3.5 Lacks Discipline!

[Username17]

Indeed, actually most creatures have attacks that are recycled in some form or another. While the Pit Fiend has a Blasphemy attack, it's the same Blasphemy that Balors get, it's the same Vlasphemy that Pit Fiends get. That attack can get a tag only once for all the Blasphemies, and everything works out fine.

But the fact of the matter is that Josh's system and K's have exactly the same amount of information to keep track of!

Exactly means exactly. No god damned difference at all. And here's why:

Every attack needs a tag on it that tells you what kind of damage it is. If it's because some creatures have "Absorb Fire" or because some creatures have "Resist Fire 1" - the effect is the same: you need to know what attacks are Fire and what attacks are not.

Every creature needs a marker for every kind of damage you have. And while you could make the claim that you can somehow make this simpler by not printing all the normal (resist 0) effects - that's a bunch of bullshit because it makes the monster entries show up in a non-standard format and makes them take a much longer time to read accurately. It takes a damned long time to read something that isn't there, because you have to read everything that is there and deduce that the remaining thing is absent.

So in either case, every attack needs a marker, and in every case every monster needs a pointer for ever kind of damage. Those are absolutes, and the only thing that is different is what comes after the name - it's either going to be another name (like Reflect) or it's going to be a number (like 4).

Which is easier to compare: two numbers, or a word-based chart?

But more importantly, why the fvck would we bother with a simplification if it left us in the situation where some creatures were "immune" and some attacks "hurt creatures who were immune as if they had half effect"? That's exactly where we are now, and it's a terrible place to be.

-Username17

[SuicideChump]

1109363583[/unixtime]]In short, because there is no cap saying "ÿou can't do this, fvcker", there's no meaning in the statement

Änd this this kills you really dead.

Necrotic Termination kills forever your character. Nothing you can avoid with an Epic spell, though. But at lower levels, you are screwed.

[User3]

1109541929[/unixtime]]Necrotic Termination kills forever your character. Nothing you can avoid with an Epic spell, though. But at lower levels, you are screwed.

That's only because no one has come along and written an lower level effect that overcomes Necrotic Termination (whatever the hell that is). But just because nobody's done that yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. There's actually nothing that prevents somebody from creating a new spell called "Raise Every Dead Guy, Even that Guy who got Killed with Necrotic Termination (whatever the hell that is)." And after that, there's still nothing that prevents somebody from creating a new spell called "Necrotic Termination, Part 2," which says in the spell description that even Raise Every Dead Guy won't get rid of it. And you can keep going like this FOREVER. It's really silly.

[Neeek]

1109545091[/unixtime]]That's only because no one has come along and written an lower level effect that overcomes Necrotic Termination (whatever the hell that is). But just because nobody's done that yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. There's actually nothing that prevents somebody from creating a new spell called "Raise Every Dead Guy, Even that Guy who got Killed with Necrotic Termination (whatever the hell that is)." And after that, there's still nothing that prevents somebody from creating a new spell called "Necrotic Termination, Part 2," which says in the spell description that even Raise Every Dead Guy won't get rid of it. And you can keep going like this FOREVER. It's really silly.

Of course, you can still go on forever with the numeric system proposed. The difference is, you can tell just by looking at the effect number what it trumps, without having to refer to other effects by name. In this case NT(whatever the hell that is) would be a Death(9(or whatever)) effect, so *any* Life(10+) effect would allow you to be raised.

That does bring up the question of what to do on equal levels. It's probably easiest to make ties go to the defender, since all attacks will have a value of 1+, whereas defenses will be 0+. So I guess Life(9+) would work for that.

[User3]

Thats why 10 has to be the last number in the system. Eventually, you should be just dead. I mean, 10 should be for artifact effects, god effects, and inescapable facts of the universe like it being impossible to Stun an inanimate object.

If an artifact soul-eating sword eats your soul, you should be dead, and even the gods shouldn't have a say in that..

[SuicideChump]

1109545604[/unixtime]] That does bring up the question of what to do on equal levels. It's probably easiest to make ties go to the defender, since all attacks will have a value of 1+, whereas defenses will be 0+. So I guess Life(9+) would work for that.

Uhm, no. Necrotic Termination's text already resolves the problem. Libris Mortis, pag. 69: True Resurrection won't work. So you will need Life 10+ spells.

It is just another example of the Wizards' "ability-counterability" policy of game-developing.

