're stronger than an elephant. but really, I don't think the game needs or benefits from having stats continue to get higher and higher. I'm willing to adjust high level monsters down a notch for a more conceptual approach to stats.
In otherwords basically saying that an 18 is the pinnacle of stats, but a racial adjustment is the only thing that can exceed that. Sorta, but then I worry about making it a thing that pushes players more towards playing specific race/class combos even more than the game already favors.Yeah my cap plan was for humanoid only as well. That's type, so anything that falls under that category, but not monstrous humanoids.Have you considered instead making the cap based on pre-racial adjustments?
So a human or a half orc could get a 20 strength, an orc could have a 22 strength, an elf could only get an 18 strength, gnomes and halflings only a 16.
Or possibly cap them at racial max plus XXX.
That is an issue, but I think it is unavoidable. That a 40-lb halfling could be a viable melee combatant against medium characters already strains credibility. The idea that he could lift and carry as much as an able-bodied adult human is completely ridiculous.
|
|
Yeah my cap plan was for humanoid only as well. That's type, so anything that falls under that category, but not monstrous humanoids.So, Storm Giants in your campaign would be limited to a 20 Strength? They are Humanoid type, after all.
Heh I forgot Paizo made that change, I think Giants would have to go to monstrous humanoid, what were they in 3.5 their own type right, it's been so long lol
|
Yeah my cap plan was for humanoid only as well. That's type, so anything that falls under that category, but not monstrous humanoids.
So, Storm Giants in your campaign would be limited to a 20 Strength? They are Humanoid type, after all.
Heh I forgot Paizo made that change, I think Giants would have to go to monstrous humanoid, what were they in 3.5 their own type right, it's been so long lol
In 3.5, they were Giant type. Ogres, Trolls, and a slew of other creatures are also classified as Humanoid (giant) in Pathfinder.
|
|
In otherwords basically saying that an 18 is the pinnacle of stats, but a racial adjustment is the only thing that can exceed that. Sorta, but then I worry about making it a thing that pushes players more towards playing specific race/class combos even more than the game already favors.Yeah my cap plan was for humanoid only as well. That's type, so anything that falls under that category, but not monstrous humanoids.Have you considered instead making the cap based on pre-racial adjustments?
So a human or a half orc could get a 20 strength, an orc could have a 22 strength, an elf could only get an 18 strength, gnomes and halflings only a 16.
Or possibly cap them at racial max plus XXX.
Essentially. To me the idea that the strongest Orc is stronger than the strongest Human, etc makes a lot of sense. The only place it doesn't really make sense is with Dwarves.
|
|
Not a problem if the cap doesn't include size modifiers. Storm Giants being huge get pluses from size that ignore the cap. No need to change their type.
The typical specimen of Storm Giant listed in the Bestiary has a 39 Strength.
According to the Bestiary Appendix 1 on Monster Creation, increasing size from Medium to Large nets +8 Str, +4 Con, and -2 Dex. Huge nets +16 Str, +8 Con, and -4 Dex.
So, if the cap doesn't include size modifiers, you're still looking at the listed Storm Giant being 3 points over the cap in Strength.
Several other Giants would be over the cap as well...
Fire Giant (Str 3 points over)
Frost Giant (Str 1 point over)
Wood Giant (Dex 3 points over)
Also...
Ogrekin (Str 1 point over)
Wereboar (Str 3 points over)
Weretiger (Str 5 points over)
I'm sure I'm missing some.
Also, this means that the listed (typical) member of those species is already over the cap. Imagine what an elite Fire Giant with Fighter levels (for example) might look like. I'm assuming here that you're following the guidelines for adding class levels on p.296 of the Bestiary. If you added your +4s to both Strength and Con, he'd be 7 points over in Strength and 1 point over in Con, without even any further attribute increases from hit die increases.
So, yeah, if you're going to do this you'd need to exclude Humanoid (giants) from the cap, and maybe Humanoid (shapechanger) as well.
Finally, it's your game, so do what you want. My solution, however, to Player Characters with very high stats would be to scale up any encounters as appropriate (which I find easier to do than scaling down, for some reason).
