# Another Immortals Handbook thread



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay, its about time I started a new thread, this one should have a poll at the top asking what you want to see next from the Immortals Handbook.

As some of you know, the Immortals Handbook: Epic Bestiary Volume I has been unofficially released. By unofficially I mean that at this point you would be buying the text only version of the 91 page ebook, with the illustrated version following free (for those who buy now) in a week or so.

To get a copy, simply Paypal £3.50 to

agooddesigner@hotmail.com

and I'll send it to you as soon as possible.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Yay!  You made it!


----------



## Anabstercorian

Yyyep, I'm seeing some editing issues here, but it's still worth it.  Primarily, a lot of abilities seem to be missing durations, but that's easy to fix.  It seems to happen in a lot of products, actually...


----------



## Baronovan

While there are some editting mistakes here and there the text is overall quite good. I think I am most impressed by the simplcity and ease of the Dire template(s), the new weapon and armor enchantments tucked here and there (Echoing is the best, IMO) and that damned Neutronium Golem... sweet Jesus. Have you made a PC of sufficient level and compared the stats? I just wonder...

You have a good thing going with the Adventure Ideas being so prominent. A very nice touch, if you ask me. Some of them are top notch.

All in all, I'm glad it's here. Keep it coming, and thanks!


----------



## Anabstercorian

That Neutronium Golem is a beast.  Jesus, the gravity alone..


----------



## Sledge

No kidding about that, but as promised most of these will be well usable in my games. 
Now I want more!


----------



## Anabstercorian

Okay, clearly it needs editing.  I propose we divy it up, each pick a portion, and go over it with a fine tooth comb, give ol' Krust a leg up.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

Glad you like it. As regards editing, the work was edited, however, from that time, I have since done a lot more to it, so its possible if there are a handful of mistakes in the more recent parts of the text. If you find anything that needs attention; either a mechanical error or a grammatical one, be sure and email me and I'll fix it before the official release. Its a very tricky book to edit without printing it all out, as you guys will have seen the text density is on a par with the core rulebooks.

There are a handful of problem monsters in the book that I'm still not happy with (should Kabiri be incorporeal), or need tweaked in some way (Sandalphons spell list) and there are a few abilities that were cut at the last minute that I should replace (and finish) for the official release (Cherubims Beam of Balance).

The Dire Template is very quick and clean, I like that one myself. One thing no one has mentioned yet is the new Golem format with the six different constructs for each material, I thought that was pretty neat.   

Initially there were a half dozen more epic spells and epic items/artifacts than what ended up in the book, such as the Elohim having a Helm of Epic Brilliance, a Ring of Unelemental Command detailed in its entry and the Thrice Holy epic spell listed in the Seraphims entry. I'm glad you liked what was there, although I am planning to expand most of the artifact descriptions as I feel many of them are far too terse for such powerful items.

I have a big list (I'll include it in the IH at some juncture) that shows the typical stats (AC, SR, Ability Scores, Attack Bonuses, Damage, # of hits to defeat an equal opponent etc.) for the average character for every 10 levels up to 200th. Beyond that point I didn't do any testing, so the Neutronium Golem is one of the few unknown quantities that trusts to the CR/EL system.

Glad you liked the Adventure Ideas, its amazing to think there are over 100 in the document! There are probably a few that are a bit silly, but on the whole I am happy with them. By the way, certain characters (such as the bounty hunter Ioun Eyes or Threemorrow; the technowizard from the future) and artifacts (like the Wheel of Fortune or the Robe of No Eyes) from the Adventure Ideas will be detailed at some point in the IH, rest assured. 

Once you guys get time to digest the contents I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter, what monsters you like and why, as well as what monsters you dislike and why. Did you like the CR spread in the book, that sort of thing. Thats should help me when detailing future products.

By the way I should add that the poll in this thread will probably dictate the order the various parts of the Immortals Handbook are released.


----------



## Fieari

I've just started reading, but I've got to say, the size stuff is awesome so far.  To me, this is worth the price of admission _alone_.  You're going to save me so much work for the creatures I've been -trying- to stat up, but without much satisfaction.  Virtual size catagories are great too... I've been becomming more and more distrurbed as my players reach higher and higher levels about how the bonuses are eclipsing the dice rolling.  This is fantastic!


----------



## Kerrick

UK, you're evil... that post gave all kinds of teasers of interesting things in the book, and now I'm going to have to buy it. 

And since no one else has said what they voted for on the poll, let me be the first:


EPIC SPELLS​
Oh, and magic items and artifacts too.


----------



## Baronovan

What good is an immortal magic system without

IMMORTAL CHARACTERS​
to use it?

Bring on the Apotheosis.


----------



## Kavon

I voted for the playing Immortals bit and the epic spellsystem bit :3
Mostly interested in the Immortals rules though


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I've just started reading, but I've got to say, the size stuff is awesome so far.  To me, this is worth the price of admission _alone_.




Maybe I should have released that on its own...I could have called it Super-size Me D&D.  



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> You're going to save me so much work for the creatures I've been -trying- to stat up, but without much satisfaction.




One part of that I really like is the Base Damage Modifiers by Shape rules coupled with the Universal Base Damage Table. It just makes working out monster damage for any shape and size (and you know I mean *any* size) so easy.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Virtual size catagories are great too... I've been becomming more and more distrurbed as my players reach higher and higher levels about how the bonuses are eclipsing the dice rolling.  This is fantastic!




Its a pet hate of mine but I really dislike it when epic monsters have their base damage skyrocketed for no reason, it just smacks of lazy design.

Glad to see you are getting a kick out of the non-monster elements of the Bestiary.

Even though its only a small section I hope people enjoy the Glance at the Kosmos too.


----------



## Nifelhein

Voted for a Pantheon or Two, players need a place to look up to and know they have a line to cross, then immortal characters, they need to know that no matter what happens, there is always a time and challenge beyond that and so they can face those challenges, immortal magic, for the truly epic spells are beyond the standard of anything they know so far, but they want more!

Although i would rather see it all released as a boxed set with all hard covers inside and a special character sheet and card paper tables and stuff to check without needing to actually open the book during a game.

I know, sometimes i hold my hope so high...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

I have just noticed a rather strange error in the pdf. None of the text I had as bold has shown up in the document as *bold*, none at all! How the heck could this have happened? Does anyone have a clue?

All the monster stat blocks should have bold descriptors like:

*Speed:* 70 ft. (14 squares)

I am totally perplexed at this.

As soon as I can get that fixed I'll resend it to everyone who has bought it.


----------



## Nifelhein

That is rather strange indeed, what program have you used to make the pdf?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> That is rather strange indeed, what program have you used to make the pdf?




Acrobat 5.0

I did some tests, I can get Celestia Antiqua - Semi Bold, but thats a different font entirely, and doesn't look as good anyway.

I have Celestia Antiqua - Bold in my font list, and it shows up okay in my original Pagemaker 6.5 version. But when I turn it into a pdf all bold punctuation (on Celestia Antiqua and Scala Sans) disappears.

Edit: The weird thing is, italicised text can be seen, but bold text cannot.


----------



## Fieari

With regards to the kosmos thingy... not bad.  Very interesting take on dimensions, which I personally like to think of as significantly more physical.  I can understand the rational though.  I think I may have mentioned before the dimensional progression I use in my games....

1-3 Prime
4 Time (Possibilities)
5 Impossibilities (all different rule systems, different laws of physics, etc... you call this the multiverse, I think)
6 Metaverse
7 Omniverse
8+ (????)

My thought was to work with a geometric progression so that even if I couldn't define exactly what the higher dimensions are, I could have rules for dealing with creatures in one interacting with creatures in another.  Those with Time Freedom, for example (not limited to traveling in one direction in time, can just as easily stay still, go backwards, etc.  Not "porting" to another point in time then resuming forewards progress, but actually having complete time freedom at every moment) are those who are in the 4th dimension, but are directly interacting with the first three (which is entirely unfair, but I've got rules for it).  But each level of advantage you can get in this manner can be topped by simply going one higher in an infinite progression, even if I can't actually understand how vastly vaster than the previous stage this new level of vastness is.  Infinitely more vast, in fact.

You've stuck a bunch of dimensions inbetween what I've listed as 4 and 5 though, and I'm not sure those work with my geometric progression thingy.  Perhaps they could work out... it gives more layers in which maybe you can understand exactly what's going on... interesting.

I find the purpose of your Nuetronium Golems interesting though.  Defending the borders between dimensions... you have this marked down (with your plot hook ideas) as fighting against, say, an invasion of psuedo-natural creatures... but looked at in another way, it might be said that they're defending against people doing exactly what I described above.  Directly interacting with a lower dimension from a higher one, which is insanely powerful and more or less bypasses a lot of the normal rules in favor of the one on the dimension higher.  If those area effects were to "leak" into higher/lower dimensions (as physics suggests black holes might anyway, which is why time travel via black hole is such an oft visited topic in scifi and other speculation) they would make pretty good enforcers against people doing just that.  Incredibly nasty enforcers.  INCREDIBLY NASTY enforcers.  OH MY GOD THAT'S UNBELIEVABLY WACKED OUT NOTHING CAN SURVIVE OR STAND A CHANCE AAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHHHH enforcers.

Something for me to ponder.  I don't think I'll be using them in my game though.  I want there to be more inter-dimension interaction...


----------



## Plecak

Hi all,

I have been following the Immortal Handbook threads for three years now, although I have never actively participated in the discusssion.

It is good to see that you have finished the very first part of the book Upper_Krust .

However, judging from the latest Immortal Handbook thread I think that you would need a good manager   (well, Anabstercorian fits nicely for that position  ).

By the way, would it be possible to pay for the book by check (it would be very easy for me, since I am in UK at the moment)?


----------



## Anabstercorian

On the topic of management, I'm going to rummage through the book later today and look for editing errors outside of the statblocks - the statblocks themselves are too dense for me to bother with just now, simply too much too quickly.  I'll see what errors I can find so you can correct them.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all!



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> On the topic of management, I'm going to rummage through the book later today and look for editing errors outside of the statblocks - the statblocks themselves are too dense for me to bother with just now, simply too much too quickly.  I'll see what errors I can find so you can correct them.




Thanks.

Regarding the problem with the lack of bold text, it seems to be a problem with my embedded fonts bloody acrobat is not letting me edit them. I'm going to try and correct the problem, but I will also put together a 'half way house' measure that uses semi-bold in place of the bold text - this should take me about an hour or more to set up. When I have the problem fixed I'll send everyone who has bought a copy so far the updated version.

I'll reply to Fieari and Plecak when I get things sorted.

If anyone is very familiar with acrobat I could probably use their help, thanks.


----------



## Fieari

I've only noticed two typographical errors while reading it.  One lack of an apostrophe, and one lack of a space (joining two words oddly).  Two minor typos like that are no problem.  As for errors in stat blocks and whatnot... I'm terrible at noticing.  I'm one of those people who tends to use the stat blocks at face value instead of reconstructing all the values to see where they come from.  The end result numbers are enough for me, unless I'm the one actually designing the critter.

By the way, seeing as the overwhelming majority seems to want you to release either the magic system or apotheois next, would it be too much trouble to include the REVISED cr system with the art release of the bestiary?  Just drop it in there at the end?


----------



## Impeesa

I voted for Immortals rules and campaign ideas. It's the core of the work, after all - the best part.  

Also, I don't have the Bestiary Vol. 1 yet. No paypal - hell, no credit card (too lazy to go get one, although I really should). When you get around to releasing the part I'm most interested in, though, you can bet I'll find a way.  

--Impeesa--


----------



## Nifelhein

I use acrobat 6, it allows some configurations on converting to pdf and office, if that is what you use, I usually open the acrobat and convert the file fom it, instead of making the "print" or conevrt to pdf option on the home program, I have learned it has a lot less problem that way.

As for the whole thing, you should try using some program like Adobe Indesign, it allows you to make the file originally in pdf and some neat things, like the text rounding an image over the blending white color of it, that seems to be the standard in the rpg market right now, specially in the core books.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay I think I have solved the bold text problem. Using a free PDF writer instead of Adobe Acrobat everything seems to work okay, so clearly the problem was Adobe's not mine. At the moment I am changing a few things on the document based on some initial feedback from people. As soon as I get that done (about an hour or less) I'll create the new pdf, double check everythings okay this time* and send it out to all the people who have so far purchased the Bestiary. Sorry for the inconvenience.

*


----------



## CRGreathouse

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> On the topic of management, I'm going to rummage through the book later today and look for editing errors outside of the statblocks - the statblocks themselves are too dense for me to bother with just now, simply too much too quickly.  I'll see what errors I can find so you can correct them.




Great, I like to see errors fixed.  Of course I spend the majority of my time was spent on the stat blocks (especially skill points and saves), but there's a lot out there to catch in  a big document like this.  Grammatically, I must have fixed over 100 sentence fragments...!


----------



## Verequus

I need to subscribe this thread - nothing to add to the discussion right now, except that the size system, the increased density and virtual size are a stroke of genius!


----------



## CRGreathouse

Fieari said:
			
		

> As for errors in stat blocks and whatnot... I'm terrible at noticing.  I'm one of those people who tends to use the stat blocks at face value instead of reconstructing all the values to see where they come from.  The end result numbers are enough for me, unless I'm the one actually designing the critter.




While I spend many hours tearing each apart to fix them.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Noticed:

Under Akishira, in the High Epic adventure idea, there is reference to something called an astral hydra, which is not mentioned anywhere elsewhere in the document.

How does Seventh Sense work in play, precisely - does the time dragon only replay IT'S action, or everyone's?

What if more than one person attacks a character with Shining armor?

If two Void Dragons attack each other, and Abrogate each other's Abrogation, do I burst in to tears?  (Wait, I see this is mentioned as an adventure idea.  Well done.)

The Orichalcum Sentinel probably doesn't need an attack rating, given that it wields an unerring weapon.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay, great news I got everything sorted! I still need to go back over the tables, because some of them were knocked out of alignment when I was cycling through different PDF writers.

Special thanks to both Johannes Luber and Robert Lajoie for getting me through this.

As soon as I get everything sorted soon, I'll send people the update. Then I'll reply to the messages in this thread.

Also, thanks to those who have answered the poll thus far.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Under Akishira, in the High Epic adventure idea, there is reference to something called an astral hydra, which is not mentioned anywhere elsewhere in the document.




There are several places where monsters are or were referenced without entries.  Heck, the Akishra itself didn't appear in the version I originally edited.  As for the astral hydra, I'd just 'advance' an 8-headed hydra to the specified number of HD and add astral movement abilities (flight and manifestation) -- I don't know that it's ntended as a different sort of creature.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> How does Seventh Sense work in play, precisely - does the time dragon only replay IT'S action, or everyone's?




Everyone's actions, I believe.  I think this and other time-travel mechanics are covered in Apotheosis and the Grimoire.




			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> What if more than one person attacks a character with Shining armor?




I'd have all creatures who attacked such a character act in their normal initiative order, together at the bottom.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> If two Void Dragons attack each other, and Abrogate each other's Abrogation, do I burst in to tears?  (Wait, I see this is mentioned as an adventure idea.  Well done.)




Covered, as you mention.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> The Orichalcum Sentinel probably doesn't need an attack rating, given that it wields an unerring weapon.




I think it should have an attack rating because DMs might substitute its standard weapon for a special one, or its weapon might be sundered/stolen/etc.


----------



## historian

U_K, I greatly enjoyed "thumbing" through the preview volume.  Bravo!  

This is truly outstanding work that exceeded even the lofty expectations that I had for it.  Wonderful example of symmetry, bridging more technical concepts (virtual size categories) with more mystical (dimensions).

Hopefully, this release will give you the momentum to follow up quickly on subsequent editions.

While I am at it, I have two questions.  First, the Kuvachim seem similar (but more interesting) in conception to the IGs, but come off feeling decidedly more powerful.  Can you comment on this?  Second, it appears that an increase in virtual size categories confers a one-half bonus in HD (ex., a density that would justify a +10 increase in virtual size category would only provide a +5 size category increase in HD).  Am I judging this accurately?

Thanks again.


----------



## Upper_Krust

By the way I have just emailed everyone* the update. If you haven't received it (in a zip file) yet then email me.

*everyone who has so far bought the document that is. 



			
				Plecak said:
			
		

> Hi all,




Hey there Plecak! 

I apologise for taking so long to reply to you here, I just needed to focus to solve the formatting issue.



			
				Plecak said:
			
		

> I have been following the Immortal Handbook threads for three years now, although I have never actively participated in the discusssion.




Well, better late than never...although I suppose I am one to talk, that phrase could be my motto. 



			
				Plecak said:
			
		

> It is good to see that you have finished the very first part of the book Upper_Krust




It is indeed. Slight hiccup at the end there as well, but thats to be expected with my luck.



			
				Plecak said:
			
		

> However, judging from the latest Immortal Handbook thread I think that you would need a good manager   (well, Anabstercorian fits nicely for that position  ).




That'll teach me to ship the pdf before checking over it. 



			
				Plecak said:
			
		

> By the way, would it be possible to pay for the book by check (it would be very easy for me, since I am in UK at the moment)?




Sure, email me and I will give you the details of how to pay by cheque instead. Of course I'll have to wait for the cheque to clear before I send you the document.


----------



## Anabstercorian

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> There are several places where monsters are or were referenced without entries.  Heck, the Akishra itself didn't appear in the version I originally edited.  As for the astral hydra, I'd just 'advance' an 8-headed hydra to the specified number of HD and add astral movement abilities (flight and manifestation) -- I don't know that it's ntended as a different sort of creature.




Well, that's a decent stopgap, but it's not really a solution.  An 'astral hydra' should either be statted out or briefly described.  Alternatively, one could simply replace it with 'cogent'.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Everyone's actions, I believe.  I think this and other time-travel mechanics are covered in Apotheosis and the Grimoire.




Coolness.  I look forward to it.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I'd have all creatures who attacked such a character act in their normal initiative order, together at the bottom.




I agree, and feel this should be clarified somewhere in the IH collection.  Possibly it already has been, in which case, ignore my complain.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I think it should have an attack rating because DMs might substitute its standard weapon for a special one, or its weapon might be sundered/stolen/etc.




Good point.


----------



## Verequus

On page 7, Base Damage Modifiers by Skill:



> A creatures skill, or lack thereof, also governs its base damage. Those creatures not accustomed to combat with a given appendage should be treated as if one size category smaller for the purposes of attacking with that appendage. A feat could be used to eliminate this penalty.




I've been thinking about such a feat and like to hear some comments about it:
*
Battle Training*
Unlike other members of your race, which are not accustomed to combat with at least one given appendage, you have experience in the use of those appendages.

*Prerequisite:* At least one attack form, which base damage has been reduced due to the lack of skill.