The tag system is fine, but I think it is a bit too complicated, expecially when you have to read the monster stats in a nanosecond (and it happens very often in my game ).

I would limit it to spells and supernatural abilities, which could be regimented as supernaturalized (and persistent) spells. Immunity to Cold could be considered as a level 3 spell in lower creatures (a kind of uncapped Protection from Energy), and it would require a 4th+ level spell based on cold to overcome it. Ice Storm cannot harm it, but an Orb of Cold does.

Then, I would make available both to spellcasters and creatures the Heighten Spell effect as a spellcasting mechanics (a little like the augmentation from the XPH), and not as a Metamagic feat you have to choose: you can heighten your Ice Storm to 4th level and overcome the Cold Immunity of the creep. Equally the monster's supernatural effects could be enhanced by the same effect: so a bigger monster could have a heightened Cold Immunity (as a 4th level spell or more).

Note that I'd not apply this method to spell vs spell circumstances: I deeply distaste the only idea of a Cone of Cold that nullifies a real Protection from Energy.

Anyway, even with this method some GD egghead can always make up the relative feat 'Penetrate Energy/Mind Effecting/etc. etc. Immunity' for impenetrable immunities (10). So we are back at the start.

[Username17]

and inescapable facts of the universe like it being impossible to Stun an inanimate object.

I'm going to call shenanigans on that. If you want to put this to a test, give your monitor a good hard slap. See what happens to the picture? That's what happens when you stun an inanimate object. If that's the best you can do, there sure as hell shouldn't be any maximum number.

-Username17

[Murtak]

It seems to me like the light/darkness mechanic works rather well in this regard. If all the save or die spells and resurrection effects had similar texts (may only be raised by a ressurection spell of equal or higher level, or of 3 levels higher or whatever) that would take care of the barghest trumps true ressurection trumps disintegrate trumps ressurection trumps regular death crap.

Most other spell effects can probably be handled similarly. Straight damage can keep the resistance/immunity in my opinion. Immunities are rather overused but the principle is sound.

So just decide on what you want the level difference to be for each type of effect and use immunities sparingly. True Ressurection trumps Disintegrate but not Wail of the Banshee, Barghest feed gets set to an arbitrary spell level and the needed changes are minimal. I guess you may want to give spells like Wail of the Banshee a lower "penetration level" to reflect the value of being able to affect multiple targets but that is entirely a matter of personal preference.

[User3]

I'm going to call shenanigans on that. If you want to put this to a test, give your monitor a good hard slap. See what happens to the picture? That's what happens when you stun an inanimate object. If that's the best you can do, there sure as hell shouldn't be any maximum number.

Sorry, my monitor was not made in the 1980s. I can give it any number of hits and it doesn't do anything.

[RandomCasualty]

1109551471[/unixtime]]Thats why 10 has to be the last number in the system. Eventually, you should be just dead. I mean, 10 should be for artifact effects, god effects, and inescapable facts of the universe like it being impossible to Stun an inanimate object.

If an artifact soul-eating sword eats your soul, you should be dead, and even the gods shouldn't have a say in that..

Why? There are varying degrees of artifacts, and there are varying degrees of gods.

You need a number at least for every level of god there is from demigod to overgod. Artifacts may well be the same way.

[User3]

Why? There are varying degrees of artifacts, and there are varying degrees of gods.

You need a number at least for every level of god there is from demigod to overgod. Artifacts may well be the same way.

Thats unnecessary complication for almost no payback. Do you really want playable or killable gods in your game, or "my god is bigger han yout god so nI get better divine intervention" arguments?

The buck has to stop somewhere, and there has to be a point when PCs can foil the plans of the gods(on occasion).

The same goes for artifacts.

Unless you want cock-fighting contests between gods to be a regular part of your game, you really are better off just placing it firmly into the "not for PCs" realm.

[Username17]

Thats unnecessary complication for almost no payback.

Actually, making and enforcing an absolute cap is complicated, not doing so is really simple. If 10 is the maximum, then eventually all attacks and resistances will cap out at 10 - and then you just have to decide whether ties go to the attacker or defender.

If they go to the attacker, the game eventually just becomes Rocket Launcher Tag. If they go to the Defender, eventually it becomes a game of padded sumo. In either case, you're going to need to have shit that bypasses the 10 maximum.

