Some history for you fvckers

[RandomCasualty]

1097178300[/unixtime]]
Point 1 is a nitpick, but point 2 is quite damning. Since point spending is balanced (so long as there are no diminishing returns involved) with just 2 defenses, there is no need to go all the way down to 1. Your claim of "it's too binary" applies even more so to your proposal. It's not even binary, it's monary, and it doesn't actually provide any tangible benefit for doing so.

Well, yes.. it is rather binary, but I think defenses have to be for things to work. There can be slight deviation, but for the most part you don't want to worry about what happens when defenses fall behind, so you just dont' give them the option to do so.

And how exactly defenses work is up to your paradigm. Having a high AC might mean any number of things. For a mage it might represent permanent mystical shields in place, for a rogue it might represent the ability to dodge aside from blows, and for a warrior it might represent parrying and blocking with a shield. For a high level commoner, it's simply luck or destiny.

There's no reason all high level characters shouldn't be hard to kill. And the only way to do that is to have defenses be totally level based. You may have a few bonuses at various class levels, like +2 will save or something for a 4th level ro higher wizard, and the same to fortitude for a fighter or barbarian.

But you don't want to allow people to get too far apart on saves, AC or HP and the only way you do that is by not having them "buy" saves. Because some people might not buy defenses at all. You're always certain they'll buy some form of attack, but they may not buy defenses. You basically don't allow people to be untrained in saves or AC, because it's not practical from a game point of view. You want stuff like combat style (weapon + shield) to change AC, but mostly you want it to be level dependent.

[Username17]

There can be slight deviation, but for the most part you don't want to worry about what happens when defenses fall behind, so you just dont' give them the option to do so.

...and you don't want them to get too far ahead. Which is a glorious endorsement of my suggestion that numeric bonuses for attacks and defenses should all scale to character level.

Thanks.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1097190378[/unixtime]]
...and you don't want them to get too far ahead. Which is a glorious endorsement of my suggestion that numeric bonuses for attacks and defenses should all scale to character level.

Well, not really. Because what we don't want to do is make everyone totally equal in the attacking front. We want commoners who can't swing a sword for shit. We want a warrior to be a better fighter than a rogue, and under your system that's basically impossible.

Basically your system fixes that problem, but opens up some entirely new problems.

[Username17]

We want commoners who can't swing a sword for shit

Yes. We call these "Low Level Characters", or perhaps even "Characters who have no Sword-based abilities".

The first have low numeric bonuses relative to yours, and the other is no more capable of killing you with a sword than Sir Rangor is of smiting you with a lightning bolt.

Either way, problem solved. Coming up with elaborate methodologies for people to be able to spend their points in character appropriate ways that end up with them sucking ass is bad game design. In as much as possible, every character archetype should be viable.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1097191910[/unixtime]]
Yes. We call these "Low Level Characters", or perhaps even "Characters who have no Sword-based abilities".

And you have lots of trouble simulating any character that doesn't fall between awesome and shitty.

Look, tell me how your system could represent the following concept adequately.

"Sir Telden is a knight. He is primarily a master negotiator, and well versed in court politics. In addition, he possesses a strong ability to intimidate, which while not as reliable as his diplomatic skills, serves him well. Though a knight, he only spent a moderate amount of time studying swordplay and while capable of dealing with the average thug is no match for a true swordsman. He has also some basic studies in magical theory, though no true spellcasting abilities. As a nobleman he was also trained in appraising objects, able to make a good guess at the value of most common gemstones and peices of art. "

Your system would have a very difficult time representing this concept.

And it isn't really a very alien or unusual concept. And that's what I don't like about your system. Characters don't seem like characters but are instead weird rules constructs who jump from untrained to master in one level.

[Username17]

And you have lots of trouble simulating any character that doesn't fall between awesome and shitty.

No you don't. You have "mid-level characters".

