D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[JohnSnow]

I get that, but I see the fact that many monsters should exist above or below that scale (or both) as a real flaw.

1 to 30 is just too small a range to encompass all possible creatures in the universe.

Creating a system to track “all possible creatures in the universe” is, imo, unwise.

It would be unwieldy in game, and would play terribly. The simple fact is that while Batman (for example) can credibly battle opponents a certain degree faster, stronger, and tougher than he is, is, he is, realistically, a (physical) non-threat in Superman’s world. And yes, that’s true of Lex Luthor too.

One could determine what the reasonable upper max is that a “peak human” could actually fight against. That’s your upper score.

Past that, you’re on a different level entirely, and any comparison one makes is about like rating the strength score of a mouse against that of a human.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Within the scope of bounded accuracy, I think it is enough personally.

For things you might want outside that scope, I would just rule automatic. For example, a god of archery never misses with their bow--- NEVER. No roll is required for such an entity, nor should it be IMO.

(And this is coming from someone who despises "automatic" things in 5E... )

I feel bounded accuracy is a mistake at the end of the day, for my preference. It confines all of existence to a small range for not enough gain.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Creating a system to track “all possible creatures in the universe” is, imo, unwise.

It would be unwieldy in game, and would play terribly. The simple fact is that while Batman (for example) can credibly battle opponents a certain degree faster, stronger, and tougher than he is, is, he is, realistically, a (physical) non-threat in Superman’s world. And yes, that’s true of Lex Luthor too.

One could determine what the reasonable upper max is that a “peak human” could actually fight against. That’s your upper score.

Past that, you’re on a different level entirely, and any comparison one makes is about like rating the strength score of a mouse against that of a human.

Yeah. A scale like that used in many supers games (most of the ones I like anyway) is exactly what I'm asking for here. I usually vote for more granularity when it's on the docket.

 

[ezo]

I feel bounded accuracy is a mistake at the end of the day, for my preference. It confines all of existence to a small range for not enough gain.

While I don't think the concept of bounded accuracy was a mistake, I do believe WotC bounded things *too much" in 5E...

 

[overgeeked]

Creating a system to track “all possible creatures in the universe” is, imo, unwise.

It would be unwieldy in game, and would play terribly. The simple fact is that while Batman (for example) can credibly battle opponents a certain degree faster, stronger, and tougher than he is, is, he is, realistically, a (physical) non-threat in Superman’s world. And yes, that’s true of Lex Luthor too.

One could determine what the reasonable upper max is that a “peak human” could actually fight against. That’s your upper score.

Past that, you’re on a different level entirely, and any comparison one makes is about like rating the strength score of a mouse against that of a human.

When Cam Banks was doing MHR he spoke with writers and editors at Marvel. They used a five-point scale from Aunt May to Hulk and beyond. It’s fairly simple to track that with something like impossible, disadvantage, even chance, advantage, and automatic. Anything one spot above you is disadvantage, two spots is impossible. One spot below is advantage, two is automatic. Dropping characters onto a scale like that is trivial. It’s when you want a huge range of numerical representation that things become problematic.

 

[ezo]

They used a five-point scale from Aunt May to Hulk and beyond. It’s fairly simple to track that with something like impossible, disadvantage, even chance, advantage, and automatic. Anything one spot above you is disadvantage, two spots is impossible. One spot below is advantage, two is automatic.

This is something I really like! Simple, sensible, etc. Good idea.

 

[JohnSnow]

When Cam Banks was doing MHR he spoke with writers and editors at Marvel. They used a five-point scale from Aunt May to Hulk and beyond. It’s fairly simple to track that with something like impossible, disadvantage, even chance, advantage, and automatic. Anything one spot above you is disadvantage, two spots is impossible. One spot below is advantage, two is automatic. Dropping characters onto a scale like that is trivial. It’s when you want a huge range of numerical representation that things become problematic.

IMO, a mere 5-point scale is probably insufficient to go from Aunt May to the Hulk, but I appreciate the concept in principle.

 

[overgeeked]

IMO, a mere 5-point scale is probably insufficient to go from Aunt May to the Hulk, but I appreciate the concept in principle.

Sure. Just keep in mind that it was sufficient for the editors and writers of Marvel Comics. As gamers we tend to think we need far more mechanics, crunch, and numbers than we really do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dropping characters onto a scale like that is trivial. It’s when you want a huge range of numerical representation that things become problematic.

See, that is what I want. TSR Marvel suits me much better than Marvel Heroic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. Just keep in mind that it was sufficient for the editors and writers of Marvel Comics. As gamers we tend to think we need far more mechanics, crunch, and numbers than we really do.

Sufficient for Marvel Heroic. That's not even the only Marvel-based supers game, let alone supers in general.