And when you are going to break the rule, you shouldn't even have the rule. Seriously. That's the unnecessary complication. It's really complicated to have rules and additional rules that go back and tell you to ignore other rules. It's way easier to not have such rules in the first place.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1109573020[/unixtime]]
Unless you want cock-fighting contests between gods to be a regular part of your game, you really are better off just placing it firmly into the "not for PCs" realm.

Regardless of what system you use, artifacts and gods may occasionally come into contact. At some point, two max rank things will come into conflict. Stormbringer fights Mournblade or the one ring comes into conflict with the Holy grail. At some point its going to happen and your game shouldn't crash when it does.

And when they do, according to your system one of the following three has to happen when the numbers are equal: Either the Attacker always wins, the defender always wins, or you have a coin flip situation.

[User3]

Ties should go to defender.

The whole point of this thread is to impose some limits on the overall system for the sake of game balance and ease of play. The eternal search for the next +1 is what makes this game no fun to play.

At the point when you have to worry whether one artifact can punch through the protection of another artifact, you are done with DnD. Really. You may be playing an Epic DnD game or tall Tales D20 or some other crap.

And in the situations where PCs from 1-20 get their hands on artifacts, it should be a game of sumo. When two guys with artifacts are engaged in an epic battle, then the winner should be decided by the skills of the characters involved and not the equipment involved.

The "10 rule" is an absolute limit, representing a point where nothing will supercede this rule, not even crazy metarules or additional supplements, because you know that once someone makes a 10 effect someone is going to say "this speaker, however, goes to 11" a la Spinal Tap.

And thats bad. Its bad for the system because of power creep, its bad for players because it causes them to constantly be on the search for even more powerful items and to say things like "this +12 artifact sucks. I'm need at least a +14 artifact or I can't even be in the next battle," and its bad for DMs because its a pain in the ass to constantly up
the ante with every new artifact.

[RandomCasualty]

1109607697[/unixtime]]
The whole point of this thread is to impose some limits on the overall system for the sake of game balance and ease of play. The eternal search for the next +1 is what makes this game no fun to play.

Some people would disagree. There are those who like finding upgraded treasure. It was one of the major appeals to games like Diablo 2, and has been a mainstay of D&D. Treasure can be cool beacuse it's something you didn't plan on, which makes it infinitely more interesting than simply going through a build, full well knowing exactly what you'll look like every step from level 1 to 20. Now that's no fun to play IMO.

If there's anything I'd like to kill it's the idea of builds. I'd like to resurrect the organic character. Treasure (artifacts especially) are one of the true organic things left in the game and prevent it from falling into the gaping abyss of egalitarian dystopia.

Finding treasure is fun. What isn't fun is dumpster diving through 20 different books searching for more pluses, that's the part that needs to go.

At the point when you have to worry whether one artifact can punch through the protection of another artifact, you are done with DnD. Really. You may be playing an Epic DnD game or tall Tales D20 or some other crap.

Huh? There are a lot of stories where an artifact is used to beat another artifact. What are you talking about?

The "10 rule" is an absolute limit, representing a point where nothing will supercede this rule, not even crazy metarules or additional supplements, because you know that once someone makes a 10 effect someone is going to say "this speaker, however, goes to 11" a la Spinal Tap.

And thats bad. Its bad for the system because of power creep, its bad for players because it causes them to constantly be on the search for even more powerful items and to say things like "this +12 artifact sucks. I'm need at least a +14 artifact or I can't even be in the next battle," and its bad for DMs because its a pain in the ass to constantly up
the ante with every new artifact.

I hate power creep too, but this won't really fix anything. What this does is basically makes epic not work. People get up their epic mind blank and then it doesn't matter how good your enchanter is, he's hosed. People get up their death ward and enegy drain becomes a thing of the past. And that sucks. Basically it all becomes about taking away everyone's attack forms. And at the end you end up with Mr.Invulnerable who can't be touched by anything, because the defender wins in cases of a tie.

[Murtak]

K, how does it help to get rid of "the search for the next +" for items/spells but not skills? And why is it fine to have that search for the + from item levels 1 to 10 and why does it suddenly stop?

When you introduce arbitrary caps like that to the game then high level characters will simply max out their most important bonus first, then the second one and so on. At some point you end up with the exact same items for the archer, the barbarian and the wizard. How is that desirable?