*Benefit:* All attack forms, which base damage is reduced, have their base damage increased by one step.

*Special:* Improved Natural Attack can be only taken for those weakened appendages, if this feat has been taken first.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 

Apologies for the slow reply.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> With regards to the kosmos thingy... not bad.




Thanks. Theres a lot of general occult, book of Enoch, and a hint of real world science in there.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Very interesting take on dimensions, which I personally like to think of as significantly more physical.




Would extra dimensions necessarily be physical though. 

I think theres more potential in exploring avenues other than the purely physical.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I can understand the rational though.  I think I may have mentioned before the dimensional progression I use in my games....
> 
> 1-3 Prime
> 4 Time (Possibilities)
> 5 Impossibilities (all different rule systems, different laws of physics, etc... you call this the multiverse, I think)
> 6 Metaverse
> 7 Omniverse
> 8+ (????)




Well your 5-7 look like my higher dimensions, of a fashion at least.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> My thought was to work with a geometric progression so that even if I couldn't define exactly what the higher dimensions are, I could have rules for dealing with creatures in one interacting with creatures in another.




Well much of the higher dimensional stuff was inspired by the Book of Enoch, with a hint of comic book cosmology thrown in. 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Those with Time Freedom, for example (not limited to traveling in one direction in time, can just as easily stay still, go backwards, etc.  Not "porting" to another point in time then resuming forewards progress, but actually having complete time freedom at every moment) are those who are in the 4th dimension, but are directly interacting with the first three (which is entirely unfair, but I've got rules for it).  But each level of advantage you can get in this manner can be topped by simply going one higher in an infinite progression, even if I can't actually understand how vastly vaster than the previous stage this new level of vastness is.  Infinitely more vast, in fact.




Maybe you could comprehend it by making the other dimensions smaller when juxtaposed.

eg. How a 3D being would view a 2D being.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> You've stuck a bunch of dimensions inbetween what I've listed as 4 and 5 though, and I'm not sure those work with my geometric progression thingy.  Perhaps they could work out... it gives more layers in which maybe you can understand exactly what's going on... interesting.




Indeed. 

When I go into more depth I can tie in how gods are tied to dimensions and the implications that has on the universe, but thats for another time.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I find the purpose of your Nuetronium Golems interesting though.  Defending the borders between dimensions...




Actually only the borders between higher and lower dimensions.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> you have this marked down (with your plot hook ideas) as fighting against, say, an invasion of psuedo-natural creatures...




See below.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> but looked at in another way, it might be said that they're defending against people doing exactly what I described above.  Directly interacting with a lower dimension from a higher one, which is insanely powerful and more or less bypasses a lot of the normal rules in favor of the one on the dimension higher.  If those area effects were to "leak" into higher/lower dimensions (as physics suggests black holes might anyway, which is why time travel via black hole is such an oft visited topic in scifi and other speculation) they would make pretty good enforcers against people doing just that.




It might be made to work, I wouldn't necessarily make it arbitrary though.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Incredibly nasty enforcers.  INCREDIBLY NASTY enforcers.  OH MY GOD THAT'S UNBELIEVABLY WACKED OUT NOTHING CAN SURVIVE OR STAND A CHANCE AAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHHHH enforcers.




Glad you liked them, they get slapped by Black Hole Golems though. 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Something for me to ponder.  I don't think I'll be using them in my game though.  I want there to be more inter-dimension interaction...




The Neutronium Golems would only invade a universe on the brink of becoming dominated (51%) by one lower dimension. So if the Far Realm was dominating all the other dimensions they might step in to prevent the demiurge becoming a nutcase, because otherwise he might become a threat to other universes.

But Neutronium Golems wouldn't generally interfere with interdimensional or interuniversal matters.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Heya matey! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Noticed:




Well I would prefer to wash my dirty laundry in private mate, but since we're here now. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Under Akishira, in the High Epic adventure idea, there is reference to something called an astral hydra, which is not mentioned anywhere elsewhere in the document.




Yes. The sub-name for the Akishra is Astral Worm. Therefore an 8-headed version would be an Astral Hydra.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> How does Seventh Sense work in play, precisely - does the time dragon only replay IT'S action, or everyone's?




It replays all actions, although the DM will control those beings without 7th Sense, since it knows what they are going to do/attempt to do that round.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> What if more than one person attacks a character with Shining armor?




Simultaneous.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> If two Void Dragons attack each other, and Abrogate each other's Abrogation, do I burst in to tears?  (Wait, I see this is mentioned as an adventure idea.  Well done.)








			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> The Orichalcum Sentinel probably doesn't need an attack rating, given that it wields an unerring weapon.




What if you wanted to change the sample weapon.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey historian matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> U_K, I greatly enjoyed "thumbing" through the preview volume.  Bravo!




I still say you need the art to really visualise a monster, but I am glad you like it. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> This is truly outstanding work that exceeded even the lofty expectations that I had for it.  Wonderful example of symmetry, bridging more technical concepts (virtual size categories) with more mystical (dimensions).




I appreciate the love dude. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Hopefully, this release will give you the momentum to follow up quickly on subsequent editions.




Indeed.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> While I am at it, I have two questions.  First, the Kuvachim seem similar (but more interesting) in conception to the IGs, but come off feeling decidedly more powerful.  Can you comment on this?




I could if I knew what IGs were. However, I anticipate you might mean Infinity Gauntlets? If so Kuvachims are a dimension. Mazzaroth are the guardians. Whose power is similar to the Robes of the Almighty on page 21. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Second, it appears that an increase in virtual size categories confers a one-half bonus in HD (ex., a density that would justify a +10 increase in virtual size category would only provide a +5 size category increase in HD).  Am I judging this accurately?




More or less, although I didn't want to open that can of worms too much. ;-)



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks again.




My pleasure.


----------



## Anabstercorian

*Neutronium Golem*

My socially inept MIT friends and I stayed up for 24 hours and delved in to the pits of madness as we found ourselves alternatively fascinated and disgusted by the spectacle that is the Immortal Bestiary Volume 1.  We got on to the topic of the Neutronium Golem, and Gravity, and 'why you don't understand gravity'.

I quote: "All I'm saying is that your super-massive neutronium golem isn't really all that massive.  I've seen bigger.  It's only about a quadrillionth the mass of the sun.  What a little bitch! I've seen small children take on neutronium golems bigger than yours!"

Anyway, once I stopped paying attention to his demoralizing rambling, we noted how the golem worked with gravity, and it's gravitational field.

Basically, as I'm sure yo'ure well aware, the gravitational field of the golem can be accurately approximated by the equation F = G*M/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the golem (4.5 x 10 ^ 15 Kilograms), and r is the distance from the golem in meters, the gravitational intensity can be plotted as such:
10000g's: ~5.5m from golem
1000g's: ~17.5m from golem
100g's: ~55m from golem
10g's: ~173.2m from golem
1g: ~548m from golem
0.1g: ~1732.5m from golem

The practical upshot of all this is that the 140 mile radius for the gravitational crush is, while an understandable abstraction, not so good.


----------



## S'mon

Hi Craig - been looking through my copy, very nice!    I like your treatment of my mercury golem (esp the reference to guarding relics of long-dead empires ) , although making it vulnerable to acid makes it a bit easier than IMC   Looking forward to seeing the Krangar (I noticed you included Summon Krangar spell) and Prismatic Puddings (Chaos Pudding) in the next iteration.


----------



## S'mon

BTW C is the World Flayer partly based off my Intruder?  It seems similar in some respects.  I recall there was the brain creature in the Immortals Set D&D rules that also had similarities.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> My socially inept MIT friends and I stayed up for 24 hours and delved in to the pits of madness as we found ourselves alternatively fascinated and disgusted by the spectacle that is the Immortal Bestiary Volume 1.  We got on to the topic of the Neutronium Golem, and Gravity, and 'why you don't understand gravity'.




I was looking for ages on the net trying to find relevant sources. Its easy finding source material on nukes (which I was familiar with anyway), but less so gravity (which I am relatively unfamiliar with).



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> I quote: "All I'm saying is that your super-massive neutronium golem isn't really all that massive.  I've seen bigger.  It's only about a quadrillionth the mass of the sun.  What a little bitch! I've seen small children take on neutronium golems bigger than yours!"








			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Anyway, once I stopped paying attention to his demoralizing rambling, we noted how the golem worked with gravity, and it's gravitational field.
> 
> Basically, as I'm sure yo'ure well aware, the gravitational field of the golem can be accurately approximated by the equation F = G*M/r^2, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the golem (4.5 x 10 ^ 15 Kilograms), and r is the distance from the golem in meters, the gravitational intensity can be plotted as such:
> 
> 10000g's: ~5.5m from golem
> 1000g's: ~17.5m from golem
> 100g's: ~55m from golem
> 10g's: ~173.2m from golem
> 1g: ~548m from golem
> 0.1g: ~1732.5m from golem




Very, very interesting. I have already worked out 2 new aspects of the gravitation field.

Are there any sites on the internet dealing with the effects of high gravity? Or are you guys at MIT up for a bunch of questions? 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> The practical upshot of all this is that the 140 mile radius for the gravitational crush is, while an understandable abstraction, not so good.




In lieu of appropriate material, I had to make an arbitrary decision.


----------



## Upper_Krust

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hi Craig




Hey S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> - been looking through my copy, very nice!




Glad you like it. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I like your treatment of my mercury golem




Thanks! I'm not totally happy with the Sentinels (of the four multi-faceted golems), initially they were meant to be more like your Steel Colossi.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> (esp the reference to guarding relics of long-dead empires ) ,




He he! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> although making it vulnerable to acid makes it a bit easier than IMC




True, but thinking about it, the mercury would be vulnerable to acid. I also added blood poisoning which the original didn't have. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Looking forward to seeing the Krangar (I noticed you included Summon Krangar spell) and Prismatic Puddings (Chaos Pudding) in the next iteration.




These new Krangar are totally brilliant, wait 'til you see. I'm tying the Prismatic Pudding into the Brood/Limbo, it'll also have a few new tricks.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> BTW C is the World Flayer partly based off my Intruder?  It seems similar in some respects.  I recall there was the brain creature in the Immortals Set D&D rules that also had similarities.




Partly, lets just say its my homage to my favourite monster from Wrath of the Immortals. 

I probably should have done all the pseudonatural creatures in Volume 1. Initially I was going to have Algol (my version of Azathoth) in there as well. Volume 1 has the Angels, Volume 2 has the Intelligibles and Umbrals. Volume 3 has the Elementars and Inevitables.

I think if the publisher asks for Volume 1 to be bumped to 96 pages I might include a few more Pseudonaturals in there to make up those extra 8 pages.


----------



## S'mon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> True, but thinking about it, the mercury would be vulnerable to acid. I also added blood poisoning which the original didn't have.




Yeah, that was a cool touch.    

BTW re gravity, the main thing to note AIR is that it decreases proportional to distance squared; so that if you're twice as far away gravity is 1/4.  One effect of this is that small worlds have higher gravity than you might think, basically gravity on surface is proportinal to the diameter of the planet so eg a 12,000 km planet (Earth) has gravity of ca 10 m/s/s* and a 1,200 km planet of same density would have 1/10 the gravity, 1 m/s/s

*Object accelerates towards centre of planet with velocity increasing by 10 meters/second every second.


----------



## MHahn1976

*Minor Nitpicks*

I've been reading through the new release, and I have a coulpe of minor issues:

1) In the odium entry, the Germinate power ends with this phrase:



> Should a seed pod be destroyed while the odium is still living




What does happen if the seed pod is destroyed while the odium is still alive? Nothing good for the PC's, I assume.

2) Light Armor Mastery has a prerequisite of 25 STR, while Medium Armor Mastery has a prerequisite of 20 STR. These should be switched, right? Also, does armor mastery remove arcane spell failure chance and maximum Dexterity bonus? Does it allow monks and others who have class abilities restricted by armor to use those abilities while wearing armor?

3) Does Automatic Metamagic Capacity and Metamagic Freedom apply to all classes of a multiclass spellcaster, or only one? Also, what do the psionic versions look like?

Other than those, GREAT job. Your monsters will keep my players up at night for a LONG, LONG time.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey there MHahn! 



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> I've been reading through the new release, and I have a coulpe of minor issues:
> 
> 1) In the odium entry, the Germinate power ends with this phrase:




That sentence should be:

Should a seed pod be destroyed while the odium is still living it can spend a day creating another.



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> What does happen if the seed pod is destroyed while the odium is still alive? Nothing good for the PC's, I assume.




Different odium will have different wards and guards for the seedpods. If one of their seedpods is destroyed you can be sure it will have the perpetrators hunted down and either captured or killed.



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> 2) Light Armor Mastery has a prerequisite of 25 STR, while Medium Armor Mastery has a prerequisite of 20 STR. These should be switched, right?




Yes, a number of people have mentioned this error, actually, it should be:

Light 25, Medium 30, Heavy 35.

..which I think may mean the Elohim should have Strength 40 as a base.



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> Also, does armor mastery remove arcane spell failure chance and maximum Dexterity bonus?




Yes. The character simply becomes unencumbered by the armour.



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> Does it allow monks and others who have class abilities restricted by armor to use those abilities while wearing armor?




Yes, although I should add that you should also need to be proficient with that type of armour before you can gain those feats. I'll be sure and fix those feats for the official release.



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> 3) Does Automatic Metamagic Capacity and Metamagic Freedom apply to all classes of a multiclass spellcaster, or only one?




It applies to all classes and spell-like abilities.



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> Also, what do the psionic versions look like?




Automatic Manifestation (giving you a free +2 pp bonus) and Metapsionic Freedom (self explanetory).



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> Other than those, GREAT job. Your monsters will keep my players up at night for a LONG, LONG time.




Glad you are happy with it. 

Thanks very much for your feedback (and thanks also to those who emailed as well).


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Is there anyone here from Dicefreaks?*

Hey all! 

I'm just wondering if there is anyone here from *dicefreaks*? I tried signing in earlier and it doesn't seem to recognise my email address when I try and use the 'Forgot your password' option.

I know many of you guys out there will be celebrating *Independence Day* so no major hurry on getting that sorted today I suppose.


----------



## Rhuarc

Hey UK,

I have to say you've done a great job with the first part, very well thought-through and creative. I'm now really happy that I've waited the long time. 
If your other parts of the IH will be nearly as good as this part, they will be excellent


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering if there is anyone here from *dicefreaks*? I tried signing in earlier and it doesn't seem to recognise my email address when I try and use the 'Forgot your password' option.
> 
> I know many of you guys out there will be celebrating *Independence Day* so no major hurry on getting that sorted today I suppose.




I've started a thread there.  It's on its second page; many people had questions.  I fielded them as best I was able, and pointed them to this thread for anything I couldn't handle.
http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1101


----------



## The Serge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!
> 
> I'm just wondering if there is anyone here from *dicefreaks*? I tried signing in earlier and it doesn't seem to recognise my email address when I try and use the 'Forgot your password' option.



Hmmm...  I don't recall if you joined since the second site?  Also, the boards are down right now.  However, I'll take a look at it as soon as we're up tomorrow.



> I know many of you guys out there will be celebrating *Independence Day* so no major hurry on getting that sorted today I suppose.



Actually, I'm celebrating moving day...  

Looking forward to reading this.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Rhuarc said:
			
		

> Hey UK,




Hey Rhuarc mate! 



			
				Rhuarc said:
			
		

> I have to say you've done a great job with the first part, very well thought-through and creative. I'm now really happy that I've waited the long time.
> If your other parts of the IH will be nearly as good as this part, they will be excellent




Thanks for the kind words, but I'm confident the next installments will be much better.


----------



## MHahn1976

> Thanks for the kind words, but I'm confident the next installments will be much better.




UK, its not nice to make a person drool on their own keyboard.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I've started a thread there.  It's on its second page; many people had questions.  I fielded them as best I was able, and pointed them to this thread for anything I couldn't handle.
> http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1101




Yes I read that earlier. Thanks. 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I don't recall if you joined since the second site? Also, the boards are down right now. However, I'll take a look at it as soon as we're up tomorrow.




Its okay, you were right, I actually wasn't registered, which is weird, I could have sworn I posted when you changed the site from the white to black backgrounds. Maybe you changed things again while I was distracted with the IH.   



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm celebrating moving day...
> 
> Looking forward to reading this.




I appreciate the love dude.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Heya mate! 



			
				MHahn1976 said:
			
		

> UK, its not nice to make a person drool on their own keyboard.




I'm generally not one to blow my own trumpet, and I may well be setting myself up for krustifixion, but the design on the Worship Points System, Divinity in general and the new Epic Magic System is so good that even I am satisfied with it...and anyone who knows me, knows I am a perfectionist at heart and (until now) never satisfied with any of my work. 

...the Bestiary was just a warm up.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Very, very interesting. I have already worked out 2 new aspects of the gravitation field.  Are there any sites on the internet dealing with the effects of high gravity? Or are you guys at MIT up for a bunch of questions?




I'll ask my friends about it, but so far, one of them has only mild interest (he thinks releasing the monsters before the immortals rules was very silly) and the other thinks the whole thing is a travesty of 'epic' proportions on principle alone.

Nonetheless, I'll see what they think about it.  As long as the questions aren't super complex and you're willing to put up with a bunch of cynical, bitchy college students questioning your intelligence, your masculinity, and your testicular fortitude at every conceivable opportunity (I've long since gotten used to it) I think we'll be able to help you.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Heya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm generally not one to blow my own trumpet, and I may well be setting myself up for krustifixion, but the design on the Worship Points System, Divinity in general and the new Epic Magic System is so good that even I am satisfied with it...and anyone who knows me, knows I am a perfectionist at heart and (until now) never satisfied with any of my work.
> 
> ...the Bestiary was just a warm up.





Krustifixion!  That's a wonderful new word, I'll have to remember it.  PUBLISH IT NOW YOU BIG UNPUBLISHING INSULTABLE.


----------



## Knight Otu

I.Envy.You.All. 

As for the poll - all of the above.




Except the last two, of course.


----------



## historian

U_K, I've just gotten into the details and I am even more impressed.  Great job of capturing the flavor, particularly of the good and evil aligned beings.  My personal favorites to this point have been the Seraphim and Cherubim, but I reserve the right to alter based on subsequent offerings.   The angelic hierarchy is downright inspiring (no pun intended).  I'm also a big fan of Lady Tadra and Cicatrix (particularly the artifacts), and love where Thanatos is situated.

Great touch on the dimensions as well.  I had initially envisioned the First One of the Inner Planes as being a ruler of certain Outer Planes, but upon further review, the split makes a lot of sense.

The IH truly appears to be a tool that will provide DMs with a tool to create plausible (if not literally impossible) challenges for any party.  The great thing is that the flavor is woven into the mechanics.  I remember that I used to question your "top end" CR.  After reading the Bestiary Preview, I could actually envision First Ones viably carrying a quasi-infinite CR tag (DM, pick a number).  And it all makes sense -- sweet.  

