Talk:Scaling Benefits (3.5e Variant Rule)

Weapon Enhancement
Why are you having weapons go to +6, which is basically epic level? I get that Tome does it that way, and I think it's stupid that they do, but there's no reason to continue that.

Also, why go all the way up to +10 with a stat? And +8 to resistances? All else being equal, if we assume +5 resistance ~ +6 to a stat from items, then it should be +7 to resistance if you're giving +10 to a stat.

In short, I disagree with going into epic-level territory as far as what the item cost would be with all these changes.

EDIT: Also, for reference, in my variant a barbarian would have only 2 more Intelligence than in yours at the cap. I don't think it's fair to say this goes about 'making the "dumb barbarian" or other dump-stat archetypes hard to justify when you still pack an 18 Int at the end of your progression.' --Ghostwheel (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sup, I was tweaking the numbers, though it's starting to be satisfying. I figured I've go to +6 for two reasons; one was that by 18th, fighting an epic monster is completely feasible as a threat. The other was that if I scaled it one slower, it gets +5 at 20th.  Most games will never see that vaunted +5 (and under this system, most won't see the vaunted +6).  So giving one more +1 seemed acceptable.


 * Fighting an epic monster should be feasible. At those levels, automatically bypassing its DR should not. I still see no reason to give the +6. If you can always have the progression start at level 3 and advance every 4 levels to get the +5 at level 19. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The stat thing was a thorn in my side, as the multiple edits may show. See, I'm trying to get a +6 item, but I also don't want +6s across the board.  I disagree with a universal power boost like that.  On the other hand there was the problem with scaling.  Wealth scales strangely so you go from barely being able to afford a +4 to being able to afford plenty of +6s.  Now, I'm comfortable with bumping it up to +8, but +10 was pushing a bit.  So why +10?  Again, most don't see 20th, so it was pretty much a minor case for me.  I did strongly consider just capping it at +8, but then I chose not to.


 * I still don't see the justification for them. Could you please give some? --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I consider the cap for resistances to actually be +6, because superior resistance is a thing, and you can actually get +8 with other spells. This had a similar scaling issue to ability scores but in reverse; resistance bonuses are (relatively) cheap, and having a +5 can be obtained rapidly (or +6th at 11th and beyond).  And yet I don't want it to continue said fast progression... on the other hand, at 1/2 level it nicely matches the 1/2 HD increase monsters get.  I am debating if I should build in Dynamic Potential into the rule to avoid "what about casters and their lvl + score" limits?