Sir Telden is a knight. He is primarily a master negotiator, and well versed in court politics. In addition, he possesses a strong ability to intimidate, which while not as reliable as his diplomatic skills, serves him well. Though a knight, he only spent a moderate amount of time studying swordplay and while capable of dealing with the average thug is no match for a true swordsman. He has also some basic studies in magical theory, though no true spellcasting abilities. As a nobleman he was also trained in appraising objects, able to make a good guess at the value of most common gemstones and peices of art.

No problem:

Third level character, he's got three basic combat modes:

* Fear (or perhaps Charm)
* Some Weapon-based Toolbox (perhaps Whirlwind).
* Some "Magic" based attack (maybe Dazzle Cone)

So the character ends up using his tongue a lot in combat, and he lacks the depth of sword-skills to actually press an entirely sword-based offensive to completion against a single opponent of his level. All the non-combat abilties you talk about such as knowledge of intrigue and appraisal are background abilities and are measured on a different scale.

He's got some magic, but not enough to win a mage duel. He's got some swording, but not enough to win a sword duel. He's a balanced and useful member of the party, however, because he has a useful toolbox option for most enemies he would encounter at his level and all of them are good.

Basically "this character sucks" is a character conception that is handled by giving the character less levels, not by making the character anti-synergistic and sucky for their level. I've even had a player play his own cohort as the "character" while the nominal leader was the "cohort". Worked fine. If people want to play an apprentice concept, there are ways to do that that don't involve making the character numerically inferior to the rest of the party.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

I think I'd really have to see how one of your fighters could have full attack bonus, but still be a mediocre fighter. Right now it's all theoretical, I don't see how you can do it.

Until you actually write out the class, or at least the first 5-10 levels of it formally, I don't think we can argue anymore, because it's right now an argument of hypothetical abilities. Right now your system is a theory like cold fusion, until I actually see something tangible I don't believe it's possible.

Making a fighter class without superior bonuses seems like an impossible dream. If you prove me wrong then I'll be impressed, but until I see the class written out I don't think either of us can actually "prove" anything.

[Username17]

I think I'd really have to see how one of your fighters could have full attack bonus, but still be a mediocre fighter.

If your only attack spell is "low damage area firestorm", and you do full level appropriate damage, are you a mediocre wizard? Yes. Yes you are. Same with physical attacks.

If you only have a couple of attack modes available, a guy with several is going to be able to pick you apart. The guy with submission hold is really going to crush you at close range if your only attack mode is "precise shot". That high accuracy ranged attack doesn't mean shit when your opponent puts you in a death nugy. That Firestorm is a lot less impressive when your opponent runs over and starts shocking grasping your ass.

When you only have a few available manuvers in a combat mode, and you are limited to those combat modes, somebody else with a lot of abilities in that combat mode is going to hand you your ass. On a plate.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1097194004[/unixtime]]
If you only have a couple of attack modes available, a guy with several is going to be able to pick you apart. The guy with submission hold is really going to crush you at close range if your only attack mode is "precise shot". That high accuracy ranged attack doesn't mean shit when your opponent puts you in a death nugy. That Firestorm is a lot less impressive when your opponent runs over and starts shocking grasping your ass.

I still have to see it to believe it.

It may work somewhat for mages, but for fighters I just don't see it doing very well.

[Username17]

Fighters and Mages aren't any different except that one of them inflicts "physical" effects and the other inflicts "magical" effects. Once you've accepted that either work, they both work, because they aren't different.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1097197574[/unixtime]]Fighters and Mages aren't any different except that one of them inflicts "physical" effects and the other inflicts "magical" effects. Once you've accepted that either work, they both work, because they aren't different.

Well assuming your'e willing to have them work the same way, like fighter attacks that cause saves and stuff. I guess if you wanted to , you could have a fighter attack that requires its opponent make a reflex save instead of the standard attack roll.

But as long as all fighter stuff basically uses the attack roll, fighters are going to be very bonus based...

I mean look at the fighter toolbox right now

Disarm, Sunder, attack, trip, charge, bull rush.

Really all of these are either based on the attack roll or give extra bonuses to the attack roll. I mean if you had a +4 to hit you wouldn't even need to trip someone really, it's as if they're already tripped.