One last thing -- when will we see the Black Hole Golem?  For gins and giggles I would suggest putting it on your website.  I'm guessing virtual size is on the Giga scale?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> U_K, I've just gotten into the details and I am even more impressed.  Great job of capturing the flavor, particularly of the good and evil aligned beings.  My personal favorites to this point have been the Seraphim and Cherubim,




Both of those are missing a special ability.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> but I reserve the right to alter based on subsequent offerings.




You in particular will love the Intelligibles...trust me. 

People will get a kick out of the Inevitables as well...think "Inevitables: constructs in disguise".



			
				historian said:
			
		

> The angelic hierarchy is downright inspiring (no pun intended).




I would have loved keeping the 'classic' three ranks of three, but the pyramidal structure just seemed to fit perfectly.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I'm also a big fan of Lady Tadra and Cicatrix (particularly the artifacts), and love where Thanatos is situated.




Tadra was once Lady Ardat (from the AD&D MM2 Demon Noble list).

Of the four horsemen, I prefer Eris/War...hes based in Gehenna...and hes the general of a huge army.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Great touch on the dimensions as well.  I had initially envisioned the First One of the Inner Planes as being a ruler of certain Outer Planes, but upon further review, the split makes a lot of sense.








			
				historian said:
			
		

> The IH truly appears to be a tool that will provide DMs with a tool to create plausible (if not literally impossible) challenges for any party.  The great thing is that the flavor is woven into the mechanics.  I remember that I used to question your "top end" CR.  After reading the Bestiary Preview, I could actually envision First Ones viably carrying a quasi-infinite CR tag (DM, pick a number).  And it all makes sense -- sweet.




Glad you like it.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> One last thing -- when will we see the Black Hole Golem?  For gins and giggles I would suggest putting it on your website.  I'm guessing virtual size is on the Giga scale?




I will do the Black Hole Golem at some stage I am sure, offhand I can't recall its virtual size category although I have it written down somewhere, its probably only +16 or +17.


----------



## Anabstercorian

It seems like, if the black hole golem has ~ the mass of the sun, it should be approximately 10^15 times more massive, which is approximately 2^50, so it should be well over 16 virtual size categories. o.o  It should be closer to 50...


----------



## NexH

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> It seems like, if the black hole golem has ~ the mass of the sun, it should be approximately 10^15 times more massive, which is approximately 2^50, so it should be well over 16 virtual size categories. o.o  It should be closer to 50...




If a X8 density increases your virtual size category by +1, and those values are correct, then 16 is pretty close since 2^50 =8^(50/3)=8^16,6666...


----------



## Rhuarc

Hi UK,

I've found one vey small spelling mistake and cause you love perfection I guess you wanted to know.
The Akalich's flight speed mentions a mane*o*uverability 

And by the way, this template will be the next evolutionary step for my Dreadlich characters


----------



## Upper_Krust

Rhuarc said:
			
		

> Hi UK,




Hey Rhuarc dude! 



			
				Rhuarc said:
			
		

> I've found one vey small spelling mistake and cause you love perfection I guess you wanted to know.
> The Akalich's flight speed mentions a mane*o*uverability
> 
> And by the way, this template will be the next evolutionary step for my Dreadlich characters




Thanks for the help mate, glad you like it.

The akalich is a progression of bone and spirit.

You have your four basic undead flavours:

Bone: Skeleton < Death Knight/Lich < ?/Demilich
Blood: Ghoul < Vampire < Nosferatu
Flesh: Zombie < Mummy < Hunefer
Spirit: Ghost < Wraith* < ?

I have ideas for the epic Death Knight and Wraith progressions (though I am still toying with names for those), as well as something akin to a super-powered Hunefer-Nosferatu crossbreed (called a Welkin).

I also have a few ideas for different kinds of shadows (Lunar and Stellar varieties).

*If I were detailing spiritual undead the wraith would be more powerful than a mere ghost.

I'd love to put a Hunefer Template in Volume 2, not sure if thats permissable though.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> It seems like, if the black hole golem has ~ the mass of the sun, it should be approximately 10^15 times more massive, which is approximately 2^50, so it should be well over 16 virtual size categories. o.o  It should be closer to 50...





You mean more dense, right?  As for the virtual size categories, log_8(10^15)=16.6096..., so I'd say 16 or 17 virtual size categories (without checking the figure).


----------



## Ashardalon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'd love to put a Hunefer Template in Volume 2, not sure if thats permissable though.



The hunefer is in the SRD, so that shouldn't stop you.

The Death Knight, on the other hand, isn't, so that's a little bit more problematic.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Ashardalon mate! 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> The hunefer is in the SRD, so that shouldn't stop you.




I may indeed add that to Volume 2.

...it wouldn't be identical to the version in the ELH, naturally I have a few ideas to spice it up a bit. 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> The Death Knight, on the other hand, isn't, so that's a little bit more problematic.




...well obviously I wouldn't call it a Death Knight. Maybe Death King - although that doesn't really inspire me. Sword-Wight? Weapon-Wight? King Wight?


----------



## Anabstercorian

Right, my bad on the size categories.  My sincere apologies, Krust!

PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH


----------



## Ashardalon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I may indeed add that to Volume 2.
> 
> ...it wouldn't be identical to the version in the ELH, naturally I have a few ideas to spice it up a bit.



Well, templates for undead monsters are rarely capable of recreating the original undead monster, so why not use that to your advantage? 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> ...well obviously I wouldn't call it a Death Knight. Maybe Death King - although that doesn't really inspire me. Sword-Wight? Weapon-Wight? King Wight?




Slaughterwar Master?


----------



## The Serge

One of my moderators at Dicefreaks bought this for me (I refuse to use PayPal).

Anyway, I must say that the Bestiary is most impressive.  My primary interest lies with the flavor...  I notice that you've added quite a bit to your cosmology beyond that which is established in any edition of D&D with which I'm familiar (unfortunately, I never bought the Immortals box from basic).

Do you plan on statting out the more popular personalities to whom you refer like the various Dukes of Hell or Brood Lords?  Or even something like Metatron?


----------



## Baronovan

Metatron's HP alone would take up their own column.


----------



## The Prophecy

My Friend told me it's a decent book.


My friend told me.


----------



## Campbell

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Ashardalon mate!
> 
> 
> 
> I may indeed add that to Volume 2.
> 
> ...it wouldn't be identical to the version in the ELH, naturally I have a few ideas to spice it up a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...well obviously I wouldn't call it a Death Knight. Maybe Death King - although that doesn't really inspire me. Sword-Wight? Weapon-Wight? King Wight?




How about Swordwraith or Dissolution Vanguard? I realize the second name seems somewhat uninspired, but it's meaning could roughly translate  to 'Foremost position within an army seeking the extermination of life.'.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Campbell said:
			
		

> How about Swordwraith or Dissolution Vanguard? I realize the second name seems somewhat uninspired, but it's meaning could roughly translate  to 'Foremost position within an army seeking the extermination of life.'.




Vanguard of Dissolution / Vanguard of Oblivion sounds a little better.


----------



## Campbell

Vanguard of Dissolution does actually have a nice ring to it. If UK doesn't use it I'll have to find a place for it.


----------



## Fieari

Campbell said:
			
		

> How about Swordwraith or Dissolution Vanguard? I realize the second name seems somewhat uninspired, but it's meaning could roughly translate  to 'Foremost position within an army seeking the extermination of life.'.



I like both those suggestions myself.  Dissolution puts me in mind of "Opposite of Absolution"... and Swordwraith... well, puts one in mind of Ringwraiths, doesn't it.

If those won't do, though, on those lines, how about Nightwraith, Deathcloak, Underwight, Akawight (by your Akalich)... some more made up syllables could work well too... like Narwight, or Valwraith.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Alzrius

Campbell said:
			
		

> How about Swordwraith or Dissolution Vanguard?




Just pointing out that swordwraiths have been in D&D for a while. Here's their 3E incarnation: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20040202a


----------



## Campbell

Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Serge mate! 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> One of my moderators at Dicefreaks bought this for me (I refuse to use PayPal).




I know.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> Anyway, I must say that the Bestiary is most impressive.




Thanks. There are a few things still need tweaked, but I was glad I 'let it go' when I did, otherwise I could have been holding on to it for another few months. 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> My primary interest lies with the flavor...  I notice that you've added quite a bit to your cosmology beyond that which is established in any edition of D&D with which I'm familiar




Yes. I have done quite a lot of research on the cosmology and I like where its ended up, all the pieces fit very neatly I think. Things like the position of the Angels are explained, etc.

In the rest of the book I explain how the pantheons fit into all this.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> (unfortunately, I never bought the Immortals box from basic).




I have Wrath of the Immortals (OD&D) which is a very good book. But I didn't use anything from that to determine my cosmology.

The lower dimensions are from the Sephirothic Tree of Life and Gnostic Mysticism, the higher dimensions are from the Book of Enoch and other occult elements (things like super-universes). Where possible I have linked the number and form of a dimension to real world physics. Of course I had to tie everything into the official D&D cosmology, but that all seemed to just fall into place.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> Do you plan on statting out the more popular personalities to whom you refer like the various Dukes of Hell or Brood Lords?  Or even something like Metatron?




I'll maybe do a Demogorgon, or Asmodeus sometime for the website.

I'll probably have a few more unique characters in future Bestiary's. There are a dozen sample deities in the Immortals Handbook itself (including Lucifer, Metatron and even some Time Lords). There will be numerous NPCs (both epic and divine) in the Chronicle volume of the IH.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

Regarding the name of the Death Knight upgrade, at the moment I am favouring King Wight (reminds me somewhat of the Witch King from Lord of the Rings). However as you know, I like to have two names for every monster, one esoteric and one common. Obviously King Wight would be the common name.

By the way, this would be the epic Death Knight upgrade in the same way that the Demilich is the Lich upgrade. The akalich is the step beyond even Demilich. So I am not sure Akawight is appropriate.

Vanguard of Dissolution sounds pretty cool, but I am not convinced its right for the Death Knight upgrade. Might make a good prestige class though...?

I also like the name Underwight, I'll have to come up with a concept to fit that name. Perhaps its the earthen version of the lava and winterwights?


----------



## S'mon

Hi Craig - just in case you were wondering re the attacks in London, Ing & me are ok (but she's stuck in central London), there's a thread in the off-topic forum.


----------



## Upper_Krust

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hi Craig - just in case you were wondering re the attacks in London, Ing & me are ok (but she's stuck in central London), there's a thread in the off-topic forum.




Glad to hear you are both fine mate.


----------



## The Prophecy

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I also like the name Underwight, I'll have to come up with a concept to fit that name. Perhaps its the earthen version of the lava and winterwights?




Maybe you could do Abovewight and Boomwight, for air and sonic, respectively.


----------



## historian

Thanks U_K.



> You in particular will love the Intelligibles...trust me.




Excellent.

BTW, the Robe(s) of the Almighty is a nasty, nasty artifact.  I'm assuming it can be countered (my memory is fuzzy on anti-magic and Mord's disjunction), but if I'm not mistaken you have a cosmic ability that is a functional equivalent.  Any tips on countering this power as a cosmic ability?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> BTW, the Robe(s) of the Almighty is a nasty, nasty artifact.  I'm assuming it can be countered (my memory is fuzzy on anti-magic and Mord's disjunction), but if I'm not mistaken you have a cosmic ability that is a functional equivalent.  Any tips on countering this power as a cosmic ability?




Strike with multiple (relatively) low powered attackers.

*By the way, I know there are a few people who bought the Bestiary tonight that I haven't been able to send it to yet. My hotmail has been acting up these past few hours. I keep getting 'service unavailable' messages, although it let me in once (which is how I know there are replies pending), but then it nuked me again when I tried to reply. Rest assured I'll send it to you as soon as I can, although that may be tomorrow morning given that its after midnight here. I apologise for the inconvenience.*


----------



## The Prophecy

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *By the way, I know there are a few people who bought the Bestiary tonight that I haven't been able to send it to yet. My hotmail has been acting up these past few hours. I keep getting 'service unavailable' messages, although it let me in once (which is how I know there are replies pending), but then it nuked me again when I tried to reply. Rest assured I'll send it to you as soon as I can, although that may be tomorrow morning given that its after midnight here. I apologise for the inconvenience.*




That's ok. It popped up on a Kazaa search already.


----------



## Anabstercorian

You know, TheProphecy, your avatar seems REALLY familiar...

Krusty, have you decided on what your next project is?  What's the due date?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Krusty, have you decided on what your next project is?  What's the due date?




Well the poll looks like favouring the Immortals Handbook (core rules - for want of a better phrase), followed by the Grimoire (Magic Spells and Items), followed by the Chronicle (Campaign Advice, Adventures, Prestige Classes). So Volume 2 of the Bestiary will be taking a back seat for a while.

As for the release date - this is me remember - release dates ain't my specialty.   

However I would add that the Immortals Handbook is already 50%+ finished and the Grimoire is about 25% finished. So I hope they won't take too long to complete.

Also I'm in talks with a publisher at the moment (nothing signed yet, but I'll let you know if and when) and if they decide to bring in an artist or artists I would be happy passing off those duties, which would free up a lot of time for the writing.


----------



## Baronovan

The public wants Apotheosis, according to the poll.


----------



## Nifelhein

UK,

I have a friend who is an artist, i can talk to him about making pcitures for this project, but he does not speak english and so, any contact would have to be made with me and I would talk to him. He does not have much in the way of samples but I have linked to one the works he has doen and i like below.

If you give me a description of one drawing you think should be the best way of evaluating the quality of his work send it to me and  will pass to him, without any need to commit the work as a whole ti him or even hire him anyway.

Mail me at r.cananeia < A T > gmail < D O T > com if you wanna talk about this, I know he would love to enter the business and I have a lot of pride for the quality of work he can produce, not to say that I would criticize every one of them and be on his back telling him to do them. 

He can do scenarios too, i will see if I can make him scan one of those he has done to showcase it too. the site in the image is of the company he has with some other friends of ours, hiring the company can be more costy, however.

Drop me a line.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Krust, what's the remaining pagecount on Apotheosis?


----------



## Clay

Yes, Apotheosis!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Krust, what's the remaining pagecount on Apotheosis?




Technically zero, since I have all the pages in place, but not each page completed. The portfolios chapter needs the most attention. I'll also go over the abilities and epic feats section. I have actually come up with more powers while working on the Bestiary, so if anything there may even be more powers and abilities. 

I also have a section on feat and ability packages, to help players and DMs create characters faster. In many ways this mimics multifaceted abilities in D&Dg like Divine Monk or Divine Paladin, which are not individual abilities but more of a collection of feats...of course I go a few better with things like Cosmic Paladin (collection of relevant Divine Abilities) and Transcendental Monk (collection of relevant Cosmic Abilities). 

The abilities section is already massive and could even end up with over 500 abilities.


----------



## Sledge

How about an Apotheosis Vol 1?
I need another hit of epicy goodness!


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Technically zero, since I have all the pages in place, but not each page completed. The portfolios chapter needs the most attention. I'll also go over the abilities and epic feats section. I have actually come up with more powers while working on the Bestiary, so if anything there may even be more powers and abilities.




Forget em'.  Just finish it.  Publish it.  Quit adding to it.  Finish the damned product or you will die alone and poor and unloved and forgotten.



> I also have a section on feat and ability packages, to help players and DMs create characters faster. In many ways this mimics multifaceted abilities in D&Dg like Divine Monk or Divine Paladin, which are not individual abilities but more of a collection of feats...of course I go a few better with things like Cosmic Paladin (collection of relevant Divine Abilities) and Transcendental Monk (collection of relevant Cosmic Abilities).
> 
> The abilities section is already massive and could even end up with over 500 abilities.




The feat and ability packages is a BRILLIANT idea.  It would save SO much time making new characters...


----------



## Campbell

Hey Krust,

I'm wondering when Volume I of the Bestiary is going to be available on RPG Now. I'd go directly through you, but my hat of Pay pal know no limit.


----------



## BSF

I _need_ apotheosis.  It just appeals too much to the detail work I want for my pantheon of deities.  I also have a PC that is striving to reach that sort of power.  I like to plan in advance.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> How about an Apotheosis Vol 1?
> I need another hit of epicy goodness!




Apotheosis has four primary chapters - Apotheosis (How to become a god), Divinity (what happens when you become a god), Portfolios and Abilities. There are also a number of deity examples.

All the chapters are needed, dividing things any smaller just won't work.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Forget em'. Just finish it. Publish it. Quit adding to it.




You guys know me by now.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Finish the damned product or you will die alone and poor and unloved and forgotten.




Don't rush genius. 

Alone, poor, unloved and forgotten I can live with. Releasing a substandard Immortals Handbook I cannot. I promise it will *school* any other Immortal product *ever*. What I don't promise is when.  



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> The feat and ability packages is a BRILLIANT idea. It would save SO much time making new characters...




Well I can't really take the credit given that Deities & Demigods already had the idea.   



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> Hey Krust,




Hey Campbell mate! 



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm wondering when Volume I of the Bestiary is going to be available on RPG Now. I'd go directly through you, but my hat of Pay pal know no limit.




As soon as possible.



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> I _need_ apotheosis. It just appeals too much to the detail work I want for my pantheon of deities. I also have a PC that is striving to reach that sort of power. I like to plan in advance.




As per the poll. Apotheosis will be my top priority after the Bestiary art is completed.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

I meant to say...if you have any other suggestions for what you want to see in the Immortals Handbook (any part of it). Either post here or email me. I think I have everything covered, but you can never be too sure I suppose.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I don't suppose you are a fan of the (rarely updated) "Tales of Wyre" story hour, are you?  They are my gold standard of epic level gaming.

What is distinctive about the story hour is the ambiguity in its treatment of cosmological and theological issues.  E.g., take this little snippet, especially the last line:



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> Another issue was that of class levels. I have a general uneasiness about assigning them to outsiders, but one which is particularly marked with celestials. This is a largely philosophical objection – celestials are ‘Created,’ and are embodiments of Oronthon’s power. They are dependant wholly upon him. They do not grow in power, and there is a kind of ‘static’ or ‘unchanging’ quality about them – note that detractors would use words such as ‘stagnant’ or ‘atrophied.’ Class levels imply the idea of ‘becoming’ and celestials are more about ‘being.’
> 
> A solar with 30HD has not ‘grown’ from a solar with 22 HD – it was simply created that way, more powerful than its peers. It’s designed to demonstrate both the idea that individuation really isn’t what celestials are all about, and one of the principal dualities in the game mythos – that demons and devils, by rejecting Oronthon’s law have embraced individualism, whereas celestials, by submitting willingly to it, have overcome the desire for change. Of course, fiends have paid a heavy price for their rebellion. Devils have ultimately been denied what they originally sought – they are locked into a regime far more rigid and oppressive than the one they originally sought release from. And demons, although totally liberated, have lost all desire for everything except gratification – preferably of the immediate type – through pain, lust, anger and violence.
> 
> Perhaps these failures are indicative of the fact that it is not within the Original Nature of a celestial to exert individual will, to choose a course of action – to do anything, in fact, which is contrary to the Will of Oronthon. If they try, they are as doomed to failure as a human who jumps from a cliff and hopes to fly. Of course, others would characterize the Bright God as a vengeful, vindictive despot, who hates to see his creations assume responsibility for themselves. Either, both, or neither may be true, depending on the observer.