[Username17]

The basic quest hook "The big villain [Fillinblank] can only be defeated by [Fillinblank], which is why you have to brave a bunch of monsters and ancient traps in the Dungeon of [Fillinblank] to retrieve it." is essentially the search for an item which generates a higher penetration number than the villain has a resistance number. And that's the basic D&D adventure arc.

If you ever can't find a bigger penetration number than you currently have, that adventure is denied to you, and you've stopped playing D&D. To be playing D&D, there must be a Fire Sword which is at least one point bigger than the one you currently have. Because otherwise you can't quest for it to defeat the BBEG of the week.

D&D isn't defined by whether the number at the end of your weapon says 3 or 27 - it's defined by the story arc. And the story arc requires that there be bigger attacks and defenses available for you to get. Forever.

-Username17

[User3]

The basic quest hook "The big villain [Fillinblank] can only be defeated by [Fillinblank], which is why you have to brave a bunch of monsters and ancient traps in the Dungeon of [Fillinblank] to retrieve it." is essentially the search for an item which generates a higher penetration number than the villain has a resistance number. And that's the basic D&D adventure arc.

If the BBEG is immune to Fire, you can search for the Ice Sword, or the Death Sword, or any other damn thing. But, he is immune to Fire.

And sure, you can go all Pokemon "gotta catch 'em all" with resistances. Then you have to deal with untyped damage. Untyped damage has to be priced as such, and a good "Rule 10" is that no one can have resistances to untyped damage.

Rule 10 resistances shouldn't be common. Epic games shouldn't even have that many of them(ie, unless you are a Fire Elemental or are carrying the artifact Fire Jewel of Abbanoth, you can't have Fire Resistance 10).

I see that people want Puzzle monsters in the game, but the current implementation of "immune to everything, auto-kill with this one thing" is terrible. The way the system should work is that some people are like CR 15 in a regular combat, but CR 10 if you have silver weapons or something. That way you can have a reason to carry silver when you go fight the Werewolf Lord as level 10 adventurers.

Huh? There are a lot of stories where an artifact is used to beat another artifact. What are you talking about?

Do you mean magic items, or artifacts? I see no reason why you don't need to find a staff with an unresearchable and rare spell, or you need a Magic Key(like a level 8 Knock) to bust throught the enchanted doors(level 7 doors).

But those are magic items. Artifacts are indestructable, world-shaping items. Magic items are things that one occasionally sells so that you can open an inn that serves spicy potatos. While they may be quests or adventures unto themselves, they may get broken when you try to kill the BBEG, or used up when their big effect goes off.

----------------------

I like item-hunting as much as the next Diablo-generation guy, but the best thing about playing a tabletop RPG is that you can implement "new stuff" rather than "+1 stuff."

I mean, when you are holding a +3 Sword, do you really care about a +2 sword?

No.

But, do you care about a Ghost-killing sword when you have a Flamesword? Sure. You never know when you might need to kill a ghost, so even if you put it in your batcave, you are still going to enjoy it more than another +2 sword.

[Username17]

I see no reason why you don't need to find a staff with an unresearchable and rare spell, or you need a Magic Key(like a level 8 Knock) to bust throught the enchanted doors(level 7 doors).

Precisely. And that logic is extensible. Forever. Let's say that one out of ten adventures require a magic key, and that you play once a week. At the end of a two year campaign, you'll have needed 10.4 new magic keys. That could plausibly be fit into just 10 levels of lock penetrate. But what about the five year campaign? They are going to need 26 levels of magic keys, why shouldn't we support that too?

Sure, most campaigns don't last five years. But sometimes they do, and there's no reason to stop supporting them at some arbitrary point when the system works better if you don't. There are more games that stop after one year than continue past a year. There are more games that stop after a month than go past a month. Hell, there are more games that last a single session than that meet for a second time.

At what point should we stop supporting people who want to keep playing their characters? The rules don't get anything in terms of playability or clarity from some arbitrary statement that you can't have Cold Penetration 13. There's no advantage to that, and if makes it that much harder to play long games.

Some, even most characters have pretty much told their story long before things get to level 27. But some have not, and there's no good god damned reason to cut things off before then just because none of the characters you want to play will have stories that go on that long.

---

Now, I think that statting gods is pretty stupid. But there's lots of shit to do between now and god hunting for there to be adventures with. Gods don't need to have stats for you to be fighting ancient monsters who have been awakened with the hunger for suns who can only be harmed by Fire (13) effects of Cold/Acid/Electricity (15) effects. And that's structurally no different from taking on great beasts who can only be harmed by Lightning (5) or Fire/Cold/Acid (7).

