Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5846989" data-attributes="member: 54877">Please note where I mentioned earlier that some options were off the table when starting at zero.&nbsp; That often includes introducing multiplicative effects--when we might otherwise be able to tolerate them.&nbsp;That is, the diminishing returns in this case are on those possible options--not the math of the thing itself.&nbsp; Yeah, if all you do is linear, and nothing you could possibly want to do is anything but linear, then might as well determine your scale, and start at zero or one as makes sense.&nbsp; &nbsp;However, if you may want to include options that are non-linear, then starting at 2 or 3 or 4 or something like that gives you more room to work than starting at zero or 1.&nbsp; The diminishing returns are that you often don't want to set the starting value arbitrarily high--say 100, and you'll open up most such options by getting a bit off of zero.&nbsp; &nbsp;Damage per round times the number of rounds is a good example of this in practice, because with low damage expressions, you get sharp changes with even modest bonuses.&nbsp; If the lowest damage expression reasonably possible is 1d4-3, then you'll see it sharply.&nbsp; If the lowest damage expression is 1d4+10, it will be practically gone.&nbsp; (That wizard may value a +1 dagger for its to hit bonus, but if forced to use it, he won't much care about the damage change, even though if his 1st level opponents are scaled appropriately, requiring a couple of hits from the dagger, normally, it will matter occasionally.)&nbsp;Somewhere short of +10 is a spot where you get most of the benefit of getting away from -3 in this respect, without then tacking on more just for the heck of it.&nbsp; I think it is somewhere around +3 to +5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5846989, member: 54877"] Please note where I mentioned earlier that some options were off the table when starting at zero. That often includes introducing multiplicative effects--when we might otherwise be able to tolerate them. That is, the diminishing returns in this case are on those possible options--not the math of the thing itself. Yeah, if all you do is linear, and nothing you could possibly [B]want[/B] to do is anything but linear, then might as well determine your scale, and start at zero or one as makes sense. However, if you may want to include options that are non-linear, then starting at 2 or 3 or 4 or something like that gives you more room to work than starting at zero or 1. The diminishing returns are that you often don't want to set the starting value arbitrarily high--say 100, and you'll open up most such options by getting a bit off of zero. Damage per round times the number of rounds is a good example of this in practice, because with low damage expressions, you get sharp changes with even modest bonuses. If the lowest damage expression reasonably possible is 1d4-3, then you'll see it sharply. If the lowest damage expression is 1d4+10, it will be practically gone. (That wizard may value a +1 dagger for its to hit bonus, but if forced to use it, he won't much care about the damage change, even though if his 1st level opponents are scaled appropriately, requiring a couple of hits from the dagger, normally, it will matter occasionally.) Somewhere short of +10 is a spot where you get most of the benefit of getting away from -3 in this respect, without then tacking on more just for the heck of it. I think it is somewhere around +3 to +5. [/QUOTE]

Verification