When all these things are linked to the attack roll, it makes a class very bonus based. Wizards are really kinda the same way only they can't get as many bonuses to spell DCs. But it's definitely why every wizard is an int whore.

[Username17]

But having some attacks work off the attack roll + damage roll set up and other abilities working off the attack roll + saves is needlessly confusing. And it runs into inevitable problems with the fact that hit points vs. damage rolls become completely ricoculous very quickly while savingthrow mechanics don't.

Basically, there's no good reason to have attack rolls and damage rolls at all. It's just a bad mechanic for a game that's supposed to scale. The Save and DC system is inherently exponential, which means that you can portray very large differences in pretty simple fashion (a creature over a thousand times tougher than you is represented with a simple "+60", rather than having tens or hundreds of thousands of individual hit points to keep track of). The Save DC system is just better than the hit point system, so we should replace damage dice with saving throws.

One roll to hit.
One roll to resist.

That's the setup I'm looking at, and it does everything I like about D&D, only it does it smoother, faster, and in an easier to balance fashion.

-Username17

[Alansmithee]

1097163246[/unixtime]]While 4 points to distribute among 2 attack/defense forms or 8 points to distribute amongst 2 attack forms and 2 defense forms has been shown to be in perfect balance, 6 points to distribute amongst 3 attack/defense forms is not. It's not even close.

The guy who puts 2 points into Magic and Physical is going to be +2 on Magic Guy (with 4 points in Magic), and +2 on Physical Guy (with 4 points in Physical), by attacking them where they are weak - but those guys can be +2 on the diverse guy by attack where they are strong.

But consider the specialized guy with 3 stats. He puts 6 points into one pile, and the diverse guy puts 2 points in 3 piles, and the specialized guy is walking off with a +4 bonus against Diverse Guy and the Diverse guy only has a +2 bonus back at specialization guy.


-Username17

I don't see how 8 for 4 wouldn't be worse than 6 for 3. Crazy zerker goes +8 phys atk, while diverse goes +2 phys atk/def and magic atk/def. This still means that zerker is +6 net vs. diverse

[Alansmithee]

1097193353[/unixtime]]

And you have lots of trouble simulating any character that doesn't fall between awesome and shitty.

No you don't. You have "mid-level characters".

Sir Telden is a knight. He is primarily a master negotiator, and well versed in court politics. In addition, he possesses a strong ability to intimidate, which while not as reliable as his diplomatic skills, serves him well. Though a knight, he only spent a moderate amount of time studying swordplay and while capable of dealing with the average thug is no match for a true swordsman. He has also some basic studies in magical theory, though no true spellcasting abilities. As a nobleman he was also trained in appraising objects, able to make a good guess at the value of most common gemstones and peices of art.

No problem:

Third level character, he's got three basic combat modes:

* Fear (or perhaps Charm)
* Some Weapon-based Toolbox (perhaps Whirlwind).
* Some "Magic" based attack (maybe Dazzle Cone)

So the character ends up using his tongue a lot in combat, and he lacks the depth of sword-skills to actually press an entirely sword-based offensive to completion against a single opponent of his level. All the non-combat abilties you talk about such as knowledge of intrigue and appraisal are background abilities and are measured on a different scale.

He's got some magic, but not enough to win a mage duel. He's got some swording, but not enough to win a sword duel. He's a balanced and useful member of the party, however, because he has a useful toolbox option for most enemies he would encounter at his level and all of them are good.


-Username17

How will he lose a duel? If he has the same phys atk rating as a master swordsman, its a 50/50 chance as to who wins. And if he has the same magic atk as a mage, it's another 50/50 chance.

[Alansmithee]

1097194004[/unixtime]]

I think I'd really have to see how one of your fighters could have full attack bonus, but still be a mediocre fighter.

If your only attack spell is "low damage area firestorm", and you do full level appropriate damage, are you a mediocre wizard? Yes. Yes you are. Same with physical attacks.