The only way it gets structurally different, and it stops being D&D, is if you throw some arbitrary cap anywhere along the line. Then things get all fvcked up as you approach that cut-off. And when you've been at or near the cutoff for a long time, the game becomes unplayable. Why would we do that? What advantage is there to hard coding a point where the game stops working?

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

1109615343[/unixtime]]The basic quest hook "The big villain [Fillinblank] can only be defeated by [Fillinblank], which is why you have to brave a bunch of monsters and ancient traps in the Dungeon of [Fillinblank] to retrieve it." is essentially the search for an item which generates a higher penetration number than the villain has a resistance number.

But the Res (10) BBEG is going to be unusual. Many adventures (some of my favorites) deal w/ things that are absolutley immune to normal effects. Remember Castles Forlorn? it's a very basic Fantasy element. LotR involved a BBEG who was basically immune to normal damage and could be only killed by destroying a linked item.

Having a Res (10) limit might be pretty useful, especially if you also have rules about who can have it. For instance, you could say that only Fighters, Angels, and Vampires can have Res (10) to Weapon Damage. Any weapon that has Pen (10) is defeated by it. Got to find some other way to get those guys. IMO, that'd actually be pretty kewl if there was no way to kill a Dragon with Weapon Damage.

Of course you could be cheesy and just write a rule that had Pen (11), but that defeats the whole purpose of having limits in the rules system. The point of limits is that they limit things.

It sounds like you're seeing high-level games turning into complicated rock-paper-scissors contests, where you have to find what things aren't resistant too. I can see that no being fun, but IMO it's more a matter of finding things that are challengind for high-level characters that don't involve finding a way to batter down Damage Resistance (10). There should be a way for 20th level characters to be challengedby things that that Death Resistance (9) and damage Resistance (10).

* * *

Although I don't see much harm in the game grinding to a halt at, say, 19th level when resistances overpowere everything. Once players are routinely killing Great Wyrms and summoning Archangels to do their bidding, the game is so completely different from the old bash down the door, kill the orcs routine that it really needs drastically different rules.

[User3]

Precisely. And that logic is extensible. Forever. Let's say that one out of ten adventures require a magic key, and that you play once a week. At the end of a two year campaign, you'll have needed 10.4 new magic keys. That could plausibly be fit into just 10 levels of lock penetrate. But what about the five year campaign? They are going to need 26 levels of magic keys, why shouldn't we support that too?

Since this is a tabletop game and not Gauntlet, you really can have one magic key fit only one magic lock, rather than any magic key fit any magic lock. You can have the lock be a level 5 effect, and no general unlocking magic can open that lock unless its 6th level; thats means that from character level 1-10, your guys will have to go on quests to find the exact magic keys because they don't have general unlocking magic powerful enough to open a level 5 lock.

At level 10(artifact), no general unlocking magic will let you unlock the artifact lock. You really need the one key for that lock, meaning that you can have an infinite number of "lock and key" quests.

--------------

As for the "kill the immune monster," you can use the same logic. Kill the Lich by destroying the tiny box with his soul in it. The key for this particular lock is "smash the box," even though the Lich has Death Resistance 10.

My point is that nothing should be immune to untyped damage. Thats why you have it. At level 20 you must be shooting Holy Creole Firebolts(untyped), and not pushing the monsters into the lava(Fire 10), because those monsters are totally hardcore and nigh invulnerable. Monsters should have fire attacks that can punch through Rings of Fire Resistance, but totally don't work on the Fire Elemental Savant because he's made of living flame. I mean, what the point of being made of living flame if some foolio is going to set you on fire?

However, if the monster is forced to use its lesser damage and untyped "Toxic Balefire Blast" then you should take damage. That stuff's all toxic and bale.

[Username17]

There should be a way for 20th level characters to be challengedby things that that Death Resistance (9) and damage Resistance (10).

Of course there is. Just like at slightly lower level you can have much the same effect out of challenges with Death Resistance (8) and Physical Resistance (9). That works fine. You bust out a level 10 Death Attack, and away you go.