Would the Immortal's Handbook preserve this sort of ambiguity?  Could you have different (bitterly opposed) religions who worship the same deity?  Although this is obviously (and painfully) possible in our world, it would seem that it would be impossible in most D&D campaigns.  A few _communes_ should solve the question of which religion is "right" in the way it worships their common deity- perhaps it would be necessary to _gate_ in a solar and question him/her closely.  But the ambiguity is resolvable.  'Twould be nice if the Immortal's Handbook allowed certain ambiguities to be systemic and irresolvable.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I don't suppose you are a fan of the (rarely updated) "Tales of Wyre" story hour, are you?  They are my gold standard of epic level gaming.




I'm afraid not. I used to read Piratecats Story Hour (a few years back this is) but that was the only Story Hour I followed for a time.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> What is distinctive about the story hour is the ambiguity in its treatment of cosmological and theological issues.  E.g., take this little snippet, especially the last line:




Interesting...I'll take a look.



			
				Sepulchrave said:
			
		

> Another issue was that of class levels. I have a general uneasiness about assigning them to outsiders, but one which is particularly marked with celestials. This is a largely philosophical objection – celestials are ‘Created,’ and are embodiments of Oronthon’s power. They are dependant wholly upon him. They do not grow in power, and there is a kind of ‘static’ or ‘unchanging’ quality about them – note that detractors would use words such as ‘stagnant’ or ‘atrophied.’ Class levels imply the idea of ‘becoming’ and celestials are more about ‘being.’




I both agree and disagree with these comments.

I also, hate the idea of class levels on Outsiders (I don't use any in the Immortals Handbook: Bestiary). However, for me the reasoning is different. The ability to gain class levels denotes a measure of free will, that is simply something Outsiders never have, and by Outsiders I am specifically refering to 'spirits', such as Demons, Devils, Angels etc. 

Now that is not to say that Outsiders do not understand free will (I sort of touch on this in the IH: Bestiary with the whole idea of Dimensional Bleeding and the problems that initially caused). But Outsiders are not 'born' *of* free will, unlike mortals.

To get a bit more technical, mortals are born of the Dimension of Assiah, the Material Plane. This is the dimension of space and is linked to fate. It comprises of 3 dimensions (left-right, forward-back, up-down) and as such, choice, is ingrained within it.

All the other dimensions are comprised of a single dimension. Therefore true free will does not exist for its natives.

Thats why demons are *Always Chaotic Evil* for example.  



			
				Sepulchrave said:
			
		

> A solar with 30HD has not ‘grown’ from a solar with 22 HD – it was simply created that way, more powerful than its peers.




I don't like this idea, it assumes total stagnation. Angels and demons are frequently destroyed, typically others will rise to fill the hole, but these replacements (or their power ups) do not simply pop up out of the blue. 

As to how spirits grow, I'll explain fully in the Immortals Handbook. Although one method is similar to Highlanders 'Quickening'.



			
				Sepulchrave said:
			
		

> It’s designed to demonstrate both the idea that individuation really isn’t what celestials are all about, and one of the principal dualities in the game mythos – that demons and devils, by rejecting Oronthon’s law have embraced individualism, whereas celestials, by submitting willingly to it, have overcome the desire for change. Of course, fiends have paid a heavy price for their rebellion. Devils have ultimately been denied what they originally sought – they are locked into a regime far more rigid and oppressive than the one they originally sought release from. And demons, although totally liberated, have lost all desire for everything except gratification – preferably of the immediate type – through pain, lust, anger and violence.




If they truly embraced individualism they wouldn't be assigned a set alignment, so I disagree with the above conjecture. Interesting though.



			
				Sepulchrave said:
			
		

> Perhaps these failures are indicative of the fact that it is not within the Original Nature of a celestial to exert individual will, to choose a course of action – to do anything, in fact, which is contrary to the Will of Oronthon. If they try, they are as doomed to failure as a human who jumps from a cliff and hopes to fly. Of course, others would characterize the Bright God as a vengeful, vindictive despot, who hates to see his creations assume responsibility for themselves. Either, both, or neither may be true, depending on the observer.




Unless the being who created them (or the process that led to their creation) was itself bereft of free will.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Would the Immortal's Handbook preserve this sort of ambiguity?




Seemingly yes, although not necessarily for the same reasons.

QUOTE=Cheiromancer]Could you have different (bitterly opposed) religions who worship the same deity?  Although this is obviously (and painfully) possible in our world, it would seem that it would be impossible in most D&D campaigns. [/QUOTE] 

It would probably depend upon either divine cooperation or divine antipathy.

Either the deity would actively support the schism (assumes a chaotic god, probably neutral or even evil), or the deity is simply so far removed from the day to day workings of its worshippers that it doesn't really care that much (at least Intermediate power, more likely Greater power).



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> A few _communes_ should solve the question of which religion is "right" in the way it worships their common deity- perhaps it would be necessary to _gate_ in a solar and question him/her closely.  But the ambiguity is resolvable.  'Twould be nice if the Immortal's Handbook allowed certain ambiguities to be systemic and irresolvable.




Ambiguity is more of a DMs caveat, rather than a systemic property.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Craig, I FORBID you to read Sepulchrave's story hour until you've finished the damn IH.


----------



## Starman

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If they truly embraced individualism they wouldn't be assigned a set alignment, so I disagree with the above conjecture. Interesting though.




In Sep's game their alignment isn't totally set. The paladin, Eadric, and the druid, Nwm, helped redeem a succubus at one point. It's not a frequent event, to be sure. But it seems that it is possible.

Starman


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The ability to gain class levels denotes a measure of free will, that is simply something Outsiders never have, and by Outsiders I am specifically refering to 'spirits', such as Demons, Devils, Angels etc.
> 
> Now that is not to say that Outsiders do not understand free will (I sort of touch on this in the IH: Bestiary with the whole idea of Dimensional Bleeding and the problems that initially caused). But Outsiders are not 'born' *of* free will, unlike mortals.
> 
> To get a bit more technical, mortals are born of the Dimension of Assiah, the Material Plane. This is the dimension of space and is linked to fate. It comprises of 3 dimensions (left-right, forward-back, up-down) and as such, choice, is ingrained within it.
> 
> All the other dimensions are comprised of a single dimension. Therefore true free will does not exist for its natives.
> 
> Thats why demons are *Always Chaotic Evil* for example.




Does your system support a cosmology that has fallen angels?  I.e. like Milton's _Paradise Lost_?  As in Milton, Sep's mythos involves a revolt in heaven; they lose, and their leader loses his name, to be known thereafter simply as the Adversary.  These angels fell to Hell, but some of them subsequently revolted against the Adversary; the refugees from the second revolt went to the Abyss.  They are called the "twice fallen."  The succubus Nehael (Lady Despina), whose conversion is the basis of the first part of the story hour, might be described as "thrice fallen."  But she is clearly a special case, though this is apparent only in retrospect.

The point is that Sep's cosmology requires that celestials have multiple "choice points" in their history, much as people do.  (Some philosophers would hold that our own experience of choice is an illusion, but that is a different story. And even if our free will is an illusion, celestials would need to experience a similar kind of illusion in order to be described as fallen, much less twice or thrice fallen.)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If they truly embraced individualism they wouldn't be assigned a set alignment, so I disagree with the above conjecture. Interesting though.




Except they sorted themselves into groups according to their individual choices.  Tho fallen who were lawful and evil went into Hell.  Those who were chaotic and evil went to the Abyss.  I am not sure what role neutral evil fiends play in the cosmology, but I suspect that the second revolt polarized alignments; either you stayed faithful to the Adversary (and stayed lawful) or you didn't (and became chaotic).  The alignment of the plane in which you were residing probably plays a role.  Still, I bet some stragglers from the second revolt ended up in Hades and are ethically neutral.

What is true of celestials is that their alignments tend to be strongly polarized.  When they are good, they are very, very good, and when they are bad they are horrid.  Part of that is due to the length of time they have to develop morally and ethically; a process of corruption that is allowed to run for thousands, millions or billions of years will produce a very evil being.  Similarly something that renders them chaotic.  Since they are "intended" to be good, their evil is pathological, and tends to extremes.  Also, part of their alignment extremism is due to the company they keep, and the plane they reside on.  It is hard to be in Hell for millions of years, surrounded by fiends, without getting a little twisted yourself.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Cheiromancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you have different (bitterly opposed) religions who worship the same deity?  Although this is obviously (and painfully) possible in our world, it would seem that it would be impossible in most D&D campaigns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably depend upon either divine cooperation or divine antipathy.
> 
> Either the deity would actively support the schism (assumes a chaotic god, probably neutral or even evil), or the deity is simply so far removed from the day to day workings of its worshippers that it doesn't really care that much (at least Intermediate power, more likely Greater power).
Click to expand...



Oronthonism is a type of solar monotheism.  In the early part of the story hour it is similar in feel to medieval Catholicism.  He's definitely a Greater power.  Lawful Good, but possibly a bit schizophrenic from the competing priorities of perfect Law and perfect Goodness.  I am also sensing something like the theme from the Valus campaign setting that gods can have both good and evil aspects.  (Valusian gods all have the Good and Evil domains; neutral clerics can take one if they also take the other)

As for being detached, well, Oronthon usually (always?) works through angelic intermediaries, and I'm not sure how much initiative and interpretation his angels operate under.  When someone communes with Oronthon, they get the angel in charge of revelation.  I suspect that when angels commune with Oronthon, they in turn get a higher level angel.  Maybe its angels all the way up, and Oronthon is an "emergent property" of the system?

Have you read the Sandman spinoff "Lucifer"?  The angels in that series generally rely on their own understanding of God's will, though a few of them (e.g. Michael) very occasionally receive messages directly.  I think that might be closer to Sep's intent.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Craig, I FORBID you to read Sepulchrave's story hour until you've finished the damn IH.




I know mate - don't worry I won't go there, even to peek.



			
				Starman said:
			
		

> In Sep's game their alignment isn't totally set.




Well that makes more sense with regards his perspective on things, though it doesn't account for stagnation.



			
				Starman said:
			
		

> The paladin, Eadric, and the druid, Nwm, helped redeem a succubus at one point. It's not a frequent event, to be sure. But it seems that it is possible.




Well I think the key point here is that it took outside interference to redeem the Succubus.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Does your system support a cosmology that has fallen angels?




Of course, but the catalyst for their fall is always something extreneous to their being.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I.e. like Milton's _Paradise Lost_?  As in Milton, Sep's mythos involves a revolt in heaven; they lose, and their leader loses his name, to be known thereafter simply as the Adversary.  These angels fell to Hell, but some of them subsequently revolted against the Adversary; the refugees from the second revolt went to the Abyss.  They are called the "twice fallen."  The succubus Nehael (Lady Despina), whose conversion is the basis of the first part of the story hour, might be described as "thrice fallen."  But she is clearly a special case, though this is apparent only in retrospect.




To expand upon my point above. 

Lucifer revolted because of the attention GOD was giving to mortals.

Semyaza subsequently revolted after a period wherein the Grigori were living amidst mortals.

Its clear that in both cases 'dimensional bleeding' led to the revolts. In the first instance 'free will' was introduced to heaven, and in the second the angels were living within the dimension of mortals for an extended period of time.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> The point is that Sep's cosmology requires that celestials have multiple "choice points" in their history, much as people do.  (Some philosophers would hold that our own experience of choice is an illusion, but that is a different story. And even if our free will is an illusion, celestials would need to experience a similar kind of illusion in order to be described as fallen, much less twice or thrice fallen.)




These 'choice points' I would (for the most part) consider dimensional bleeding.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Except they sorted themselves into groups according to their individual choices.  Tho fallen who were lawful and evil went into Hell.  Those who were chaotic and evil went to the Abyss.  I am not sure what role neutral evil fiends play in the cosmology, but I suspect that the second revolt polarized alignments; either you stayed faithful to the Adversary (and stayed lawful) or you didn't (and became chaotic).  The alignment of the plane in which you were residing probably plays a role.  Still, I bet some stragglers from the second revolt ended up in Hades and are ethically neutral.




By the same token I don't believe all devils (or demons) were once angels. Some are simply the once souls of mortals.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> What is true of celestials is that their alignments tend to be strongly polarized.  When they are good, they are very, very good, and when they are bad they are horrid.  Part of that is due to the length of time they have to develop morally and ethically; a process of corruption that is allowed to run for thousands, millions or billions of years will produce a very evil being.  Similarly something that renders them chaotic.  Since they are "intended" to be good, their evil is pathological, and tends to extremes.  Also, part of their alignment extremism is due to the company they keep, and the plane they reside on.  It is hard to be in Hell for millions of years, surrounded by fiends, without getting a little twisted yourself.




I think that is true for all spirits. Once the soul arrives at its destination and becomes a spirit, it is inevitably and inextricably linked to that plane.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Oronthonism is a type of solar monotheism.  In the early part of the story hour it is similar in feel to medieval Catholicism.  He's definitely a Greater power.  Lawful Good, but possibly a bit schizophrenic from the competing priorities of perfect Law and perfect Goodness.  I am also sensing something like the theme from the Valus campaign setting that gods can have both good and evil aspects.  (Valusian gods all have the Good and Evil domains; neutral clerics can take one if they also take the other)




I have a list and alignment of all the gods and pantheons I hope to include within the Immortals Index. I have been able to spread the Pantheons out over the various alignments which of course meant that I was taking a few liberties with some of them, such as the Canaanite God, El which I have as Lawful Evil.

However each Pantheon has a mirror opposite that allows you to simply swop the alignments around. So for instance the Greek Pantheon is led by the Chaotic Good Zeus, whereas its shadow counterpart (the occult term for this is _favarshi_); the Roman Pantheon is led by the Lawful Evil Jupiter.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> As for being detached, well, Oronthon usually (always?) works through angelic intermediaries, and I'm not sure how much initiative and interpretation his angels operate under.  When someone communes with Oronthon, they get the angel in charge of revelation.  I suspect that when angels commune with Oronthon, they in turn get a higher level angel.  Maybe its angels all the way up, and Oronthon is an "emergent property" of the system?




I'm curious, have you seen the Bestiary Vol.1 yet? 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Have you read the Sandman spinoff "Lucifer"?  The angels in that series generally rely on their own understanding of God's will, though a few of them (e.g. Michael) very occasionally receive messages directly.  I think that might be closer to Sep's intent.




I have read a few issues, but not enough to really familiarise myself with it.

Are there any trades for this that would get me into it quick (presumably collecting the first half dozen or so issues would do the trick I imagine)?


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'm curious, have you seen the Bestiary Vol.1 yet?




No.  I was hoping that it would get to RPG Now before very much longer.



> Are there any trades for this that would get me into it quick (presumably collecting the first half dozen or so issues would do the trick I imagine)?




Yeah.  The 8th one just came out.  (Issue 45 and 50-54).  Issue 50 is "Lilith" and has its own take on Lucifer's fall.  Still what you would call "dimensional bleeding," though. (Lilith's seduction of one of the angels is instrumental in getting it started.  But Lilith is Adam's first wife and is human, though apparently both immortal and extremely fertile).  

On God's standoffishness.  Issue 50 has a little dialogue between Lucifer (whose proper name is Samael) and Gabriel.

Gabriel- "Yahweh has said nothing to any of us since the business of Creation was finished.  But he fashioned us to be his hands and his tools.  For us to remain idle would therefore be a sin."

Samael/Lucifer- "So we are to finish out eternity trying to second-guess his intentions?  To be his *tools*?  As if there were some kind of nobility in self-abasement?"

Gabriel- "And is there not?"

Samael/Lucifer- "None that I can see.  We are his children-- his first-born.  The freedom he enjoys is our birthright too."

Etc.

The movie "What dreams may come" surprised me when it came out- God seemed as inaccessible to the souls of the dead as to living beings.  But now the trope is more familiar; he is more or less equally (in)accessible to all finite beings.


Now, I don't know if mortals were a factor in the Great Revolt in Sep's mythos.  They were seeking greater freedom and autonomy, but I don't know if this desire was triggered by something outside of them.


----------



## Sledge

I'm finding it very interesting that much of my personal planar overview will be completely contrary to that in the Immortal's handbook.  For instance in my viewpoint anything in the regular outsider hierarchy was once a mortal.  Freedom of choice is an inherent part of all these outsiders as their status here is just another stepping stone in their evolution.  As mortals the evolution is primarily symbolic and such, but once these mortal transition to outsiders they lose their access to their memories without losing their memories influence on their choices.  At this point they begin a literal and physical evolution as they progress and develop.  In theory as well (never had to deal with this quite yet) there are steps beyond outsider.  Several of these will probably be me kidnapping stuff from the IH.  At these further steps I will also reveal the big darks.  Forces that wanted to do it all differently, and without freedom of choice.  These forces will likely redefine evil, as their actions will always be large scale changes.
Hopefully I can keeping mining fluff for ideas while I steal critters.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Krusty, if you never hammer out a target date for your next release, maybe you'll never get krustified on the crosshairs, but you'll never finish the book.


----------



## Zoatebix

Time to distract you for a minute or two, sir!

Okay, I dragged out my version 4 challenge rating document yet again, and I'm a little confused about ability scores.  The numbers on pages eight and nineteen don't seem to agree.  If the CR factor for +1 to an ability score is 0.1 CR, then shouldn't the percent CR for ability score increases be 2.5%?  5 times .1 divided by 20 is 2.5%, right - just like 11 fighter bonus feats is 11 times .2 divided by 20 is 11%?

On a somewhat unrelated thread, and assuming page 19 is the typo and not page eight, would it be acceptable to update the epic feats "Great [ability score]" so that they give a +2 bonus to the score?

Third nitpicky thing: The Bestiary vol 1 has no Identification of Open Game Content, nor a declaration of product identity.

I found a few more edits to email you, but I forgot to write them down, so I'll have to find them again.

The more I read, the more I enjoy the work, and the more I look forward to future installments.


----------



## Campbell

Zoatebix, this should help.