If you only have a couple of attack modes available, a guy with several is going to be able to pick you apart. The guy with submission hold is really going to crush you at close range if your only attack mode is "precise shot". That high accuracy ranged attack doesn't mean shit when your opponent puts you in a death nugy. That Firestorm is a lot less impressive when your opponent runs over and starts shocking grasping your ass.

When you only have a few available manuvers in a combat mode, and you are limited to those combat modes, somebody else with a lot of abilities in that combat mode is going to hand you your ass. On a plate.

-Username17

I find it very difficult that there could be enough different combat maneuvers to make having more than 2 for each type relevant, mainly a area effect and a single target effect. And even in that situation, the single target is usually better (assuming it deals more damage) in the case you can only choose one.

And this will still leave some characters mathmatically inferior to others, when you figure in the probability of either an ability being best in a given situation, or it being able to be used multiple times or in multiple situations. And game designers have to figure in the general likelyhood of an ability being useful (at least in game balance situations). Thats why tactical feats allow 3 different abilities, because the abilities alone are downgraded because they are not always applicable. Or, why bane is +1 and holy is +2, you have a greater chance of fighting evil than evil outsider.

[Alansmithee]

1097219325[/unixtime]]But having some attacks work off the attack roll + damage roll set up and other abilities working off the attack roll + saves is needlessly confusing. And it runs into inevitable problems with the fact that hit points vs. damage rolls become completely ricoculous very quickly while savingthrow mechanics don't.

Basically, there's no good reason to have attack rolls and damage rolls at all. It's just a bad mechanic for a game that's supposed to scale. The Save and DC system is inherently exponential, which means that you can portray very large differences in pretty simple fashion (a creature over a thousand times tougher than you is represented with a simple "+60", rather than having tens or hundreds of thousands of individual hit points to keep track of). The Save DC system is just better than the hit point system, so we should replace damage dice with saving throws.

One roll to hit.
One roll to resist.

That's the setup I'm looking at, and it does everything I like about D&D, only it does it smoother, faster, and in an easier to balance fashion.

-Username17

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that all combats should be one hit and down? Because if not, all the to-hit/AC system is is the reverse of the DC/save system, with a check being made for the DC to exceed the save, instead of a roll for the save to exceed the DC.

[RandomCasualty]

1097219325[/unixtime]]
Basically, there's no good reason to have attack rolls and damage rolls at all. It's just a bad mechanic for a game that's supposed to scale. The Save and DC system is inherently exponential, which means that you can portray very large differences in pretty simple fashion

Actually, no they don't...

It's only non-linear if you have diminishign returns otherwise saves are as linear as anything else. If you add a +2 bonus from something, that +2 bonus is still a +2 bonus regardless of how high you get, that's not an exponential progression, that's a linear one. In a true exponential progression, that +2 bonus has to at some point become a drop in a bucket and do nothing.

One roll to hit.
One roll to resist.

Well, whether you're calling it a damage roll or a soak roll it really doesn't matter, it's just putting the randomness in someone elses hands. But the actual numerics will be the same. And whether your'e doing hit point damage or your wound system doesn't really matter either. Either way you can get a bonus to damage. In one case your numeric damage is increasing, in the other you're damage soak DC is increasing, but basically both of these mean exactly the same thing, so I don't really see the difference from a class design point of view.

A class can still be bonus based or not bonus based. And whether you're using your wound variant or the standard hit point system it really doens't make that much of a difference. A damage bonus in each is different only in terms of quantity.

[Joy_Division]

I think there's a lot of unification of the mechanics that could go on. Why have AC and a Reflex Save when both are a measure of your ability to dodge or avoid damage from physical sources. Why do you need HP to measure how tough someone is when you also have a fortitude save. Sure you'd have to fix save progressions but you'll have to do that anyways.