 * Not everyone gets superior resistance, and they have to blow resources on it (quite high-level ones at that), and they can be dispelled. It all seems so gratuitous--"here, have more numbers! It doesn't matter if they don't follow what's in the DMG and ELH--have ALL THE NUMBERS!" I'm still not seeing the reason not to maintain the limits 3.5 instilled on pre-epic items. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's nothing special about the number 5, and if it makes sense to go to +6 because that's how it naturally scales there's no reason to pretend that +5 is some sacred cow. Surgo (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How does it "make sense"? That's just silly. The only reason it makes sense is because Tome did it, and I realize many people around here worship the ground that F&K walk on, but there are a couple of weird things that having +6 does. First, it screws with the price, though that's less relevant here. Second, and this is bigger, it screws with the system expectations. Unless you're rebuilding the entire MM from scratch (which I'm not opposed to) or believe that CR as it is is a load of hogwash (which I believe it is, but again, this isn't the case for most people), going beyond the expectations of the system will screw with any sort of balance that was there. Third, it screws with DR as I mentioned above, allowing characters to pierce DR/epic when they should have been unable to do so for a number of levels. Fourth, it breaks away from the expectations players and DMs have of the system, which means they are less likely to use the variant. In no way does +6 at the end of the progression "make sense". From what I'm seeing, it's mostly for gratuitous "MOAR NUMBERS!" and because F&K did it that way (though I still have no clue why they did so). Lastly, you can "naturally scale" to +5 as easily as you can to +6. Just make it +1 at level 2 or 3 and give another +1 every 4 levels hence. Boom, natural scaling and progression. --Ghostwheel (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please prove this assertion that +6 instead of +5 requires rebuilding the whole MM or throwing CR out the window. I fail to see how it changes the balance of that. Surgo (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the system is built around +5 being the max pre-epic, then deviating from that is obviously going to change the balance. Not much, but it's substantial statistically speaking. And all of my other points still stand as well. And there's something to be said for following existing conventions that people are familiar and comfortable with, if nothing else. Change is only good if it makes something better. There's no point to change just for its own sake when talking about system design. So in truth, the burden of proof that changes are justified and have good reasons is in the people who want to make those changes. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hyperbole walk back and burden shifting aside, going with +6 weapons vs +5 is unnecessary if you're already power attacking away a bunch anyway. It's not a large change though, because a few points of damage on the high end barely registers against hit die scaling for creatures. It's a bigger deal against PC style creatures that need armor, but then we get to the other side of it. Going with +6 armor and shields vs +5 is a net increase in AC over weapon scaling, because it gets added twice instead of once. That reduces your damage against power attackers (though this is likely more than offset by Eiji's damage mod change), and is actually helpful because of the way AC otherwise doesn't scale compared to attack. If you don't use a shield, it's just a wash and no difference is made at all. If deflection and natural armor also scaled in those ways it would be a 2-3 point increase in AC for people who wore those things, and an even larger reduction in PC damage against power attackers / shock troopers (they don't here it seems, I'm just saying). Against creatures, that were likely auto hitting you already anyway because of how attack scales with HD instead of CR, the AC boost is a minor thing at best mostly used for a slightly larger damage boost (because you can shock trooper it away).


 * In short it is unnecessary but also largely inconsequential - a minor thing because of other pre-existing scaling issues. The larger change would be Eiji's "double enhancement mod to damage" tweak. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One thing that I didn't consider; how much the ability scores are affecting saves. With that in mind I need to take a (third) look.  Brb.


 * (EDIT CONFLICTED) What are you talking about? A dump stat Int (8 for the sake of arguement, 7 in pathfinder) would have a 12 at 20th level as opposed to an 18.  -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was referring to my variant, which predated the one in your link and led to that one too, where a barbarian who starts at 8 Int will have 14 Int by level 20. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, was unaware of that. Wait... its linked in the article?  How did that happen when I didn't even know its name?  Weird. Ignore me, I misread. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh hey, just found a nicer scaling for resistance, ends up dropping it by 1 and removes my concerns about normal wizard spell problems, scalingwise. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, I gave it a read through a couple times. Like many D&D players, I'm sure I'm not alone in "I'd rather design a character and not be forced to don gear that clashes with my concept", which appears to be at the heart of what this aims to fix. At the same time, a lot of D&D's basic magical gear was designed to be character boosting in that manner, because getting treasure is cool, getting treasure you can use is cool and getting beefier as your character grows is cool. The development options for what goes where on ability scores, giving priority, is a nice touch. Still, I never really gave much thought into making a solution that's universal to the system at hand. Though, I have given some things I've designed some stuff like scaling enhancement bonuses, not to boost power, but as a minimum, which appears the goal here. Though, changing stuff that has built in enhancement now would provide a boost, if that makes sense. I'm starting to get lost in the complexity a bit at the moment. I'd go rooting around for an example, but that's really more suited for a real-time discussion than a talk page (maybe). That said, I think this looks usable in a game, and with any variant rule, there's going to be adjustments to material chosen and applied. Any plans to test run this? --Ganteka Future (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes actually, it should be getting a test run very soon. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Update
Test runs complete, after a dozen games with this running things seem to be working well. I give it a stamp of self-approval. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Crafting
Don't you need a spell list (which isn't granted here) to be able to craft stuff? - Tarkisflux Talk 05:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically you only need a caster level to qualify for the feat. Now, many items require spells (and you still require them).  Scrolls and the like suffice.  -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not unless you don't have to activate them (as defined in the scroll activation rules) to benefit from them during crafting, which sounds weird and should be called out in the description if that's the case. - Tarkisflux Talk 07:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)