			
				Challenging Challenge Ratings v5 said:
			
		

> How Ability Scores are determined:
> • Total all rated ability scores.
> • Subtract 63 from the total (representing 10.5 per ability score)
> • Divide remainder by 10 to get the CR modifier
> 
> 1. Ability Score Increases: +5 (+1/4 Levels) CR +0.05



Version 5 doesn't seem to address percentages at all, even within the class breakdown.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Campbell said:
			
		

> Version 5 doesn't seem to address percentages at all, even within the class breakdown.




I think Zoatebix is trying to say that U_K priced it as if it was 5 increases over 10 levels (0.05 = 5 x 0.1 / 10) instead of 5 increases over 20 levels (0.025 = 5 x 0.1 / 20).


----------



## Campbell

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I think Zoatebix is trying to say that U_K priced it as if it was 5 increases over 10 levels (0.05 = 5 x 0.1 / 10) instead of 5 increases over 20 levels (0.025 = 5 x 0.1 / 20).



It looks like he was correct.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 

...and thanks for the reply Cheiromancer dude! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I'm finding it very interesting that much of my personal planar overview will be completely contrary to that in the Immortal's handbook.




Obviously you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I think what I have done with the cosmology in the Immortals Handbook is introduce a few ideas that merge seamlessly with the established cosmology while at the same time offer something new.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> For instance in my viewpoint anything in the regular outsider hierarchy was once a mortal.




I'm familiar with this atheistical approach. Indirectly the idea still gels with everything in the IH, but I'd need to go into detail on the Pantheons to explain that, so you'll just have to trust me for now. 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Freedom of choice is an inherent part of all these outsiders as their status here is just another stepping stone in their evolution.  As mortals the evolution is primarily symbolic and such, but once these mortal transition to outsiders they lose their access to their memories without losing their memories influence on their choices.  At this point they begin a literal and physical evolution as they progress and develop.  In theory as well (never had to deal with this quite yet) there are steps beyond outsider.  Several of these will probably be me kidnapping stuff from the IH.  At these further steps I will also reveal the big darks.  Forces that wanted to do it all differently, and without freedom of choice.  These forces will likely redefine evil, as their actions will always be large scale changes.
> Hopefully I can keeping mining fluff for ideas while I steal critters.




It sounds as though the terms chaos and law would better suit your needs (I know S'mon prefers a Chaos /Law dichotomy, rather than good and evil).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Zoatebix mate! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Time to distract you for a minute or two, sir!




Okay...but only for a minute. 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Okay, I dragged out my version 4 challenge rating document yet again, and I'm a little confused about ability scores.  The numbers on pages eight and nineteen don't seem to agree.  If the CR factor for +1 to an ability score is 0.1 CR, then shouldn't the percent CR for ability score increases be 2.5%?  5 times .1 divided by 20 is 2.5%, right - just like 11 fighter bonus feats is 11 times .2 divided by 20 is 11%?




This might seem like a mistake, but it was actually a design decision, whether this was correct or not remains to be seen. Basically I was trying to represent the difference between a natural increase and a supernatural increase, so +2 would be okay for a natural increase, but +1 is better for a supernatural increase.

eg. the maximum natural strength for a human is 23. Anything up to 23 (for a human) would be a natural increase, anything after that is supernatural.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> On a somewhat unrelated thread, and assuming page 19 is the typo and not page eight, would it be acceptable to update the epic feats "Great [ability score]" so that they give a +2 bonus to the score?




Anyone who remembers the original CR/EL stuff will know that I initially championed the idea of a feat giving a +2 increase. But my spider-sense is telling me +2 for a feat is a bad idea.

eg. Improved Toughness would become markedly inferior to Great Constitution.

eg. Epic Prowess would become notably inferior to Great Strength.

It creates far too many waves.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Third nitpicky thing: The Bestiary vol 1 has no Identification of Open Game Content, nor a declaration of product identity.




The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I found a few more edits to email you, but I forgot to write them down, so I'll have to find them again.




I appreciate the help mate.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> The more I read, the more I enjoy the work, and the more I look forward to future installments.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people.




I think, as a manner of legality, that you should reconsider -- without the OGL and open content, you have no grounds on which to create derivative works of the SRD/PH.

(Not a lawyer.)


----------



## CR2000

Just gotta say, a friend of mine bought a copy and I was reading it up while at his house the other day. It was so good it made me go from being just a lurking guest to a signed member just to tell you the good work that has been put into this project.


----------



## Zoatebix

Thanks for the words of advice on ability scores, U_K.  I've definately seen the error of my ways.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I think, as a manner of legality, that you should reconsider -- without the OGL and open content, you have no grounds on which to create derivative works of the SRD/PH.
> 
> (Not a lawyer.)



Also not a lawyer, but I think section 8 of the OGL has some key information on this stuff, but there might be somethin' somewhere else.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CRGreathouse mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I think, as a manner of legality, that you should reconsider -- without the OGL and open content, you have no grounds on which to create derivative works of the SRD/PH.
> 
> (Not a lawyer.)




I'll get it all sorted out before the official release.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CR2000! 



			
				CR2000 said:
			
		

> Just gotta say, a friend of mine bought a copy and I was reading it up while at his house the other day. It was so good it made me go from being just a lurking guest to a signed member just to tell you the good work that has been put into this project.




Thanks for the kind words. Its not perfect, but I suppose I am quite happy with most of it. Glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## Sledge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Obviously you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I think what I have done with the cosmology in the Immortals Handbook is introduce a few ideas that merge seamlessly with the established cosmology while at the same time offer something new.



Of course, I wouldn't expect your cosmology to match my cosmology, as then it would just be your cosmology.   



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'm familiar with this atheistical approach. Indirectly the idea still gels with everything in the IH, but I'd need to go into detail on the Pantheons to explain that, so you'll just have to trust me for now.



I wouldn't say it is atheistic, so much as a different framework.  I still have a creator GOD in mind.  It's just that the outsider types aren't his direct soldiers.  Some of them seek to follow him I'm sure, but he does not actively lead them, even from atop a celestial pyramid scheme.



> It sounds as though the terms chaos and law would better suit your needs (I know S'mon prefers a Chaos /Law dichotomy, rather than good and evil).



Well I did start with the purple basic set...
Seriously though, as everyone says, good or evil actions depend on your viewpoint.  The dark powers I have in mind just have a much bigger view point.  Hopefully by the time I introduce them, the PC's will also be seeing the picture.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people.



Strictly speaking, I'm pretty confident that you MUST make, at the very least, the non-original stats OGC, since they're from an OGC source (the SRD). I don't know for certain, but I think that, technically, selling it at all, even unofficially, could result in some problems, though I doubt that'll happen.

That said, I really hope that a significant portion of this is OGC. A work like this deserves to be emulated.


----------



## S'mon

Vague legal impression from copyright lecturer without a legal practice qualification - I don't think the IH, what I've seen of it, infringes copyright under UK law (it's not an adaptation of a pre-existing work from what I've seen), and thanks to the recent US Allen decision (that it's ok for 3rd parties to create supplements for games, in that case Monopoly), apparently not under US law either.  That said, I obviously haven't read the whole thing & I don't see any reason not to use the OGL for it, even though legally it would be possible.  There's nothing in it that wouldn't be OGL compliant.  Presumably when it goes on official release the publisher will OGL-ise it.

Edit: I see the OGL is listed in the greyed-out contents, the bit that doesn't actually appear in the book.  I do think you should sort this out.


----------



## S'mon

The Allen case establishing that it's ok for third parties to make supplements for games is at http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9456593.html


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, I'm pretty confident that you MUST make, at the very least, the non-original stats OGC, since they're from an OGC source (the SRD). I don't know for certain, but I think that, technically, selling it at all, even unofficially, could result in some problems, though I doubt that'll happen.




What parts of the work are non-original though? 

If theres a problem with it then I have 30 days to correct it, following notification.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> That said, I really hope that a significant portion of this is OGC. A work like this deserves to be emulated.




I'll consider it. 

At this point I'm thinking: size, density, virtual size, universal base damage and the new feats will be OGC. The stuff on the kosmos and the monsters won't be (including the new artifacts and spells).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Vague legal impression from copyright lecturer without a legal practice qualification - I don't think the IH, what I've seen of it, infringes copyright under UK law (it's not an adaptation of a pre-existing work from what I've seen), and thanks to the recent US Allen decision (that it's ok for 3rd parties to create supplements for games, in that case Monopoly), apparently not under US law either.  That said, I obviously haven't read the whole thing & I don't see any reason not to use the OGL for it, even though legally it would be possible.  There's nothing in it that wouldn't be OGL compliant.  Presumably when it goes on official release the publisher will OGL-ise it.
> 
> Edit: I see the OGL is listed in the greyed-out contents, the bit that doesn't actually appear in the book.  I do think you should sort this out.




Yes my mistake. I'll definately sort that out for the official release obviously. DOH!


----------



## Nifelhein

Usually system mechanics have to be made OGL, this is because they are derivative work from the SRD and can only be published undedr the OGL, otherwise they would have to be made your house rule and posted in websites like it was until the SRD came, the copyright stuff would prevent any publishing.

It does not matter if the work is or is not original, anything using the SRD mechanics, thus monsters stats, new abilities given to them, their names, types, sizes, feats, skills, are necessarily OGL, even if you do not say so in the OGL, they are to be and you will not have a case.

That said, description can usually be made closed content, but you would want to have some bits of it open, this is what WotC has done to the monsters in the MM when they went to the SRD, check that out for an idea. I advise you to use italics for anythng not closed content in the monsters, making sure not all of it is either closed or open.

I know Monte has maded some copyright claims over a specific way of writing something, that is legally sound but not stone solid though, and so it can be broken in a court, if it ever goes that way, I doubt because Monte is very polite and usually address problems without the need to pay a lawyer.

That all said, I cannot really say whether the whole work or not must eb OGC, but I know that it is hard to avoid any mechanics being, pantheons are hardly ever open, but their stats, if given, those are open. I could go on for sometime, but I have the OGL and nothing of the bestiary to specifically point things out.

Anyway, I am not a lawyer, yet, and I am not frrom either the UK or USA, but copyright stuff is one of the most world wide laws, since you do want it to work well all around it.


----------



## Cheiromancer

UK, please, please, please don't use "crippled content" like Monte does; he makes everything open but the _names_ of the spells, feats, monsters, magic items, etc..

Well, how are you supposed to use something if you can't refer to it by name?  You can't and so it might as well be closed.  I don't want to derail the thread, but crippled content seems to obey the letter of the OGL by violating its spirit.  It strikes me as mean.


----------



## Nifelhein

I would love to see how it would come out if he ever was to send someone here in Brazil to court, he is not making something Open or closed, he _has_ to do that and saying the name is not implied is not only bad restriction, but also the same as violating the whole thing itself.

Imagine the situation if all spell names from the SRD were not open content... not to say that it would be silly to have the word Feat be closed itself. That is direct violation, not relfex as it seems, when you make something according to the OGL terms, you have to follow it and its direct events, making a feat requires it to be open content, that means the feat itself is, its name is the very first thing that identifies the thing...

He can talk to as many lawyers as he wants, that is legally defensible, utterly wrong.

Edited:

Also, if Monte takes that problem into a court, WotC might just make it useless by editing a new OGL and guess what, by the terms of the license they can do that and you will have to be under its ruling right away, no complains... but that is unecessary, in my opinion.


----------



## Knight Otu

I think most things can be declared closed content/IP by some twisting of the wording, but IANAL. I'm confident that a work based on the OGL and D20STL has to include at least 5% Open Content.

You use two names for each creature, right? I think you could make the esoteric name IP, and the rest open. All proper names most likely should be IP. In those cases where this might create "crippled OGC," you may be able to go the WotC way and say "You can refer to those items by removing the IP name" or "You may refer to those items by replacing 'Thryn's' with 'Thundering'" or similar tactics.


----------



## CR2000

> I doubt because Monte is very polite and usually address problems without the need to pay a lawyer.




I don't think it's because Monte's nice guy. It's just easier and cheaper to settle out of court than in court. While he might be, I doubt it (most people like that are arses when it comes to their material, talk to Larry Niven), it's probably more along the lines of just easy and money to get it all accomplished without a lawyer.


----------



## Nifelhein

Twisting wording is not actually what is supposed to happen, but I am not willing to address the impressions and misconceptions people have over lawyers and their job, although I can easily say that literal wording is not the most common conception of law in my country for quite sometime, it has been during dictatorships and despotic governments, though, Brazil has been into a military kind of those until around 1980, which is the year i was born, by the way.

Now I can easily say that having two nams and make the more exotic and interesting one and the more common or OGC derived one closed and open, respectively, is not breaking any kind of issue with the OGL, and I would say it should be the best way to address this issue and oen that leaves both you and your audience with clear basis.

Proper names usuay are product identities, like Thyrin there seem to be indeed, what i find an actual problem is that people tned to restrict themselves to the OGl when they could easily expand with the suggestion Otu gave, give guidelines on how to change the PI to the approppriate term.

I love Midnight, for example, and the Wildlander has one ability that has the term "The Shadow in the North", which is a PI, there is nothing worng in me taking that ability and posting it on a website, but there is a problem with the PI term, if I change it to something else, though, I might end up with a meaningless writing... the best thing you can do is to avoid using any terms you want to have as PI in the open content writing, or at least, mark them with italics, for example.

And CR2000, I must say you are right, but I what i do see as politness is that a company usually has a lawyer to consult with and although a lawsuit does cost money it is also rather common to have companies address any violation of their rights as threats of lawsuit and absolutely nothing else.

Anyway, i think we should get back to the bestiary and the IH as whole, as much as i like laws stuff i recognize most people are bored to death with it...


----------



## S'mon

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Usually system mechanics have to be made OGL, this is because they are derivative work from the SRD and can only be published undedr the OGL,




I don't think that (either statement) is true.  Nothing in the OGL says anything about a minimum OGC requirement.  Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)   
I'm just looking at the copy of the OGL at the back of Lost City of Barakus (which scenario incidentally includes an uncredited Silver Golem from Creature Collection by S&S!), it doesn't seem to require that any content at all be made OGC.  Personally I would advise making at least the IH mechanics OGC and it seems like good practice to make the names & stat blocks OGC while keeping the descriptions PI, that way other authors can use your monsters in other scenarios but Mongoose (eg!) can't just republish the whole IH.


----------



## Knight Otu

S'mon said:
			
		

> I don't think that (either statement) is true. Nothing in the OGL says anything about a minimum OGC requirement. Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)



The minimum OGC requirement stems from the d20STL, to which you must abide if you want to belong to the "cool club" and be allowed to add the d20 System symbol on the cover of your book.


			
				d20 Guide v5 said:
			
		

> A minimum of 5% of the text (word count or letter count) of a Covered Product must be Open Game Content and must comply with the terms of the Open Game License version 1.0a.






			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I'm just looking at the copy of the OGL at the back of Lost City of Barakus (which scenario incidentally includes an uncredited Silver Golem from Creature Collection by S&S!), it doesn't seem to require that any content at all be made OGC.



Is Barakus released under the Sword and Sorcery label? I _believe_, but cannot back it up right now, that a company can allow another company to not cite the source (but probaly only that source, not everything else from section 15) in the Section 15. Thus, a company (in this case White Wolf) could give itself that permission.

Nifelheim: I hope I didn't offend with my "twisting words" remark. It was not my intention to say that this is what lawyers do, typically or otherwise.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I don't think that (either statement) is true.  Nothing in the OGL says anything about a minimum OGC requirement.  Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)




Well I would say the size changes are derivative, though thats probably about it.

I'm okay with making the density, virtual size, universal damage and feats OGC as well.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I'm just looking at the copy of the OGL at the back of Lost City of Barakus (which scenario incidentally includes an uncredited Silver Golem from Creature Collection by S&S!), it doesn't seem to require that any content at all be made OGC.  Personally I would advise making at least the IH mechanics OGC and it seems like good practice to make the names & stat blocks OGC while keeping the descriptions PI, that way other authors can use your monsters in other scenarios but Mongoose (eg!) can't just republish the whole IH.




Regarding the monsters, I'm not sure what to do for the best. My initial idea was that the pdfs won't be OGC, but that I would reverse that decision for the printed version. For the Bestiary, naturally that wouldn't include the descriptive text (simply the name, stats and combat information. *Not* the descriptions, tactics or adventure ideas).

Does that make sense?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> What parts of the work are non-original though?
> 
> If theres a problem with it then I have 30 days to correct it, following notification.




I think notification only applies to the d20 STL, and only then if you've sent in the regestration card.

Regardless of the actual legalities of the matter (S'mon cites an important case in this respect), WotC/Hasbro believes that creating new D&D-compatible material is an infringement of copyright law without license, so not using the OGL is an invitation to get a letter from their lawyers.  I'd prefer that this not happen... presumably a legal battle isn't in your interests.

The WotC 'party line' is that creating monster stats, spell stats, etc. in the D&D format is enough of itself to constitute a derivative work.


----------



## CRGreathouse

S'mon said:
			
		

> Nor are most of Craig's IH mechanics derivative of the SRD, some of them are derivative of my original Worship Points System (which he credits, so that's fine with me!)




Just to clarify (for the bystanders; I'm sure you already know!), a work can be considered a derivative of more than one other work, so it's possible for the IH to derive from the SRD as well as your earlier work.  In fact, I believe this to be the case -- the ability scores, their modifiers, the saves, their particular formatting, the skills and their respective synergies, the boilerplate language on the special attacks and qualities, and so forth are the same, and the collection of all of these disparare elements form a convincing case that the IH derives from the either the SRD or the PH and MM.  Certainly there's a good argument that this much 'borowing' is 17.1.107 fair use (per the case you mentioned above), but it's not clear-cut -- and this is where caution should be used _in my opinion_, as WotC has shown several times that it's not above sending lawyers to enforce its copyrights in the d20 publishing world.

(Again, I'm not a lawyer in the US or elsewhere.)


----------



## S'mon

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> The minimum OGC requirement stems from the d20STL, to which you must abide if you want to belong to the "cool club" and be allowed to add the d20 System symbol on the cover of your book.
> 
> Is Barakus released under the Sword and Sorcery label? I _believe_, but cannot back it up right now, that a company can allow another company to not cite the source (but probaly only that source, not everything else from section 15) in the Section 15. Thus, a company (in this case White Wolf) could give itself that permission.




Barakus is Necromancer Games, distributed by Troll Lord, so they should really have credited S&S for the silver golem (they reproduce the stat block).  Just an oversight.

The d20STL of course is much more restrictive than the OGL and personally I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, mostly because unlike the OGL WoTC can change its terms at any time.


----------



## S'mon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Regarding the monsters, I'm not sure what to do for the best. My initial idea was that the pdfs won't be OGC, but that I would reverse that decision for the printed version. For the Bestiary, naturally that wouldn't include the descriptive text (simply the name, stats and combat information. *Not* the descriptions, tactics or adventure ideas).
> 
> Does that make sense?




