Originally Posted by
Skrum
So I know you're just spitballing and I just wanna be clear that I'm not trying to like bang the table about something offered here, but your ideas (and 5e as well) really makes me consider the value of "highly balanced" systems. 5e as we know isn't really balanced, or at least not well, but to some degree it is driven by bounded accuracy. That kind of system essentially by necessity puts a big damper on scaling, as bigger numbers can screw up the carefully balanced numbers.
My thought/concern though is like...how do characters differentiate themselves in a system that doesn't allow scaling. Ability checks are something of an example; like imagine if scaling in 5e was even more constrained, and ability scores was the only factor for skill checks. Well, my character might've been a blacksmith before he become an adventurer. So I made sure he has good str, as that's what he'd roll for smithing. Another character could have even more str...and just be "better" at blacksmithing, even if they've never narratively done blacksmithing.
That's just like a super simple example, but that's the idea. It makes me rethink the wisdom of something like bounded accuracy, or tightly balanced game systems.
*this problem is even worse in a game like DND which tends not to give some classes very notable or distinct abilities