Also, in the games I play in, most of the major baddies tend to be very souped up, and the PCs need every edge they can get against them.
However, ymmv.
A side question (which I'm sure has been asked and answered 10000 times); how well would a game do without any stats boosting items or the 6 stat boosting spells (including their mass versions) do, because I'm seriously considering removing those from my game (not intending going past level 15th).
|
|
Depends on what enemies you use at higher levels. Stock monsters from the manuals will be extra deadly due to better stats than the PCs. If you use mostly humanoid enemies with class levels, things should stay the same. Lower levels should not change. I'm tempted to do the same and rewrite the stat boosting spells to give bonuses on ability checks instead of increasing ability scores. Less recalculation needed.
|
|
As a side note: reducing numbers, makes the d20 more powerful, and no one likes that.Incorrect.
As a side note: reducing numbers, makes the d20 more powerful, and I don't like that.You may not like it, but I on the other hand do like the d20 more powerful.
If we were to base on the current sample size of 2 who have weighed in thus far we have a 50/50 split. (-_^)
That just means they haven't played in a game where the d20 is basically god and a 20 will get you anywhere. I have, it's not that fun, I was fortunate in that my d20s like me enough to do as I tell them to, because the other players in my game were about worthless, they were lucky to roll in the teens
@Ogre: No, I haven't ran a game in a month or two, so I wasn't even thinking about them. It's been awhile since I last ran a game for a truly difficult player (though getting my group to roleplay is like pulling teeth out of a wrought-iron fence made of tigers.) but I remember it clearly enough to know exactly how annoying it can be.
Why exactly does having large stat numbers offend you anyway? That's kind of a weird thing to draw the line at, it's a power fantasy, pretty much none of your players could do what their character can do at level 1 much less higher levels.
Why exactly does having large stat numbers offend you anyway? That's kind of a weird thing to draw the line at, it's a power fantasy, pretty much none of your players could do what their character can do at level 1 much less higher levels.
For me, it's partly a question of SAD classes investing in offensive stats far outstripping reasonable defenses.
|
|
That just means they haven't played in a game where the d20 is basically god and a 20 will get you anywhere. I have, it's not that fun, I was fortunate in that my d20s like me enough to do as I tell them to, because the other players in my game were about worthless, they were lucky to roll in the teens
Who is 'they'? You have you and Freesword in the sample. So you're basically saying 'Freesword has not played in a game where the d20 is god'. Also, what does 'a 20 will get you anywhere' mean?
Also, what does 'a 20 will get you anywhere' mean?
Yeah, I always thought it was kneepads and low self-esteem that will get you anywhere.
|
|
Who is 'they'? You have you and Freesword in the sample. So you're basically saying 'Freesword has not played in a game where the d20 is god'. Also, what does 'a 20 will get you anywhere' mean?That just means they haven't played in a game where the d20 is basically god and a 20 will get you anywhere. I have, it's not that fun, I was fortunate in that my d20s like me enough to do as I tell them to, because the other players in my game were about worthless, they were lucky to roll in the teens
"They" are the people who think this is a good idea. The 20 getting you anywhere is based on a game I played once, there were no clear numbers or anything, it was all very cinematic. You would roll a d20 to accomplish any given difficult task and, even if you had never done it before in your life, if you rolled a 20 you could do it, and not just barely either, you could do it really well.
If you like the d20 that much, then fine, but it's not that interesting a die to me. I also don't think it should always be the end-all, be-all, answer to everything that comes up, and reducing bonuses does just that, it makes the d20 more powerful, and if you have a player who doesn't roll well, he's going to notice it more often. Same with the GM. I've seen the logical extreme of this and it's not fun.
|
|
But wasn't that more a problem of the DM houseruling that '20 = success no matter what' and failing to use appropriate DCs for the checks? It had nothing to do with stat caps, but the DMs playstyle. As you said, it was an extreme. A rule capping bonuses would avoid that, so long as it is properly used.
