Well the mechanical difference would be a max skill bonus of 1 less than usual, and a hit point max that is lower, but from a gameplay perspective you could potentially max out a stat in the initial roll, so you may find your players inclined to take more feats instead of skill increases.
Well the mechanical difference would be a max skill bonus of 1 less than usual, and a hit point max that is lower, but from a gameplay perspective you could potentially max out a stat in the initial roll, so you may find your players inclined to take more feats instead of skill increases.
If the goal is to incentivize feats, instead of limiting the upper bounds of stats, why not alter the ASI system? Instead of players choosing 2 points in stats or a feat, give them 1 point in a stat AND a feat. If they desperately want 2 points, they can take a feat that gives +1 to a stat, but it allows players to flesh their characters out more without sacrificing stat gains.
Player power level does go up slightly because of this, of course, but it's been working well in my campaign so far.
Stat max by race used to be a thing in 1e/2e. That's just the way it used to be so players just lived with it. I could see 18 being max but you'd probably have to allow races with a bonus to go above this. The strongest goliath should be stronger than the strongest halfling - generally speaking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone experimented with limiting character stat max's to 18 instead of 20, At least below say level 17. How much difference will it make?
What's your reasoning behind that desire?
Are you hoping to push players into playing flatter arrays, with no high numbers but fewer low numbers than usual?
Are you hoping to save the last two points for quest rewards?
Are you hoping the players stop succeeding on checks?
I've never thought about limiting stats behind what the game rules already lay out, but I'd be curious what your reasoning behind the idea is.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well the mechanical difference would be a max skill bonus of 1 less than usual, and a hit point max that is lower, but from a gameplay perspective you could potentially max out a stat in the initial roll, so you may find your players inclined to take more feats instead of skill increases.
If the goal is to incentivize feats, instead of limiting the upper bounds of stats, why not alter the ASI system? Instead of players choosing 2 points in stats or a feat, give them 1 point in a stat AND a feat. If they desperately want 2 points, they can take a feat that gives +1 to a stat, but it allows players to flesh their characters out more without sacrificing stat gains.
Player power level does go up slightly because of this, of course, but it's been working well in my campaign so far.
Stat max by race used to be a thing in 1e/2e. That's just the way it used to be so players just lived with it. I could see 18 being max but you'd probably have to allow races with a bonus to go above this. The strongest goliath should be stronger than the strongest halfling - generally speaking.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale