Following this guideline: "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches. Adventurers can have scores as high as 20, and monsters and divine beings can have scores as high as 30."
Through reason and logic and the experience of other players it is clear that a character can achieve a 20 through an Ability Score Improvement or race traits. My problem is that their should be a cap of 18 unless a race has a trait that allows for a higher score. (I am not including magic spells or items that raise an ability for this post as that is something completely different.) I am sure I must have missed something, explained elsewhere...
If a Goliath gets a +2 to strength. It would make sense that he or she could reach a 20, and a human could reach a 19, a Dwarf an 18, (Not including sub races.) and so forth. This makes more sense because there should be no way a Gnome could ever have a strength as high as a Goliath other than through magic. I am curious as to what others think. I know a DM can make their own decision but I was hoping for a more complex explanation of ability then is given here on DnD Beyond.
Nothing stopping you from making a rule for your own games as you noted.
But I believe it's for the characters who want to play a less common gnome barbarian or a half-orc wizard still having the opportunity to be as strong/effective as the more "accepted" races that are generally those classes. Obviously this is an opinion and based on nothing from WOTC.
But look at it this way while it might seem "silly/odd/whatever" that a Gnome and Goliath could both be Strength 20. I'm glad they got rid of the negative attributes for race, because it allows more playing outside of type.
The Goliath can be Strength 20 from level 1, and a Gnome has to be at least level 4.
The strength of a character (meaning how physically powerful a character seems) is not solely determined by the Strength score.
That 20 strength gnome isn't as adept at dealing damage as the 20 strength goliath because it's small size causes disadvantage when attacking with heavy weapons.
That 20 strength goliath can haul a significantly larger load than the 20 strength gnome because of it's powerful build.
And the goliath can wrestle with ogres and have a chance to win, while the gnome can get scooped up and carried off by the same ogre.
But look at it this way while it might seem "silly/odd/whatever" that a Gnome and Goliath could both be Strength 20. I'm glad they got rid of the negative attributes for race, because it allows more playing outside of type.
The Goliath can be Strength 20 from level 1, and a Gnome has to be at least level 4.
Everyone is making great points. I like your last comment though as I did not think of it. The level 1 Goliath vs level 4 Gnome...
The strength of a character (meaning how physically powerful a character seems) is not solely determined by the Strength score.
That 20 strength gnome isn't as adept at dealing damage as the 20 strength goliath because it's small size causes disadvantage when attacking with heavy weapons.
That 20 strength goliath can haul a significantly larger load than the 20 strength gnome because of it's powerful build.
And the goliath can wrestle with ogres and have a chance to win, while the gnome can get scooped up and carried off by the same ogre.
Really good points I missed thinking about or taking into account during my thought process. Thanks.
As an alternative house rule that would be more fun for your players, you might increase the ability cap by the racial bonus (so a goliath could increase his strength to 22 instead of 20).
Just a thought!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Kerrigan, gold dragonborn pact of the chain fiend warlock (8)/favored soul sorcerer (3): Survived Strahd Roland Crowe, stout halfling pirate (7): off working other angles while the party fights giants Alekhine Dorvanellyn, eladrin bladesinger (7): Fighting giants
I'd avoid capping the ability scores or messing with them in general because of 5th editions bounded accuracy. Since modifiers are very rare in 5th edition, and ACs and saves are generally lower, each +1 matters a great deal. The difference between a +5 and +4 is roughly 4 character levels.
This is something they used to do in older versions. Dwarves, for example, could never have above an x Charisma (I don't remember what the actual number was). They also had it where certain races could only achieve certain levels in a "class".
They stopped doing it after a while, because it was too restrictive and they wanted to open it up. I think AaronOfBarbaria's point is probably the best: different races with similar ability scores don't necessarily mean they are equal in terms of ACTUAL strength. And, it speaks more to the commonness of the attribute among those of that race. A highly intelligent orc, for example, would be something of a rarity and would probably have a position of influence. Meanwhile, a high strength halfling would be seen as a force to be reckoned among his people and possibly feared as a brute.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Public Mod Note(MellieDM): Please do not revive old threads from 2018 as per our Thread Necromancy rules. You are welcome to open a new thread to discuss this with the current community!