I do not recall anyone in this thread making any statements about '20s always succeed'. Indeed, this thread is about making it so things never get to the point of 'You need a 20 to succeed' or 'You need a 1 to fail'.
|
|
No, because some of the things in Pathfinder require the ludicrous stats available in it to succeed, and you are basically asking the GM to rewrite everything of that scale down to a point where not having those stats isn't utterly crippling to the players. I simply think it's too much work for the GM and it's a risky venture for the GM willing to do all of that, because of player reactions.
I don't mind the d20, d10, d6, or even the d100. Though I try to avoid d10s and d100s as much as possible, because I don't want to destroy the game, I roll d10s/d100s far better than one really should, it's not so much a random chance as "This is what I want to happen" *roll dice* "What I wanted to happen, happens. Because I rolled what I needed". It gets truly ludicrous when, on open ended dice, I can get something on the order of 40-50 on 2d10+5 or when the GM asks for a roll (secretly requiring a specific number) and I roll it almost every time.
D100 systems have the most variance in them, though they tend to operate in orders of 10, so they might as well be d10 systems. The system I favor the most, as even though it's incredibly complicated and easy to break, it' very flexible is Hero System which revolves around 3d6. I like it because I can play whatever I want, no limits on classes or anything but point restrictions and whatever scale I'm playing on, and considering I can build god on 0 points, it's usually not a problem. Though I tend to avoid doing things like that.
The thing is, Pathfinder has it's own scale, and like most games, it doesn't operate too well if you change the scale. For example: Hero System is really bad in the "Awesome Normal" scale that Pathfinder sits in.
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.
|
|
On magic items, I like the limit of 8 per character no matter the slot. So you could have 8 rings if you want. You couldn't have any OTHER magic items, however.
Also, on the subject of 'rules based on feelings' I think I actually have valid non-feeling reasons for my caps. It's easier to keep bonuses within the range of the d20 if you do NOT allow them to increase forever.
I did something like that. Stat limit 20+race mod. So for humans they could have one stat at a 22. for Non humans they would have two at 22 max and one at 18. Have to adjust the CR at higher levels but otherwise it worked just fine.
How did you handle 9th level casting for the races with penalties to mental scores?
|
On magic items, I like the limit of 8 per character no matter the slot. So you could have 8 rings if you want. You couldn't have any OTHER magic items, however.
I did something like that. Stat limit 20+race mod. So for humans they could have one stat at a 22. for Non humans they would have two at 22 max and one at 18. Have to adjust the CR at higher levels but otherwise it worked just fine.How did you handle 9th level casting for the races with penalties to mental scores?
Honestly never came up. But since it would be unlikely someone would take a race that has a penalty to their primary casting stat. Not saying it couldn't happen, just in all my years of playing I don't recall anyone ever picking a race that had a penalty to the primary stat for a full caster.
Depends on what enemies you use at higher levels. Stock monsters from the manuals will be extra deadly due to better stats than the PCs. If you use mostly humanoid enemies with class levels, things should stay the same. Lower levels should not change. I'm tempted to do the same and rewrite the stat boosting spells to give bonuses on ability checks instead of increasing ability scores. Less recalculation needed.
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.
|
|
Something that would remove the need for stat caps would be to have NO bonuses stack. You take the highest individual bonus to a roll you have and use that. The side effect is then players focus on boosting ONE bonus as high as they can. This would obviously not be very popular with players however.
|
|
Me personally, I'm not asking ANY GM to do that. I'M going to do it. This is me thinking outloud.
So I do not understand your complaints at all. High numbers do not bother me. Having bonuses that are larger than the random number generator you are using bothers me.
That happens pretty much automatically at level 17, skills, BAB, saves if you are a paladin. Just don't play games that high-leveled, or stop giving them anything except hp after a level you pick on your own accord.
Not letting bonuses stack, is kind of an odd way to handle it, it's almost like not letting Int stack with skill points for Knowledge kill rolls, or Str not adding to hit rolls in melee.
|
|
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 too happens automatically at ~17th level, Fighter perception, and Rogue stealth. The sheer amount of work you would have to put into the game to make this work is mind-boggling, you might as well build an entirely different game if you are going to do it that way.