Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rantrite" data-source="post: 7797909" data-attributes="member: 7015676">Nice, thanks for the responses, everyone! Super cool to see UK himself hop onto this.I get this approach for campaigns where it only shows up sometimes, but if the characters are expected to become Legendary eventually you have nothing more than the same issue one step higher if you want them to continue. Thank you for your comment, though; it's certainly something I've added to my list of things to think about. Maybe having a small set of "power tiers" and rules for handling how they interact might be a more straightforward way to think about it than to keep adding larger numbers.Yeah, manual number compression is an easy approach. It does make the sense of progression less obvious (less fun? Not super sure, though Big Numbers is part of the original IH's appeal, I think).And sure, bounded accuracy makes some sense. It makes things weird when everyone hits both caps and thus everyone is equally effective in terms of hit rate, but introducing some sort of massive slowdown, at least, has a chance of having interesting results.Fair. I need to get exposed to a lot more roleplaying systems in general, that's for sure; 3.5 just sort of happened to be my first, so stuff connected to it made more sense.Right, I think this has some advantages and some disadvantages; getting a good transition to said plateau might be tricky without having everyone suddenly slam into a wall of "being exactly as good as each other", so keeping some level of difference between players - and different low defenses on enemies for them to exploit - seems reasonable.You're right, it is complicated, and that's because I've made a mistake in setting playability aside right now in favor of formulae that sound reasonable to me. Right now I don't even know whether this is going to be more like a 3.5 patch or a fresh new system entirely, but I want to have it rigorous up to the hundreds or low thousands, since that's the range that at least seemed to make vague sense for the IH rules as applied.A game should definitely be playable without a calculator, though, so weighing non-linearly-scalable options is hard. d20 is likely a bad call in the first place.Yep, absolutely. I noticed this first when scaling up monsters with the dire-template-stacks, though it's just as unreasonable with anything that happens to have a lot of HD to start with.But aren't big numbers fun? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />There's a balance to be hit somewhere, maybe, between exclusively piling on scaling via larger and larger numbers, and just giving up and doing everything narratively like, I don't know, Nobilis or whatever it was. Having a true chasm in between mortal-tier and universe-tier characters seems to be accomplished best by big numerical changes, but there have to be ways to do this without killing the players with math.And I do need to learn 5e at some point. It lacks a bit of the anal-retentiveness of 3.5 that drew me in, but everything seems so much more streamlined and sensible. Fewer things to mess up means that high-level patches might be more reasonable, too.</blockquote>

Verification