Well, I can't see any harm in letting other authors cut & paste stat blocks from the pdf version, *as long as they credit the Immortals Handbook*.  But it makes sense, sure - it's your work, you can release as much or as little to OGC as you wish.


----------



## S'mon

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Just to clarify (for the bystanders; I'm sure you already know!), a work can be considered a derivative of more than one other work, so it's possible for the IH to derive from the SRD as well as your earlier work.




Sure, I agree.  Although Allen established that games mechanics per se aren't protectable (Allen wasn't the _Monopoly_ case BTW, sorry my bad) there's a reasonable case that the format of monster statblocks is protectable IP.  Under UK law & under US law following Allen, it is definitely possible to create games supplements that don't infringe the IP of the game creators, but the IH is clearly intended as an OGL release so really the important thing Krusty is to stick an OGL in the back of the .pdf you're currently selling.  Right now just put "No part of this work is designated as Open Game Content" & AFAICS you retain all rights while complying with the OGL.  You can revise it later for the final release.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Sure, I agree.  Although Allen established that games mechanics per se aren't protectable (Allen wasn't the _Monopoly_ case BTW, sorry my bad) there's a reasonable case that the format of monster statblocks is protectable IP.  Under UK law & under US law following Allen, it is definitely possible to create games supplements that don't infringe the IP of the game creators, but the IH is clearly intended as an OGL release so really the important thing Krusty is to stick an OGL in the back of the .pdf you're currently selling.  Right now just put "No part of this work is designated as Open Game Content" & AFAICS you retain all rights while complying with the OGL.  You can revise it later for the final release.




Will do. 

Thanks everyone for the help.

I may make the monsters OGC even for the (official) pdf release (under the previous terms) and see how that goes.


----------



## Sledge

Well you already have my money, but the more OGC the better as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Zoatebix

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> UK, please, please, please don't use "crippled content" like Monte does; he makes everything open but the _names_ of the spells, feats, monsters, magic items, etc..
> 
> Well, how are you supposed to use something if you can't refer to it by name?  You can't and so it might as well be closed.  I don't want to derail the thread, but crippled content seems to obey the letter of the OGL by violating its spirit.  It strikes me as mean.



Actually, Monte started releasing the name with the mechanics of feats starting with Legacy of the Dragons.  He continuted the policy in Arcana Evolved - again, for feats at least.  I'm not sure about spell names, and I haven't checked the Complete Book of Eldritch Might's declarations to see if feat or spell names are open in that book.


Sorry I opened such a huge can of worms here, guys!  I should have seen the "all rights reserved" in the OGL in your PDF (he has one in there, S'Mon!) and figured that everything, for the time being, would be closed.

I forgot that the minimum open requirement was part of the d20 license and not the OGL.  That's why I bothered asking at all.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I may make the monsters OGC even for the (official) pdf release (under the previous terms) and see how that goes.




Personally, I think that's a good idea. As you mentioned above, just having the names, stat blocks, combat information, and new mechanics (virtual size categories, density, feats), should be enough.

On a personal note, I'd really like the new epic spell, new materials, and new weapon properties and artifacts to be OGC also. They're just too cool not to be. Even WotC made their artifacts OGC.

CRGreathouse was right when he said that d20-compatible material constitues what I termed "non-original work". The fact that these monsters are d20 at all means you need to have this be at least OGL, if not d20. That alone though would be enough to fill the 5% minimum in the d20 License.

I also think that having it be open for the official PDF release is a good idea. I don't mean to throw stones, but at the current rate of progress, I seriously wonder if 4E won't be out by the time the print IH arrives.

That said, I really agree that "crippled content" is not at all the way to go. The IH is (I think) going to seriously set a new standard for epic gaming in d20, and it seems a real shame not to let the community take advantage of that. None of your IP would be taken, and they would have to credit your work. I'm honestly somewhat confused about why you wouldn't want this to be OGC?

Realistically, almost none of the OGC out there gets used anyway.

On a final note, did you get that email I sent you with some parts of the Bestiary that I felt were wrong (or was otherwise unsure about)?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Alzrius said:
			
		

> That said, I really agree that "crippled content" is not at all the way to go. The IH is (I think) going to seriously set a new standard for epic gaming in d20, and it seems a real shame not to let the community take advantage of that. None of your IP would be taken, and they would have to credit your work. I'm honestly somewhat confused about why you wouldn't want this to be OGC?




There's financial sense behind this too -- if enough of the book is open that people can make their own IH-compatible works (say, giving the OGC _Deities of The Faithful_ IH stats once Apotheosis is out) will drive the sales of your core books (Apotheosis, Grimoire, Chronicle, and the Bestiaries).  It's the same model WotC used with the SRD.


----------



## S'mon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> CRGreathouse was right when he said that d20-compatible material constitues what I termed "non-original work".




Don't say that, it makes the lawyer in me wince in pain.    
(Even if material is 'derivative' it's still 'original' and thus the creator of the derivative work still has a copyright in it.  Furthermore 'derivative work' in the legal sense has a narrow meaning which does not encompass "I based this rules supplement on pre-existing game X" - see Allen case)


----------



## S'mon

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> There's financial sense behind this too -- if enough of the book is open that people can make their own IH-compatible works (say, giving the OGC _Deities of The Faithful_ IH stats once Apotheosis is out) will drive the sales of your core books (Apotheosis, Grimoire, Chronicle, and the Bestiaries).  It's the same model WotC used with the SRD.




I agree with this - making much of the IH OGC should result in it being the 'industry standard' for high-power deity-level gaming, which should drive IH sales.


----------



## S'mon

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Sorry I opened such a huge can of worms here, guys!  I should have seen the "all rights reserved" in the OGL in your PDF (he has one in there, S'Mon!)




D'oh!  So this can of worms was a storm in a teacup.    

I ass-u-me'd it had been left out because it was in the greyed out text.
In fact the OGL is on the last page & includes:

"
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
d20 System rules and Content Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams, based on original
material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
The Immortals Handbook, Immortals Handbook: Epic Bestiary
Volume I, Immortals Handbook: Epic Bestiary Volume II, Immortals
Handbook: Grimoire and the Immortals Index. Copyright 2001-2005
Craig Cochrane. All rights reserved. "

So the existing release is already 100% OGL compliant and there's no problem at all as far as I can see.


----------



## S'mon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> CRGreathouse was right when he said that d20-compatible material constitues what I termed "non-original work". The fact that these monsters are d20 at all means you need to have this be at least OGL, if not d20.




*No*.  Game-rules compatibility as such does not equal derivative work or any other kind of copyright infringement.  & NOBODY _needs_ to use the d20 license unless they are putting the d20 trademark on their release.  However there is no need to worry about any of this anyway as the IH *uses the OGL*!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

You guys will be the death of me, I swear! 

I had it right all along and you were panicking me with this stuff!   

Okay, just to clarify, if I want to use the d20 trademark, I will have to include a section on what is Product Identity and what is Open Content (which I will probably do with the official release). But until then its all fine, right?

By the way, I did get your email Alzrius, I will be correcting any mistakes for the official release thanks...although a few things:

1. Its Hero-deity first, then Quasi-deity in the IH. For me the clue is in the name; 'HERO-deity', as in it comes after hero. I don't care what 1st Edition said, it makes more sense this way.

2. Ravana is an Intermediate Power, not a Lesser power. He defeated the Hindu triad, hes one of the most powerful beings in Hindu cosmology. I don't care what 2nd Edition said, it makes more sense this way.


----------



## Zoatebix

Another word on Monte and crippled content: I took a quick glance at the declarations in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might and it looks like he's reversed his stance on spell names.  I didn't read as thouroughly as I would have liked, though, because I need to go tutor a co-worker and then work all day - pressed for time and all that.


----------



## Alzrius

S'mon said:
			
		

> *No*.  Game-rules compatibility as such does not equal derivative work or any other kind of copyright infringement.




From what I understand, this isn't true (though I could be wrong); the major example of I can think of here is that TSR sued Mayfair Games into oblivion over their Role Aids line of D&D-compatible products.



> _& NOBODY _needs_ to use the d20 license unless they are putting the d20 trademark on their release.  However there is no need to worry about any of this anyway as the IH *uses the OGL*!_




I did say "at least the OGL." That said, while it is good that nothing in the IH is violating any part of the basic OGL (and isn't using the d20 License, so it avoids that fiasco), I would still really like to see the aforementioned portions of it made OGC.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Another word on Monte and crippled content: I took a quick glance at the declarations in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might and it looks like he's reversed his stance on spell names.  I didn't read as thouroughly as I would have liked, though, because I need to go tutor a co-worker and then work all day - pressed for time and all that.




Which policy did he reverse?  The initial one policy of posting crippled content, or the relaxed policy seen in Legacy of Dragons?  Have the spells in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might have been crippled or not?

Oh, and to return more to the topic of the thread...

When will the Bestiary be available on RPG Now?


----------



## S'mon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> From what I understand, this isn't true (though I could be wrong); the major example of I can think of here is that TSR sued Mayfair Games into oblivion over their Role Aids line of D&D-compatible products.
> .




If you can point me to a case where a judge actually found in TSR's favour, I'd be interested to read it.  My impression is that you can "sue someone into oblivion" without legally having a leg to stand on, if you have money to spend on lawyers and the other side feels forced to do the same & can't afford the cost.


----------



## Alzrius

S'mon said:
			
		

> If you can point me to a case where a judge actually found in TSR's favour, I'd be interested to read it.




To be fair, I looked on the page that summarized the agreement between TSR and Mayfair, and the court ruling was specifically where the agreement was violated. As it turns out, that wasn't the death of Mayfair Games, though it did help prior to TSR buying their Role Aids line out.

However, it does hold an untested case where Companion Games' _Far Side_ line was made compatible with _Star Fleet Battles_; while I'm not sure who published the latter game, they did hold that the former was compatible illegally with their design.

To be fair though, the Allen case is the only court ruling on this matter (e.g. for games) directly, but it doesn't seem to be completely iron-clad.

Here's the TSR vs Mayfair Games case: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html


----------



## CRGreathouse

S'mon said:
			
		

> *No*.  Game-rules compatibility as such does not equal derivative work or any other kind of copyright infringement.  & NOBODY _needs_ to use the d20 license unless they are putting the d20 trademark on their release.  However there is no need to worry about any of this anyway as the IH *uses the OGL*!




This only works, of course, if you follow section 8.  I didn't see the declaration.


----------



## S'mon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Here's the TSR vs Mayfair Games case: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html




Interesting case to read - it rests entirely on TM infringement & breach of contract issues, it doesn't say anything about copyright infringement.  The moral of it seems to be "never sign a contract with T$R"


----------



## S'mon

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> This only works, of course, if you follow section 8.  I didn't see the declaration.




Am I right it needs to say somewhere "Designation of Open Game Content: All material derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Open Game Content.  Designation of Product Identity: All material not derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Product Identity.  All rights reserved."?  Would that be ok?


----------



## Verequus

S'mon said:
			
		

> Am I right it needs to say somewhere "Designation of Open Game Content: All material derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Open Game Content. Designation of Product Identity: All material not derived from the d20 System Rules Document is Product Identity. All rights reserved."? Would that be ok?




AFAIK, doesn't the OGL require a clear designation of OGC? Something like that doesn't answer the question "What can I reuse?". A nice example of a clear designation is, when you can ask a child to mark the OGC and you get a usable result.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I've seen designations that use wording like what S'mon describes, but that is not an ideal I would shoot for.  What UK says in post 134 is much better.


----------



## S'mon

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> AFAIK, doesn't the OGL require a clear designation of OGC? Something like that doesn't answer the question "What can I reuse?". A nice example of a clear designation is, when you can ask a child to mark the OGC and you get a usable result.




I don't see how that's workable.  And a child is not the relevant target audience, surely.  AFAICS the important point to get across is that the current release does not _add_ any OGC.


----------



## Verequus

S'mon said:
			
		

> I don't see how that's workable. And a child is not the relevant target audience, surely. AFAICS the important point to get across is that the current release does not _add_ any OGC.




You seem to have misunderstood me. I've mentioned a child, because it should be a child's play to separate OGC from PI. With your designation, I would ask myself: "Orichalcum is a special material? Are there special materials in the SRD? Yes? Then orichalcum is derived." But considering one of your earlier posts, this would have been a grave mistake. In general, any designation, where you have to ask the author/publisher, what exactly is OGC or not, is insufficient (from the POV of a native speaker).


----------



## CRGreathouse

S'mon said:
			
		

> AFAICS the important point to get across is that the current release does not _add_ any OGC.




Yeah, but that's not actually legal, unless the document does not derive *at all* from the SRD (unless you otherwise have authority to derive from it).


----------



## Nifelhein

This is not a publisher/author thing, this is a legal matter, WotC has made the license, WotC has the copyright of the license and guess what? They can modify the license anytime they see fit, that was the flamed debate that went over when they made license version 1.0a.

on the WotC website, in the OGL FAq one can find this:



> Q: What is "Open Game Content"?
> 
> A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.




and this:



> Q: What does "clearly identified" mean?
> 
> A: It means that the publisher has a burden to use some system to identify Open Game Content to any recipient of that content. Systems which have been used by some publishers include placing Open Game Content in shaded boxes, using a different font, italicizing or bolding the Open Game Content, and segregating all the Open Game Content into specifically designated chapters or appendixes. Some publishers have released documents that are identified as being comprised completely of Open Game Content.
> 
> "Clearly identified" means that the system should pass the "reasonable person" test; meaning that a reasonable person should be able to determine what portions of a given work are Open Game Content, and which portions are not. If you can't figure out what parts of a given work are Open Game Content, provided you exert a reasonable effort to read and apply the instructions for identification provided by the publisher, then the material isn't Clearly Identified.
> 
> This also applies to software. A reasonable person should be able to look at a piece of software and find and understand the Open Content. WeÍll make a slight allowance that they may have to take a little more time to understand some things, but they should be able to see and understand all Open Content. See the Software FAQ for more details.




And there is teh base for Monte's crippled content too:



> Q: Can a work be derived from both Open Game Content and Product Identity?
> 
> A: Yes, but since the Open Game License only gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute Open Game Content, unless you had a separate license from whomever owned the Product Identity, you cannot legally copy or distribute a work that contained such material without a separate agreement from the owners of the Product Identity.




On your idea of making it Open after the pdf and never it, that is impossible, Uk, once it is made open, all stances of it are:



> Q: If I identify something as Product Identity, then in the future I distribute that material as Open Game Content, does the material become Open Game Content?
> 
> A: Yes. By doing so, you will be relinquishing your claim that the material should be considered Product Identity.




Anything that is derivative of the SRD in one way or another (using stat blocks, saves, listing levels, and the like is bound to be OGC, I can even say that if you do not want to make it happen i can buy the pdf, copy it to a word file, take out all product identities as stated in the OGL, or just change most of the names, and republish it, you could want to take me to court, but you broke the license in your side, I would be following on mine.

I hope you really seek a copyright lawyer before doing this release, Uk, because I doubt you can handle the legal issues involved here, besides, your lawyer should read the D20 and OGL licenses along with a lot of things on them by WotC and the message boards relating it and the yahoo group of those, he would be surprised to know that it is hard to have any game mechanics out of the license.

You guys do have a defensible idea of your points, but they do not stand against the expanded position of WotC and the debates that have been goig for ages on those licenses, so that is a problem.

I did not take offense on the twisting of words, I read everything here as the most civil post it could possibly be, and I hope peope do the same with me too! 

Another note, using the d20 logo carries other burdens beyond the OGL use (which comes with the SRD) has, it allows one to reference the PHB, MM, DMG, Psionics, d20 modern books, though, and it requires clear state of requiring the core rules to be used.

Using a d20 logo on your book can do wonders for it, though, most people would never know if your product is a new system or a "d20" compatible one, even though the SRD is compatible with the "D20" it is not easy to state that link.

As I said, I can go long ways with this...


----------



## Nifelhein

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's not actually legal, unless the document does not derive *at all* from the SRD (unless you otherwise have authority to derive from it).




That is correct, if you use any open game content, you must use a license and anything that comes from it, must be included as OGC, if it is not, you are infringing the license...


----------



## CRGreathouse

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> That is correct, if you use any open game content, you must use a license and anything that comes from it, must be included as OGC, if it is not, you are infringing the license...




Yes.  To clarify:

If you derive from the SRD, you won't have legal authority to publish (since not just you but you and WotC will own the copyright), unless:
* The use of the material falls under US Code 17.1.107 fair use, or
* You use the OGL properly, including section 8, or
* You negotiate another license with WotC.

The last method is that used for Kalamar, for example.  Since you're not doing this, and the first point would be (at best!) on shaky legal ground, you're obligated to use the OGL.  This is why it's important to follow all of the sections properly -- without the OGL the IH would violate US copyright law, and even worse the copyright laws of any Berne signatory nation.

(S'mon, this is an essentially correct summary, yes?)


----------



## Alzrius

It seems pretty clear that there needs to be a clear designation of OGC, but other than that, things in the IH Bestiary as they are now are fine.

What (I think) we should be focusing on are reasons with which to convince U_K to open source more than just the bare minimum.


----------



## Zoatebix

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Which policy did he reverse?  The initial one policy of posting crippled content, or the relaxed policy seen in Legacy of Dragons?  Have the spells in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might have been crippled or not?




The initial policy has been reversed - spell names and feat names are part of the Open Content from the Complete Book of Eldritch Might.  I double-checked that after work, too.   Sorry I wasn't clear about what I meant.  IIRC, feat names are open in Arcana Evolved (and in Legacy of the Dragons before that), but I haven't checked the designations in those works for whether those spell names are open or PI...


----------



## S'mon

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's not actually legal, unless the document does not derive *at all* from the SRD (unless you otherwise have authority to derive from it).




 

Now I'm totally confused...


----------



## S'mon

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> without the OGL the IH would violate US copyright law, and even worse the copyright laws of any Berne signatory nation.
> 
> (S'mon, this is an essentially correct summary, yes?)




Yes, although I would say "might violate" rather than "would violate"- and it would be less likely to violate the laws of countries other than the US because the US has the doctrine of "derivative works" which seems wider than equivalents in other jurisdictions.

What I don't understand is what you have to do to comply with the OGL.  I can see from the OGL that you don't have to release any of your own original work as OGC (contrary to what some people here have been saying), but I don't understand what you need to do to designate content from the SRD as OGC; how explicitly each bit of it needs to be detailed.  Looking at the OGL OGC/PI designations in the products I own they seem to vary widely.  It seems wholly impractical to parse the entire work line by line, none of the third-party products I have do that, but people here appear to be saying you need to do that?    