[Username17]

I don't see how 8 for 4 wouldn't be worse than 6 for 3. Crazy zerker goes +8 phys atk, while diverse goes +2 phys atk/def and magic atk/def. This still means that zerker is +6 net vs. diverse

When you split things into attack and defense, you also have to force players to split their points similarly, prevent people from putting more than half their points in one pile. Crazy berserker has a magic attack and physical attack of +4, and is +2 to-hit diverse boy (and diverse boy is +2 to-hit him, for a zero-net sum). The closest to a broken strategy you can have is to max out your physical attack and split the rest of your points between physical defense and magical defense - diversify your defense and specialize your attack. This strategy does very well against straight diversity, max berserking, max magic and max defense (all of whom it has a relative +2 bonus to attacks compared to their attack bonus against him), its only weakness is the "all physical" character (4 points in both attack and defense for magic), against whom it is down 2 points.

So yes, if you plit things into attack and defense, there come into existence set-ups which beat more set-ups than they lose to. But of course, "all physical" is a fairly common and logical set-up, and the bulge isn't very large in any case.

I find it very difficult that there could be enough different combat maneuvers to make having more than 2 for each type relevant, mainly a area effect and a single target effect.

At the very minimum, there can be an area attack and a single target attack for point blank, short range, and long range. The guy with far shot it going to ownzor the guy with submission hold at long range, and vice versa at short range. But it can become arbitrarily more complicated than that.

For example, you could have manuvers which made you more defended, but dish out less damage (which would be comparatively a better deal against lower level opposition, as the less numbers they hit you on, the bigger a deal being hit on less numbers is), there could be manuvers that entangle opponents, there can be manuvers which bust through entanglements and still get an attack of some kind off. The number of manuvers you want to make is dependent entirely upon how many you want to write - there's no actual limit save how much you want to keep track of.

Every manuver you put in should be outright disadvantageous to use against at least one other kind of manuver, thereby causing the people who have more manuvers to be at an advantage (for example: ghosts can have a group of attacks which are incorporeal, which makes there attack kind of suck, but makes them invulnerable - unless someone else has a ghost-touch attack, at which point the ghost is accepting a worse attack ability for no defensive benefit).

It's only non-linear if you have diminishign returns otherwise saves are as linear as anything else.

No. When I save on an 11+, I make my save half the time, when I save on a 6+, I save three quarters of the time. If it takes a couple of failed saves to go down, having a +5 makes me last twice as long. Got that? I get double the resilience from a static bonus. That's what exponential is.

Because you are comparing the results of the die roll, the benefits of each bonus are not the same - each bonus is bigger than the one before it. Damage is linear - 5 points more is just the same as five points more, and it doesn't matter how you look at it. But saves are not - each bonus does not mean the same as each previous bonus. If it takes a +3 bonus to make a character as much tougher as you want them, making them that much tougher again probably only takes a +1 or +2 bonus. Contrariwise, making someone do as much relative extra damage after you gave them a +3 bonus you have to give them more like +4 or +5.

If you saved on an 11+, getting a +3 bonus makes you last 1.4 times as long. If you saved on an 8+, getting a +2 bonus makes you last 1.4 times as long.

If you did 6 points of damage, getting a +3 bonus makes your opponents last 1/1.5 times as long. If you did 9 points of damage, a 4 or 5 point bonus is required for the same relative reduction in enemy lifespan.

---

And that's the difference. Getting constant bonuses on opposed d20 rolls makes you exponentially more bad ass. Getting you constant bonuses on hit points and damage dice makes you asymptotically more bad ass.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1097252084[/unixtime]]
No. When I save on an 11+, I make my save half the time, when I save on a 6+, I save three quarters of the time. If it takes a couple of failed saves to go down, having a +5 makes me last twice as long. Got that? I get double the resilience from a static bonus. That's what exponential is.

Yes, but things get dangerous when you allow static bonuses to become exponential. Its why buff spells are so insanely powerful. A buff spell gets stronger based on the other buffs that happen to be on you, and when buffs themselves scale, then things get even more insane.

While the roll itself isn't linear, the bonuses that make it up are in fact linear. Diminishing returns puts those bonuses on the same track and makes a +11 to your die roll truly nonlinear.