Where, in the Player's Handbook is this stated for us please? Thnx
Public Mod Note
(MellieDM):
Please do not revive old threads from 2018 as per our Thread Necromancy rules. You are welcome to open a new thread to discuss this with the current community!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Following this guideline: "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches. Adventurers can have scores as high as 20, and monsters and divine beings can have scores as high as 30."
Through reason and logic and the experience of other players it is clear that a character can achieve a 20 through an Ability Score Improvement or race traits. My problem is that their should be a cap of 18 unless a race has a trait that allows for a higher score. (I am not including magic spells or items that raise an ability for this post as that is something completely different.) I am sure I must have missed something, explained elsewhere...
If a Goliath gets a +2 to strength. It would make sense that he or she could reach a 20, and a human could reach a 19, a Dwarf an 18, (Not including sub races.) and so forth. This makes more sense because there should be no way a Gnome could ever have a strength as high as a Goliath other than through magic. I am curious as to what others think. I know a DM can make their own decision but I was hoping for a more complex explanation of ability then is given here on DnD Beyond.
Nothing stopping you from making a rule for your own games as you noted.
But I believe it's for the characters who want to play a less common gnome barbarian or a half-orc wizard still having the opportunity to be as strong/effective as the more "accepted" races that are generally those classes. Obviously this is an opinion and based on nothing from WOTC.
I do like the idea you propose though.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense. I even thought about doing it myself a while back.
On the other hand, this would make it much harder to get a +5 modifier, which would make the PCs that much less effective.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I agree with Mehetmet,
But look at it this way while it might seem "silly/odd/whatever" that a Gnome and Goliath could both be Strength 20. I'm glad they got rid of the negative attributes for race, because it allows more playing outside of type.
The Goliath can be Strength 20 from level 1, and a Gnome has to be at least level 4.
The strength of a character (meaning how physically powerful a character seems) is not solely determined by the Strength score.
That 20 strength gnome isn't as adept at dealing damage as the 20 strength goliath because it's small size causes disadvantage when attacking with heavy weapons.
That 20 strength goliath can haul a significantly larger load than the 20 strength gnome because of it's powerful build.
And the goliath can wrestle with ogres and have a chance to win, while the gnome can get scooped up and carried off by the same ogre.
As an alternative house rule that would be more fun for your players, you might increase the ability cap by the racial bonus (so a goliath could increase his strength to 22 instead of 20).
Just a thought!
Kerrigan, gold dragonborn pact of the chain fiend warlock (8)/favored soul sorcerer (3): Survived Strahd
Roland Crowe, stout halfling pirate (7): off working other angles while the party fights giants
Alekhine Dorvanellyn, eladrin bladesinger (7): Fighting giants
I'd avoid capping the ability scores or messing with them in general because of 5th editions bounded accuracy. Since modifiers are very rare in 5th edition, and ACs and saves are generally lower, each +1 matters a great deal. The difference between a +5 and +4 is roughly 4 character levels.
This is something they used to do in older versions. Dwarves, for example, could never have above an x Charisma (I don't remember what the actual number was). They also had it where certain races could only achieve certain levels in a "class".
They stopped doing it after a while, because it was too restrictive and they wanted to open it up. I think AaronOfBarbaria's point is probably the best: different races with similar ability scores don't necessarily mean they are equal in terms of ACTUAL strength. And, it speaks more to the commonness of the attribute among those of that race. A highly intelligent orc, for example, would be something of a rarity and would probably have a position of influence. Meanwhile, a high strength halfling would be seen as a force to be reckoned among his people and possibly feared as a brute.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Where, in the Player's Handbook is this stated for us please? Thnx