But what about next level, dumbass? Or the level after that? What if you keep playing for another year? Or ten years? Sooner or later you are going to need to go to 11. This isn't like Spinal Tap, where you could just leave the amp at nine and use 10 whenever you need a little bit extra. Because unlike Spinal Tap, it's the same damn concert - potentially forever. You are going to keep needing little bit extras until you decide to stop. Not until the game designer decides you have to stop, until you do. And if you don't understand that some people are going to want to play longer campaigns than you do, you have no business designing things for the use of others.

My point is that nothing should be immune to untyped damage. Thats why you have it.

Right, so eventually everyone fights with Lightsabers that do Ultima Damage and there's never any variety ever again. That's a fvcking great idea, we can just make the high end so fvcking boring that eventually everyone will give up in disgust.

That's the heart of it, right? You are trying to make damn sure that people don't play longer than you want them to. So the options being discussed are:

[*] Make the game simply cease to function altogether at levels that are "too high". Ex.: Everyone eventually becomes immune to everything because resistances have maxxed out.

[*] Make the game at levels that are "too high" so monocromatic and boring that everyone gives up in disgust. Ex.: Make only one type of damage function and then just wait until people are bored with it.

Wht's the fvcking point? Why would you insert rules to try to make people have less fun? If people like playing at higher and higher power levels, what do you gain by stopping them?

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

1109632329[/unixtime]]

There should be a way for 20th level characters to be challengedby things that that Death Resistance (9) and damage Resistance (10).

Of course there is. Just like at slightly lower level you can have much the same effect out of challenges with Death Resistance (8) and Physical Resistance (9). That works fine. You bust out a level 10 Death Attack, and away you go.

But what about next level, dumbass? Or the level after that? What if you keep playing for another year? Or ten years? Sooner or later you are going to need to go to 11. This isn't like Spinal Tap, where you could just leave the amp at nine and use 10 whenever you need a little bit extra. Because unlike Spinal Tap, it's the same damn concert - potentially forever. You are going to keep needing little bit extras until you decide to stop. Not until the game designer decides you have to stop, until you do. And if you don't understand that some people are going to want to play longer campaigns than you do, you have no business designing things for the use of others.

Then you need a separate set of rules for going beyond that level. You're arguing that Chess needs some rules for after the king goes down, b/c some guys are going to want to play after that. OK, fine. Make those rules. But you can't play chess under the basic rules after you reach the limit. That's the point of limits. They, um, limit things.

Every game ever designed, and that will ever be designed, is going to stop somewhere. At some point, you're out of rules, and you either design it yourself, or work off of vague guidelines the game designers give you. Or you keep playing the game again from the beginning, which is what 90% of the peeps do who play D&D.

[User3]

1109634700[/unixtime]]
Then you need a separate set of rules for going beyond that level. You're arguing that Chess needs some rules for after the king goes down, b/c some guys are going to want to play after that. OK, fine. Make those rules. But you can't play chess under the basic rules after you reach the limit. That's the point of limits. They, um, limit things.

I guess I just don't see the point of making the limit an arbitrary one. The goal of chess is to checkmate your opponent's king -- so sure, it makes sense not to have rules for what happens after that. But what's the big deal about having a number higher than ten? If you make the "Immunity" point 20, or 50, or 100 instead of 10, does the system work differently in any significant way?

If you want to have Fire Elementals be immune to fire in your campaign -- just decree that there are no fire attacks at level 10 in your campaign world, and they will be. What is it, mechanically speaking, about the system that stops working after that?

If there isn't anything -- if the only thing different is that some people don't like the idea of having fire so hot it can burn a fire elemental -- I would respectfully suggest that we leave that up to the DMs of each individual campaign, and not enshrine it in the rules with a hard limit.

--d.

[Murtak]

I don't get the "well, epic has it's own rules anyways, so we should only look at levels 1 to 20" argument. Sure, most campaigns don't go epic/high levels and I can see the point of not putting in extra work to make sure epic levels still work fine.

But putting in an arbitrary cap at 10, 20 or whereever is additional effort only to make the game work [/B]worse[/B].

You don't want fire elementals burned, don't want your artifact door opened, just make them level 20 effects and the players probably won't get to burn/open them with their regular effects before level 40. So your pre-epic game works precisely as it would with a level 10 cap on the effects.

There is a point (around character level 40) when the players can do "impossible" things to some parts of your level 1 to 20 world. I see no problem with that myself. You also get the fringe benefit of a system that scales well into epic and you completely eliminate the problem of being able to simply collect each and every possible effect at maximum strength.

And it is less work to do it that way.