So long as you can take unrelated cheap bonuses and add them, you are talking about a linear progression. In exponential there has to be a point where small bonuses, such as from first level buffs become utterly meaningless at the current level you're at.

You are right that a d20 roll as it is now works more exponentially, however when you add to it with linear bonuses you have a big problem. You simply can't have linear costs to increase stuff and try to make it exponential.

If you want a +3 bonus to strength to be like twice as strnog as a +2, then your strength bonuses MUST use diminishing returns. It has to be harder to get that +3 than it is to get the +2, and everything, magic items, buff spells, ability purchase at character creation, has to go by that paradigm.

You simply can't have conflicting paradigms and expect them to work.

If you're dealing with something exponential, then it's exponential and everything has to be exponential, including the costs you pay for it.

Offering shit that gives linear bonuses that then turn into exponential ones is stupid and it ensures people will look to stack every little bonus they can get.

Diminishing returns is essentially the converter you apply to a linear bonus to make it fit in an exponential system.

Damage is linear - 5 points more is just the same as five points more, and it doesn't matter how you look at it.

Damage rolls are linear, but melee combat damage is not, because it scales based on how many attacks you have. Your not just looking at average damage, beacuse that'd be linear. You're looking at average damage/attack * #of attacks.

Considering that hit points scale truly linearily, if you don't do the same with damage you're in trouble, because you favor offenses. It's why the "eggshell with hammer" syndrome comes into play.

And so long as you apply extra attacks, there's no way to really be immune to that problem, regardless of what system you use.

[Username17]

Yes, but things get dangerous when you allow static bonuses to become exponential.

Duh. Things get dangerous if you don't as well - when a static bonus doesn't matter it had better be free or your system falls apart.

While the roll itself isn't linear, the bonuses that make it up are in fact linear. Diminishing returns puts those bonuses on the same track and makes a +11 to your die roll truly nonlinear.

This statement doesn't make any sense. If by "truly non-linear" you mean "same result, more fvcking book keeping", then yes. Otherwise this sounds like mouth diarrhea.

You are right that a d20 roll as it is now works more exponentially, however when you add to it with linear bonuses you have a big problem. You simply can't have linear costs to increase stuff and try to make it exponential.

Sure you can. It's called "people get massively better as they go up in levels". And unless you want to resculpt the entire challenge system so that low level characters are no longer catching rats while high level characters are fighting powerful dragons who dwarf elephants, that's got to be pretty much a given.

The fact that things scale up in power massively with relatively small numerical increases is good. It means that we can allow people to grow up from fighting rats to dragons without having to scale out numbers up to five hundred thousand, which we would otherwise have to do.

If you want a +3 bonus to strength to be like twice as strnog as a +2, then your strength bonuses MUST use diminishing returns.

No. Not at all. We just have people having a +3 strength add a total of +3 to their rolls instead of +2, and as it relates to things near the edges of the DC system, that's twice as good. This is good. Putting things onto some kind of crazy diminishing returns system undoes all that benefit, because people are going to have to keep track of giant numbers anyway in terms of cost - which violates the whole point.

Being +4 at strength instead of +2 is already shown to be balanced, providing that you are thence +2 at Mind instead of +0. That's balanced. Some kind of crazy system where you had to pay more than that to have a +4 would by definition be unbalanced.

When the focussed character attacs the balanced character, he has a relative bonus equal to his total bonus minus the bonus of the balanced character. And that better equal the total bonus of the balanced character, because that's the bonus he gets against the focused character on his turn.

In short:

A minus B must equal B, and only a linear cost can give that.

And so long as you apply extra attacks, there's no way to really be immune to that problem, regardless of what system you use.

I'm opposed to multiple attacks in general.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1097284615[/unixtime]]
This statement doesn't make any sense. If by "truly non-linear" you mean "same result, more fvcking book keeping", then yes.

See what I mean is that buff spells like divine favor have to apply exponentially instead of linearily. That is when you're adding divine favor to a +20 bonus, it can't be giving out the same +4 bonus it did when you onyl had a +20. Because it's a weak spell and it has to be treated as a drop in a pond. Similarly, adding together a +1 amulet of natural armor, a +1 ring of protection and a +1 insight bonus has to also scale exponentially instead of being linear addition.

