(D&D) Composite Adventurer WIP Blog

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yeah like Bambu said we've never claimed that they're infinite 5D. The only D&D characters listed as such are the Lady of Pain and the Serpent. Plus the page does say they there could be higher dimensional areas its just that the vortex blocks any attempts to document them.

Like I said, Low 1-C without restrictions is fine. I disagree with 1-B or High 1-B.

I can support "At least Low 1-C, possibly far higher" though. Does that sound acceptable?

 

[Qawsedf234]

> There is no proof they can ascend beyond the next dimension above the fifth.

We know a few things

• The dimensional vortex blocks anything <6D from getting to the 6th and higher dimensions

• The Old Ones did this in order to force the Immortals to evolve

• Without the dimensional vortex the Immortals would "transcend all boundaries" but still not join the ranks of the Old Ones

What else could it mean besides them reaching higher dimensional levels of power?

> I do question infinitely above baseline 4-D / 5-D too.

Why? The Gods and Immortals have 2A and High 2A feats

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Qawsedf

Never doubted they can become hihger dimensional, but the notion that they can become so indefinitely or even reach an infinitely-dimensional state (Impossible by simply climbing up a hierarchy step by step) is not proven.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

At least Low 1-C possibly far higher is fine, actually, yes.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't mind dropping 1-B for Low 1-C for Immortals, but Great Ones absolutely should have the possibly High 1-B based on the fact that they have restricted the discovery of said infinite dimensions and any concrete proof of them.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Immortals can't become High 1-B. The idea was that they could at least breach enough barriers to earn a 1-B ranking. The High 1-B stat is for the Old Ones, since no amount of boundary breaking would lead to the Immortals to ascend to their level.

So I believe they should get a possibly 1-B/High 1-B ranking.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I disagree with 1-B as it is speculation, so I maintain my position of At Least Low 1-C, possibly higher

 

[Qawsedf234]

If we're at a impass I think the best solution to to make a new thread and get more mod input. If people are firmly against the 1-B ratings I'll concede to the High 2A, possibly higher and Low 1C, possibly higher suggestion.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

From what I can tell:

Tier: At least High 2-A, likely Low 1-C, possibly far higher | At least Low 1-C, likely 1-C, possibly far higher

The 1-B and higher stuff exists but I just wanna get back to work on actually important bits, so this can be dealt with later or by others.

 

[Qawsedf234]

You can work on the important stuff. I still think the 1-B stuff has enough merit to be argued, so I'll support it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I support it too. But Mystara isn't really my jam and I've always admitted I'm not super knowledgeable on that facet (since I joined at 3.5e anyways, and it was gone by that time). Plus I'm just frankly more interested in stuff thereabouts of High 6-A to 2-A, which is confirmed tiering anyhow.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Yeah I understand your position and get what you're doing. Plus like you said those tiers are more relevant anyways. I'm just still willing to argue the 1-B stuff.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I support it too. But Mystara isn't really my jam and I've always admitted I'm not super knowledgeable on that facet (since I joined at 3.5e anyways, and it was gone by that time). Plus I'm just frankly more interested in stuff thereabouts of High 6-A to 2-A, which is confirmed tiering anyhow. </div

 

[Qawsedf234]

I think you accidently deleted the ">" in the </div> thing.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

By the way, the new thread will be here.