Although I am not a qualified practicing lawyer, I have spent the past 14 years studying contract & IP law, I earn my living teaching it, and I am about as close to a copyright lawyer as Upper_Krust is likely to see.  Even could he afford to visit some Belfast solicitor for legal advice the solicitor would only be able to advise him on United Kingdom/Northern Ireland contract law, not the intricacies of US IP law & business practice.   Our legal culture in the UK is still very different from the world Americans live in.


----------



## CRGreathouse

S'mon said:
			
		

> Now I'm totally confused...




Tyhe IH obviously doesn't reprint the SRD -- the tables, monsters, etc. are original.  It creates derivative material, but not through intermingling with existing content but through changing it and using formats, copyrightable collections of otherwise uncopyrightable words and phrases, etc.  Adding the OGL and saying "everything from the SRD is open, but the rest is closed" doesn't give you rights to distribute those derivative works (since you aren't applying the OGC label to them), so you're in the same position as if you hadn't used the OGL.

An "empty" OGC declaration isn't any better than no OGL use at all.


----------



## S'mon

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Tyhe IH obviously doesn't reprint the SRD -- the tables, monsters, etc. are original.  It creates derivative material, but not through intermingling with existing content but through changing it and using formats, copyrightable collections of otherwise uncopyrightable words and phrases, etc.  Adding the OGL and saying "everything from the SRD is open, but the rest is closed" doesn't give you rights to distribute those derivative works (since you aren't applying the OGC label to them), so you're in the same position as if you hadn't used the OGL.
> 
> An "empty" OGC declaration isn't any better than no OGL use at all.




My head is hurting, but you appear to be saying that the OGL forces the user to declare as OGC anything that WoTC might be able to allege infringes their copyrights?  Is that correct?


----------



## CRGreathouse

S'mon said:
			
		

> My head is hurting, but you appear to be saying that the OGL forces the user to declare as OGC anything that WoTC might be able to allege infringes their copyrights?  Is that correct?




I'm saying that one gets no special copyright consideration from using the OGL but not declaring OGC.  If chapter 1 of my book quotes large, copyrighted portions of the SRD and my OGC declaration specifies no OGC (or only chapter 2 OGC), then chapter 1 still infringes WotC's copyright.  The fact that I used the license doesn't help, because the licence only applies to the OGC.


----------



## Nifelhein

S'mon, we have pretty diverse jurisdictions to talk about, common law, which is the legal tradition both the UK and USa follow, for those who do not have any legal knowledge, is a lot and deeply different of the german-romanic tradition, which is the one my country foolows, although common law and other countries have their influence on our system.

That said, I know the OGL is hardly complete to anyone who reads it, they determine what terms are but do not define which ones of those can be kept closed and which ones must be declared open.

As you noticed with CRG's posts, the idea is that anything that comes from the SRD is WotC's copyright, they have released it under a license of free use, though, and that would be the OGL, but if you publish a work while not saying that the mechanics used from the srd are open or if you do not say that work that is derivative from the SRD is open, then you are not following the terms of the license and may suffer legal issues.

As I posted, the OGL FAQ is rpetty clear in how they approach _their_ license and how they envision the license working, the closer one wants to walk of the boundaries of the license, the easier it will be to arise problems, and that may end up in a court.

No publisher has ever been very concerned with separating open game content and closed content, the one I have that seems even beyond necessity, though, is Dinasties and Demagogues from Atlas Games Penumbra line, there they are very very clear, but not on the OGL, but one easily knows what they can reproduce and what they cannot.

In general a publisher just walks the safe line by putting somewhere in the chapter introductions that game mechanics, names of races, classes and the like are open game content, background descriptions and terms defined as product identity are closed content.

In a normal monster book, let us take the monster manual, for example, one could have a hundred monsters with all their stats as open game content adn all background information on them and description be closed, their names could be closed too, but that could easily allow some other publish to release the monster with a new and noe open name.

At first I wasn't very sure of this, but by reading WotC's page on the licenses and their FAQs I have come to my position. Sure you disagree with me, and even was polite enough to say I am wrong without speaking of me, but I doubt WotC would allow any others conduct different that what I am saying if it came around.


----------



## S'mon

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I'm saying that one gets no special copyright consideration from using the OGL but not declaring OGC.  If chapter 1 of my book quotes large, copyrighted portions of the SRD and my OGC declaration specifies no OGC (or only chapter 2 OGC), then chapter 1 still infringes WotC's copyright.  The fact that I used the license doesn't help, because the licence only applies to the OGC.




And you're saying a brief declaration along the lines of "stuff taken from the SRD is OGC.  New stuff is PI" is inadequate?


----------



## CRGreathouse

S'mon said:
			
		

> And you're saying a brief declaration along the lines of "stuff taken from the SRD is OGC.  New stuff is PI" is inadequate?




I think that such a declaration (1) fails to meet the required standard of clear identification, and (2) fails to provide legal protection for the 'new' material which is, in fact, derivative of the old.


----------



## S'mon

Wel, it's beyond me how you could reasonably differentiate everything in the IH or indeed any published OGL work to the standard you say is required.  Also I'm gobsmacked that apparently everything that could be claimed to be a derivative work (under the extremely broad & unusual US derivative work doctrine) HAS to be made OGC.  I guess I'll shut up now since I guess I don't have anything useful to contribute. :\


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay I think now that we have established that none of us fully understand the OGC/OGL we should work out exactly what needs to be Product Identity and what should be Open Content. At this point I'm thinking:

Product Identity

- All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
- The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
- The 2 page introduction to Angels
- The 1 page introduction to Brood
- The 1 page introduction to Daemons
- The 1 page introduction to Demons
- The 1 page introduction to Devils
- The 2 page introduction to Dragons
- Monster Descriptions
- Monster Backgrounds
- Monster Tactics
- Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)

Open Content

- Size Matters
- Density
- Virtual Size
- Universal Damage
- 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
- Monster Names
- Monster Statistics
- Monster Combat Text
- New Artifacts
- New Feats
- New Magic Items
- New Material (Orichalcum)
- New Spells

Any thoughts on those 2 lists?


----------



## Verequus

S'mon said:
			
		

> Wel, it's beyond me how you could reasonably differentiate everything in the IH or indeed any published OGL work to the standard you say is required. Also I'm gobsmacked that apparently everything that could be claimed to be a derivative work (under the extremely broad & unusual US derivative work doctrine) HAS to be made OGC. I guess I'll shut up now since I guess I don't have anything useful to contribute. :\




If you refer to my example regarding the special materials: This was a layman interpretation of your definition - if it would hold in court, is doubtful. Also I've got the impression, that "derivative from SRD" isn't "derivative from law's POV" - this could pose a problem.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!
> 
> Okay I think now that we have established that none of us fully understand the OGC/OGL we should work out exactly what needs to be Product Identity and what should be Open Content. At this point I'm thinking:
> 
> Product Identity
> 
> - All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
> - The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
> - The 2 page introduction to Angels
> - The 1 page introduction to Brood
> - The 1 page introduction to Daemons
> - The 1 page introduction to Demons
> - The 1 page introduction to Devils
> - The 2 page introduction to Dragons
> - Monster Descriptions
> - Monster Backgrounds
> - Monster Tactics
> - Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)
> 
> Open Content
> 
> - Size Matters
> - Density
> - Virtual Size
> - Universal Damage
> - 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
> - Monster Names
> - Monster Statistics
> - Monster Combat Text
> - New Artifacts
> - New Feats
> - New Magic Items
> - New Material (Orichalcum)
> - New Spells
> 
> Any thoughts on those 2 lists?




I still haven't read the PDF entirely through, so forgive me this question: Are PI + OGC = Bestiary Vol. 1? I assume "yes". Then the most important aspects are "Does the PI include OGC?" and "Does the OGC include PI?" The last question can't be answered from looking at the list alone, so I assume "no" there. But regarding the first I'm wondering, if Monster Tactics can be PI, because they mention spells and special abilities, which are OGC. Does fair use cover this?


----------



## Nifelhein

It seems fine following the standard I have given you, although the introduction to abominations should be made closed content itself, consider any character name to be closed too, so if it happens to be on a spell, specify it too, descriptions being open would be nice, if those you are refering are like the ones we have on the SRD of the MM monsters.

Pointing open content during close content passages is not a problem, although you might want to make the same WotC made in the MM, the passages in italics in a monster write up identifies closed content, the remaining (then specify and speak of spell names and the like) are open content. Also, having product identity somewhere in the middle of the open content is not a problem, just remember to reference that, so if a monster name has a place name you want to keep closed, for example, you might say in the introductory chapter of the bestiary that (insert your list) are close content, as well as (place name), (character name that shows up often), Immortal's Handbook, Immortal's Index, Immortal's Bestiary.

In general consider that your designation has to clearly be understood by what the americans call "citizen Joe", the medium person, if you have any atlas games book, open it, they have open content in a different color background, inside boxes, or with a specific symbol (which is not open, by the way) before and after it.

All images are product identity, the graphic layout and the like too.

And S'mon, I believe that the "there is nothing out of it thing" is the poibnt, they have aimed for just that with this all, WotC has never been nice, they amde a amrket move to seel more of their products, and if you ever do somthing really good, they reprint it, just like they did in Unearthed Arcana with a few mechanics...


----------



## Cheiromancer

It sounds like UK is going to be clearer about what is OGC and what is PI than 99.9% of OGL publishers.   I'm getting the impression that some people think this is woefully inadequate, and that he has to be clearer still or else he'll be sued by WOTC.  

I think he should do what seems best for the PDF, and, when things turn out to be fine, as they will, use the same designation for the print copy.  If in doubt just pick a few significant OGL or d20 publishers (Green Ronin?  Mongoose?  EN Publishing?) and see how they designate content.  Then do the same.

My concern is that fretting about the exact interpretation of OGL license is not making the rest of the IH appear any faster!


----------



## Nifelhein

I agree, he is going to be very clear, and that is to his own benefit, I believe, the suggestions I am giving in making it even better, though, are to improve this and have nothing original, I am basing them on the products that i own of Fantasy Flight Games, Atlas Games, Green Ronin and Mystic Eye Games.

The one that has the msot open content is the last and the one with the clearest identification is the last.

Anyway, i haev said my share on this, now I want to see the whole thing in print...


----------



## Sledge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!
> Product Identity
> 
> - All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
> - The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
> - The 2 page introduction to Angels
> - The 1 page introduction to Brood
> - The 1 page introduction to Daemons
> - The 1 page introduction to Demons
> - The 1 page introduction to Devils
> - The 2 page introduction to Dragons
> - Monster Descriptions
> - Monster Backgrounds
> - Monster Tactics
> - Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)
> 
> Open Content
> 
> - Size Matters
> - Density
> - Virtual Size
> - Universal Damage
> - 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
> - Monster Names
> - Monster Statistics
> - Monster Combat Text
> - New Artifacts
> - New Feats
> - New Magic Items
> - New Material (Orichalcum)
> - New Spells
> 
> Any thoughts on those 2 lists?




Perfect.  You keep your fluff, and give us all the crunch to play with.


----------



## CRGreathouse

U_K, the PI/OGC split looks good to me -- useful to us, and legal for you.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Wel, it's beyond me how you could reasonably differentiate everything in the IH or indeed any published OGL work to the standard you say is required.  Also I'm gobsmacked that apparently everything that could be claimed to be a derivative work (under the extremely broad & unusual US derivative work doctrine) HAS to be made OGC.  I guess I'll shut up now since I guess I don't have anything useful to contribute. :\




Perhaps it's just the general difficulty of the many issues surrounding the OGL.  In any case, thanks for your input on these matters.  Even though we have different understandings of the actual workings of intellectual property and contract law in these regards, I'm always greatful to hear from someone who actually has background in law.  (I certainly have none; my understanding comes from reading the contract, small parts of the law, and hundreds of pages of discussion on the OGL-F listservs.)

Also, as a pragmatist, I tend to stick to conservative interpretations -- those that don't end up with Hasbro sending in the dogs.  

Again, thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Nifelhein

I have enjoyed it too thank you two guys.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Okay I think now that we have established that none of us fully understand the OGC/OGL we should work out exactly what needs to be Product Identity and what should be Open Content.




And the consensus is in - none of us know what we're talking about.   



> _At this point I'm thinking:
> 
> Product Identity
> 
> - All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
> - The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
> - The 2 page introduction to Angels
> - The 1 page introduction to Brood
> - The 1 page introduction to Daemons
> - The 1 page introduction to Demons
> - The 1 page introduction to Devils
> - The 2 page introduction to Dragons
> - Monster Descriptions
> - Monster Backgrounds
> - Monster Tactics
> - Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)
> 
> Open Content
> 
> - Size Matters
> - Density
> - Virtual Size
> - Universal Damage
> - 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
> - Monster Names
> - Monster Statistics
> - Monster Combat Text
> - New Artifacts
> - New Feats
> - New Magic Items
> - New Material (Orichalcum)
> - New Spells
> 
> Any thoughts on those 2 lists?_




Perfect. This is, realistically, everything that I had hoped would be open-sourced. Take those lists and run with them U_K!


----------



## CR2000

Would the beastiary preview be adequte enough for the ENnies next year?


----------



## CRGreathouse

CR2000 said:
			
		

> Would the beastiary preview be adequte enough for the ENnies next year?




It would be a valid entry, if that's what you're asking.  Could it win...?  I don't know.  Look at the field of nominees this year -- it's not just d20-compatible material, which narrows the chances (if there will only be 2-3 d20-compatible products nominated).  Still, I'd certainly enter it.

--Former ENnie Judge CRGreathouse


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

My internet was down from last night to this evening and I have also had to lay the smackdown over at wizards message boards, so that distracted me earlier tonight.



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> It seems fine following the standard I have given you, although the introduction to abominations should be made closed content itself, consider any character name to be closed too, so if it happens to be on a spell, specify it too, descriptions being open would be nice, if those you are refering are like the ones we have on the SRD of the MM monsters.




I know that is the standard but does it make sense to guard the names of spells/monsters/items etc?

It seems somewhat illogical.



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Pointing open content during close content passages is not a problem, although you might want to make the same WotC made in the MM, the passages in italics in a monster write up identifies closed content, the remaining (then specify and speak of spell names and the like) are open content.




Thats just too pedantic for my tastes.



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Also, having product identity somewhere in the middle of the open content is not a problem, just remember to reference that, so if a monster name has a place name you want to keep closed, for example, you might say in the introductory chapter of the bestiary that (insert your list) are close content, as well as (place name), (character name that shows up often), Immortal's Handbook, Immortal's Index, Immortal's Bestiary.




Indeed.



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> In general consider that your designation has to clearly be understood by what the americans call "citizen Joe", the medium person, if you have any atlas games book, open it, they have open content in a different color background, inside boxes, or with a specific symbol (which is not open, by the way) before and after it.




Again, too pedantic.



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> All images are product identity, the graphic layout and the like too.




Yes, I meant to add that.


----------



## Upper_Krust

I meant to add that I will probably remove the Vol.2 lists from the contents and CR Table and that will free up the space for the PI/OGC declaration.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> It would be a valid entry, if that's what you're asking.  Could it win...?  I don't know.  Look at the field of nominees this year -- it's not just d20-compatible material, which narrows the chances (if there will only be 2-3 d20-compatible products nominated).  Still, I'd certainly enter it.
> 
> --Former ENnie Judge CRGreathouse




It has not been officially released at the time of the Ennies being opened, therefore I don't want it entered, I can't see it as a viable product when its not even finished.   

By next years competition I may have a few things to enter.


----------



## Fieari

What sort of smackdown did you have to hand out on the wizards boards?  Link?


----------



## Campbell

Nifelheim said:
			
		

> _Pointing open content during close content passages is not a problem, although you might want to make the same WotC made in the MM, the passages in italics in a monster write up identifies closed content, the remaining (then specify and speak of spell names and the like) are open content._



_

Actually, the MM has no open content. The passages in italics are read aloud text that a DM can use to describe the creature. While most of the MM's contents were released as open content, it wasn't within the confines of the MM, but rather the SRD. The only two books that WotC has released that make use of the OGL were Unearthed Arcana and MM2.

_


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I meant to add that I will probably remove the Vol.2 lists from the contents and CR Table and that will free up the space for the PI/OGC declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> It has not been officially released at the time of the Ennies being opened, therefore I don't want it entered, I can't see it as a viable product when its not even finished.
> 
> By next years competition I may have a few things to enter.




You would have had to have entered it about 3 months ago to get it into this year's competition.  You still have about 9 months for next year's competition.


----------



## Cheiromancer

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> You would have had to have entered it about 3 months ago to get it into this year's competition.  You still have about 9 months for next year's competition.




Don't tell him that!

Now he'll settle back and tinker with it until it's "perfect".    

Remember (nudge, nudge) how they said they were going to move up the deadlines to make it easier on judges and coordinators?  And so actually UK would have to enter it in within 3 months?  (wink)


----------



## CRGreathouse

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Remember (nudge, nudge) how they said they were going to move up the deadlines to make it easier on judges and coordinators?  And so actually UK would have to enter it in within 3 months?  (wink)




Actually, moving up the deadline wouldn't be a bad thing -- the judges could really use some extra time.


----------



## Anabstercorian

UK needs to move up his deadline!


----------



## Nifelhein

*Campbell,*

I know MM is not OGC in any section of it, but I was refering to one book most have on their shelves and those passages in italic are not in the srd at all. I should have made it clear that the MM does not have open content inside, although there is content inside that can be found in the SRD. WotC books do not require the OGL, MM2 has two OGC monsters and UA is the only true OGL/D20 STL product they have.

*And UK,*

The names seem to follow the idea of the "crippled content" as previously outlined, you could make a spell called Anulael's Horrid Grasp, for example, and say Anulael is product identity, i tend to like this approach because other books may actually reference yours without needing to rewrite it, besides, this could possibly improve your sales if it happens.

Since your books are meant to be huge and have a unique approach to them, I doubt any company would really mean to re-publish it, or even large portions of it, but as far as the license goes, you can keep most of those stuff PI, I think it is a bad idea, if it was any good, companies around the web woudl be using it for their own products.

And for the content list, I don't know, but it seems just odd that the aberrations introduction is open and the others are all closed, but nothing wrong with it, I jsut think it is odd.

On the pedantic thing, I don't know, it is a product and not a post or opinion, the more user friendly the better to me, sure Atlas games seems a bit overzealous to me, but I tend to find the introductory text a good way tp shed light on the open/closed issue.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> I know MM is not OGC in any section of it, but I was refering to one book most have on their shelves and those passages in italic are not in the srd at all. I should have made it clear that the MM does not have open content inside, although there is content inside that can be found in the SRD. WotC books do not require the OGL, MM2 has two OGC monsters and UA is the only true OGL/D20 STL product they have.