Basically without diminishigng returns you're trying to play an exponential system with linear bonuses, which just doesnt' work at all.

Sure you can. It's called "people get massively better as they go up in levels". And unless you want to resculpt the entire challenge system so that low level characters are no longer catching rats while high level characters are fighting powerful dragons who dwarf elephants, that's got to be pretty much a given.

Yes, but you've got shit like divine power and divine favor that are low level schtick now granting HUGE bonuses. Because when you say that a +20 is twice as good as a +19, you can't have a 1st level spell granting +5 bonuses, at all. A 1st level spell cant' grant ANY bonuses at all.

No. Not at all. We just have people having a +3 strength add a total of +3 to their rolls instead of +2, and as it relates to things near the edges of the DC system, that's twice as good. This is good. Putting things onto some kind of crazy diminishing returns system undoes all that benefit, because people are going to have to keep track of giant numbers anyway in terms of cost - which violates the whole point.

Without diminishing returns you have no way to control strength bonuses. As your spells get more powerful, the bonus has to increase, otherwise the spell isnt' really getting powerful, but if the bonus increases then it becomes increasingly more dominant. You need to scale down the bonus based on what kind of bonus you are augmenting, and for that you need diminishing returns.

If 29 strength is 2x 28 str, then bull's strength has to get to a point where it does nothing for someone with a big strength score. Otherwise improved bull's strength is insanely broken and bull's strength itself is overpowered.

Your bonuses from buffs and magic items either stay the same or they grow. If they stay the same, then you can never have magic swords of different levels. If they change then eventually the bonuses become overwhelming, because your having a scaling exponential bonus.

Diminishing returns allows you to have varied bonuses, but the diminishing aspect keeps them sane, because it's converted into an exponential bonus after its merged with other bonuses, not before, so it avoids all that broken stacking crap.

[Username17]

See what I mean is that buff spells like divine favor have to apply exponentially instead of linearily.

Buffs like Divine Favor shouldn't exist at all. Numeric Bonuses of any kind are just a bad thing to hand out as a class feature. For the game to work at all, people have to have total numeric bonuses which are within what is actually a fairly narrow range. Once you've figured out how to get people into that range, any "buff spells" that adjust those numbers are almost guaranteed to take you out of that range.

More basically, whatever rubric you come up with to get people into that range, any class feature that modifies that is going to be problematic. A class feature is optional by nature, so if Divine Favor exists, you have to balance people by making sure that noone without it falls too low to be in the meaningful range, and noone with it goes too high - and of course it still has to be so big that it's worth a class feature and a combat action, so pretty much by including even a single thing like that you've painted yourself into a corner.

Yes, but you've got shit like divine power and divine favor that are low level schtick now granting HUGE bonuses.

No, I don't.

. Because when you say that a +20 is twice as good as a +19

That's not something I'm saying - that's just a fact about the way the d20 + DC system works. +1 is of variable value, which varies from a 10% to 100% improvement. That's a fact of the math, and not especially escapable.

Without diminishing returns you have no way to control strength bonuses.

With Diminishing Returns I would have no way to control Strength Bonuses. And things wouldn't be balanced. Right now I can balance strength bonuses and limit them by just not letting people take any more of them.

Limiting things isn't a problem, people don't have the ability to raise things unless you provide them that ability. If you introduce a mechanism by which people can raise them - such as Diminishing Returns, then you've opened a can of worms and ultimately you'll need a system of caps. If you just don't write such a progression, there is never a problem in the first place.

Your whole set of hypotheticals about "If +1 is double, blah blah blah" is just sort of dumb. There is no "if", we are talking about bonuses on a d20 roll, and that means that people who have a small numeric bulge have a huge proportional bulge. End of discussion as far as that goes. Whether you want to try to work around that as if it were a problem or do something vaguely sensible is I suppose up to you.

-Username17