WotC has several OGL products on the market, not just Unearthed Arcana.  The others are from their d20 Modern line, though.

They don't have any products following the d20 STL, since they have no need to license their own logo.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> What sort of smackdown did you have to hand out on the wizards boards?  Link?




The usual...the Immortal Smackdown (TM). 

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=366756&page=1&pp=30


----------



## Upper_Krust

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Don't tell him that!
> 
> Now he'll settle back and tinker with it until it's "perfect".
> 
> Remember (nudge, nudge) how they said they were going to move up the deadlines to make it easier on judges and coordinators?  And so actually UK would have to enter it in within 3 months?  (wink)




LOL!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> *And UK,*
> 
> The names seem to follow the idea of the "crippled content" as previously outlined, you could make a spell called Anulael's Horrid Grasp, for example, and say Anulael is product identity, i tend to like this approach because other books may actually reference yours without needing to rewrite it, besides, this could possibly improve your sales if it happens.




The only point of confusion for me at this juncture are the names (specifically the monster names, not character names, or those mentioned in the Adventure Ideas). 

Is there any logical point to making the names of monsters PI? 



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Since your books are meant to be huge and have a unique approach to them, I doubt any company would really mean to re-publish it, or even large portions of it, but as far as the license goes, you can keep most of those stuff PI, I think it is a bad idea, if it was any good, companies around the web woudl be using it for their own products.




Surely no self respecting company will just copy and paste material wholesale, even if legally they could. 



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> And for the content list, I don't know, but it seems just odd that the aberrations introduction is open and the others are all closed, but nothing wrong with it, I jsut think it is odd.




I presume you mean Abominations. The abominations section is purely mechanical and basically just an upgrade/refresher of material that already exists in the ELH.


----------



## CRGreathouse

I gave you a mention on a General thread yesterday, posting a collection of high-level creatures.  I thought this might be of interest here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140531#post2424339


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The only point of confusion for me at this juncture are the names (specifically the monster names, not character names, or those mentioned in the Adventure Ideas).
> 
> Is there any logical point to making the names of monsters PI?




In all honesty, no. While perfectly allowed in the d20 License, this is something that the community doesn't seem to like, and (IMHO) tends to create some confusion among gamers when a monster with a different name but identical stats appears in another product.

The only names companies still regularly make PI are the names of specific individuals, organizations, etc. (e.g. you'd say that "Lady Tadra" of the "Koph Nia" is PI, but "akalich" wouldn't be). Since, however, virtually all of these names appear in sections that are already not OGC (as you outlined above) then they're already covered. The remainder of the names are ones that cannot be PI because they're from real-world mythology and theology (e.g. Sandalphon, Ouroboros, etc.).


----------



## Nifelhein

I am with Alzrius on the issue, it jsut seems odd and seems to tkae the possibility of being a reference from your book, I like more the "common and not full of flavour name" is open content (like calling it a X_Lich) and the flavoured name is closed, so fans and owners of the book can use it on their daily games (anyone for daily?), which could be some other name.

And yes, i meant abomination, sorry for the confusion.

As for D0 Modedrn, sorry, I don't even consider it whenever I speak, I like GURPS more for modedrn games.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> I am with Alzrius on the issue, it jsut seems odd and seems to tkae the possibility of being a reference from your book, I like more the "common and not full of flavour name" is open content (like calling it a X_Lich) and the flavoured name is closed, so fans and owners of the book can use it on their daily games (anyone for daily?), which could be some other name.




But some of the monsters don't have secondary names, although it wouldn't be too difficult to conjure the missing names up I suppose.  :\ 

Is that what the rest of you think? Keep the esoteric names PI and the common names OGC?



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> And yes, i meant abomination, sorry for the confusion.




No problem. 



			
				Nifelhein said:
			
		

> As for D0 Modedrn, sorry, I don't even consider it whenever I speak, I like GURPS more for modedrn games.




Is this directed at me? 

Edit: ...and I meant to say thanks to CRGreathouse for the nod over in the General Discussion Forums. I appreciate the love dude.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But some of the monsters don't have secondary names, although it wouldn't be too difficult to conjure the missing names up I suppose.  :\
> 
> Is that what the rest of you think? Keep the esoteric names PI and the common names OGC?



I don't see the problem with both of them being OGC. If you had to choose though, the OGC names should be the ones used in the Table of Contents and such. But really, why have the secondary names be PI when those names aren't even used that much. Those names just don't seem to be so intrinsic to the book that they must not be allowed to be used by anyone else.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem with both of them being OGC. If you had to choose though, the OGC names should be the ones used in the Table of Contents and such. But really, why have the secondary names be PI when those names aren't even used that much. Those names just don't seem to be so intrinsic to the book that they must not be allowed to be used by anyone else.




I'd also favor OGCing both sets of names, but do what you must.


----------



## Nifelhein

I am with them on this, and for D20 modern, UK, not it was not for you, CR pointed me out D20 modern line as another line that has OGL in some products.


----------



## Fieari

Hey Krust, or even anyone else if they think they can answer this...

What level, or what Spellcraft DC would you set a spell that causes the target to grow to the level of their virtual size catagory?  That is, cast it on a human with an inherant strength of 30, and that human suddenly becomes large (and thus gains -2 dex, +10 str, +4 con, +3 nat armor, -1 AC and -1 to attack).  Obviously the restriction would have to be added that it could only be cast on an individual target once at a time, otherwise the +10 to str would provide another virtual size catagory, allowing it to stack infinitely with itself all the way up to universe size levels and beyond.

I want to give this as a Spell Like Ability to an epic/immortal race I'm designing (self only), and want to know how it would likely effect CR.  The race would come in age catagories, and though it would only have a natural size of medium, each catagory would grant it +20 str, and from the beginning it would have this SLA.


----------



## Sledge

So when does the official version of Volume 1 come out?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> So when does the official version of Volume 1 come out?




Okay I am almost done, although I am still frightened of doing the cover I have to admit.   

I have instigated all the written changes, and I am going to email another publisher later this week. Talks with the initial publisher were dissolved, albeit amicably it must be said. I won't name names but we just mutually decided we were not right for each other. I'd just like to thank them for all their advice though, much appreciated, and wish them the best in the future.


----------



## Pssthpok

Hey Upper_Krust.

I saw a friend's copy of the Bestiary preview and was wondering if you had addressed bonus hp for constructs above Colossal? Would it be a constantly growing/exponential increase or a linear one? What do you think?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hey Upper_Krust.




Hey Pssthpok! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> I saw a friend's copy of the Bestiary preview and was wondering if you had addressed bonus hp for constructs above Colossal? Would it be a constantly growing/exponential increase or a linear one? What do you think?




It would double every other size category (giving a skewed x1.5 each time in effect).

Titanic 120
Macro-Fine 160
Macro-Diminutive 240
etc.

...thinking about it I hope I have added it properly to all the constructs? Especially with the virtual size rules in operation for some of them.


----------



## Pssthpok

Splendid, thanks UK!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Is Virtual Size wrong?*

Hey guys!  

I am just wondering if I may have made a mistake with virtual size.

Upon reflection it should probably be +1 Virtual Size Category per +15 strength instead of +20 strength. Not exactly sure how I made that mistake, I think I was trying to balance real human weight with strength and maybe stretched things too much to accomodate a potential 23 strength (base 18 + 5 from 20 Levels). The changes are straightforward to instigate, but I just want to double check (with you guys) I have it right before I go ahead and make the changes. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Pssthpok

Could you maybe give us your reasoning? Is there a lot of math behind it?


----------



## Aaron L

Quote from Upper_Krust:

"Just think you could have a PC party comprised of the Lady of Pain, Yog-Sothoth, Goku (SS4 obviously) wielding Stormbringer, and Galactus. Trying to solve the mystery of an entity from a parallel universe whose cosmic footprints become black holes."

My god, that is so cool


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey there Pssthpok! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Could you maybe give us your reasoning? Is there a lot of math behind it?




Well the reasoning is that each size category gives a +15 net increase (+10 to strength and a virtual +5 from the carrying capacity modifier). So to mimic that you need a +15 strength increase for each virtual size category.

Now I think the problem I initially had was in trying to fit density into strength, instead of vice versa. This led me to think that a x4 density increase for humans per +10 strength bonus is unrealistic (in the bestiary I have a factor of x2.82 density increase).

But I am now starting to think that my initial figures were correct after all, and any problems caused by it are really just down to the fact that D&D allows humans to exceed world record lifting with Str 23.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey guys!
> 
> I am just wondering if I may have made a mistake with virtual size.
> 
> Upon reflection it should probably be +1 Virtual Size Category per +15 strength instead of +20 strength. Not exactly sure how I made that mistake, I think I was trying to balance real human weight with strength and maybe stretched things too much to accomodate a potential 23 strength (base 18 + 5 from 20 Levels). The changes are straightforward to instigate, but I just want to double check (with you guys) I have it right before I go ahead and make the changes.
> 
> Any thoughts?




QUIT SCREWING WITH YOUR PRODUCT AND FINISH THE FREAKING THING.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Aaron L! 



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Quote from Upper_Krust:
> 
> "Just think you could have a PC party comprised of the Lady of Pain, Yog-Sothoth, Goku (SS4 obviously) wielding Stormbringer, and Galactus. Trying to solve the mystery of an entity from a parallel universe whose cosmic footprints become black holes."
> 
> My god, that is so cool




Glad you liked it. 

I posted the following here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140833

Basically its an adventure idea for a 100th-level adventure. By the way I plan to have a 25th, 50th and 100th-level adventure in the Chronicle section, as well a 1 page 'adventure concentrate' style adventure for every 5th-level between 30th and 95th (other than 50th).

Anyway, I was just rambling when I posted it, but it turned out okay for an idea.

***

...how about an adventure where the Phaerimm conquer your world and use an epic ritual to send it into the Far Realm where Pseudonatural Devastation Caterpillars start to cocoon it. The Players are drafted into a divine strike team brought together to reclaim the planet. 

However, first they must recruit the final member of the group, Sharkon, an intelligent animating sword once worshipped as a deity. A weapon which can cause the extinction of an entire race, if a paragon of said race is slain by the deadly weapon.

Sharkon resides in the Comet Citadel of the Elder God Damolh, whose frozen fortress is now policed by powerful star-metal constructs from the future, although some of the original guards, Xixecal, still wander the outer sanctums.

Sharkon has been imprisoned, imbedded within the carcass of the Elder God for eons, although after the fatal blow had been struck Sharkon found he was unable to extricate himself from the now corpse of his enemy. Over the millenia Sharkons delusions manifested themselves, haunting the inner sanctum in the shapes of undead of the long forgotten races whose existence were ended by the blade.

The team then must breach the borders of the Far Realm guarded by World Flayers and penetrate into the depths of madness to reach the Twisted Tower of the Phaerimm Overmind and with its destruction cause the extinction of the entire race. However the ruler of the Phaerimm, as his last act, summons an Infinitaur (apparently the twisted tower was one of the beasts horns).

The players must then destroy the cocoon around the planet. However, they then find the planet itself has become self aware, and whats worse, insane. Before they can finally unravel the ritual of the Phaerimm, they must confront and defeat the planets id. If they are too late, the planet may have already hatched into the unspeakable mind moth which then multiplies by its proximity to sentient creatures, so you soon face a swarm of the titanic lepidoptera.

***

Anyway, thats just off the top of my head, the idea probably needs some work to it. 

Prologue: Planet gets stolen by the Phaerimm.
Part 1: Free Sharkon from the Comet Citadel.
Part 2: Destroy the Phaerimm Overmind in the Twisted Tower.
Part 3: "Its alive, ALIVE!"

Epilogue: 

- Freeing Sharkon eventually causes the Elder God, to rejuvenate, a two-headed monstousity searching for its third head which is now a demilich. The keys to the Elder Gods ultimate destruction lies within the gems of this massive demilich, each of which is a demiplane housing a fragment of the artifact which can bring about the demise of the cosmic deity.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> QUIT SCREWING WITH YOUR PRODUCT AND FINISH THE FREAKING THING.




I know.   

How many 'g's act in conjunction with the Orichalcum Golem(s)?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Any thoughts?




I'd just leave it exactly as-is.

* The system woprks just fine now.
* This would take extra time, and we don't want to wait.
* Fewer virtual size categories are preferable to more (in complexity terms).
* I don't really like the idea of expanding beyond its current position the proliferation of comic-book physics like this.


----------



## CR2000

Upper Krust, anything else on apotheosis?


----------



## Aaron L

Gotta love U_K


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Anabstercorian mate!
> 
> 
> 
> I know.
> 
> How many 'g's act in conjunction with the Orichalcum Golem(s)?




I already told you, silly.

10000g's: ~5.5m from golem
1000g's: ~17.5m from golem
100g's: ~55m from golem
10g's: ~173.2m from golem
1g: ~548m from golem
0.1g: ~1732.5m from golem

Basically, you're going to get pretty dramatic effects pretty quickly, but you're not going to face crushing effects until you get a lot closer.  A continuous bull-rush effect might be more appropriate than a damaging effect, at least at longer distances.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But I am now starting to think that my initial figures were correct after all, and any problems caused by it are really just down to the fact that D&D allows humans to exceed world record lifting with Str 23.




Let's not forget that Virtual Size Categories are also judges by the size of the creature, not the race. Natural strength (ability score rolled + racial adjustments + ability increases by level) may be only 23 for humans, but orcs, another Medium-sized race, can get up to 27 (+4 racial adjustment to strength). Given that, I'd say the way it is now is fine.

As an aside, U_K, I noticed the stats you'd posted for the Weapons from FFVII over on your webpage. They seem great (though I wonder if they have enough SLA's), except their hit dice seem rather low. The Tarrasque has almost twice their hit dice, and the titan and the solar, both of whom have CR's more than 10 less than the weapons, have only a few hit dice less.

I'd personally recommend doubling their hit dice. That may drive the CR up by maybe 5 or so (I'm guessing), but it'd be more in line with how they seemed to be unkillable monstrosities in the game. It also seems odd that the Diamond Weapon has acid immunity and acid resistance 25.

Oh, and that quote that of yours that Aaron mentioned...beyond kick ass.    (I'd ask what changes to the d20 system you think would need to be made to play an honest game of DB/Z/GT d20, since I think it'd require more than just shoveling the levels on by the scores, but I don't want to hijack the thread).


----------



## Anabstercorian

You know, looking over the weapons, I once again saw a failure to mention durations of many of their abilities.  I think this is a problem for you.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Heya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I'd just leave it exactly as-is.
> 
> * The system woprks just fine now.
> * This would take extra time, and we don't want to wait.
> * Fewer virtual size categories are preferable to more (in complexity terms).
> * I don't really like the idea of expanding beyond its current position the proliferation of comic-book physics like this.




I would prefer things to be right for the official release. The changes would only take a few hours, the art is the real hold up. I agree simplicity is better, but not in tandem with flawed rules.

With regards the comic book physics, I simply look at it as physics. D&D, as I have shown before, uses a low physical factor for its rules - so it is inherantly comic book already.

Also this could go a touch further to alleviate any discrepancies between warriors and spellcasters at epic levels.

Thanks for your help mate, I guess I am just trying to reason this in my own head.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CR2000! 



			
				CR2000 said:
			
		

> Upper Krust, anything else on apotheosis?




In between trying to finish the Bestiary art I have been tweaking and fixing the various powers and abilities to get them perfect, as well as starting work on the (13) deity examples. I suppose I should have asked was there any deities people would like to see? Obviously I have the Time Lord and the one above time lord already sorted. The 9 immortals will be one of each alignment, then you have the two undergods (Disciple and Prophet).

I have my initial list around here somewhere, but off the top of my head it was something like Achilles, Baba Yaga, Lucifer, Shang-Ti, Surtur, Algol, Metatron (obviously thats missing a few, and I am not going to name the Time Lords either at this stage). Although I probably should have put Algol (ie. Azathoth) in the Bestiary in a grouping on Pseudonaturals.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> I already told you, silly.
> 
> 10000g's: ~5.5m from golem
> 1000g's: ~17.5m from golem
> 100g's: ~55m from golem
> 10g's: ~173.2m from golem
> 1g: ~548m from golem
> 0.1g: ~1732.5m from golem




Read before you post. Thats for the Neutronium Golem. I asked you about the *Orichalcum* Golem. Now who's silly. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Basically, you're going to get pretty dramatic effects pretty quickly, but you're not going to face crushing effects until you get a lot closer.  A continuous bull-rush effect might be more appropriate than a damaging effect, at least at longer distances.




I have already changed how it works. 

By the way the Neutronium Golem is the only monster whose damage significantly changes from the recent Virtual Size Category revelation. It becomes a *'tad'* more powerful.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Aaaaaargh! Just lost this whole post! Here goes again.   



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that Virtual Size Categories are also judges by the size of the creature, not the race. Natural strength (ability score rolled + racial adjustments + ability increases by level) may be only 23 for humans, but orcs, another Medium-sized race, can get up to 27 (+4 racial adjustment to strength). Given that, I'd say the way it is now is fine.




In general Orcs would be heavier than humans. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> As an aside, U_K, I noticed the stats you'd posted for the Weapons from FFVII over on your webpage. They seem great (though I wonder if they have enough SLA's),




I did cut a few at the last minute. Also I don't think the Omega Weapon has all its feats.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> except their hit dice seem rather low.




I measured them and contrasted their images against the characters, then worked out their Hit Dice based on that. As elementals they have natural physiognomies.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The Tarrasque has almost twice their hit dice,




Its almost twice as big.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> and the titan and the solar,




Both outsiders with unnatural physiognomies.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> both of whom have CR's more than 10 less than the weapons, have only a few hit dice less.




Are those the 'official' CRs you are talking about? 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'd personally recommend doubling their hit dice.




You can always advance them.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> That may drive the CR up by maybe 5 or so (I'm guessing), but it'd be more in line with how they seemed to be unkillable monstrosities in the game.




Well I suppose that depends on whose trying to kill them. If you are non-epic then they are virtually unkillable. They are meant to be the Avatars of mother nature. Its difficult to contrast the power of Final Fantasy characters and D&D characters, however I certainly don't believe its 1:1 with regard levels, nor even 1:2 (especially not when I execute order 666 and bump up the magic). 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> It also seems odd that the Diamond Weapon has acid immunity and acid resistance 25.




Ooops! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Oh, and that quote that of yours that Aaron mentioned...beyond kick ass.




I appreciate the love dude! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> (I'd ask what changes to the d20 system you think would need to be made to play an honest game of DB/Z/GT d20, since I think it'd require more than just shoveling the levels on by the scores, but I don't want to hijack the thread).




I think when you have the IH you will be able to play such games effortlessly. I think a lot of it is that people don't fully grasp the significance of D&Ds low physical factor and when thats explained a lot of the pieces will fall into place.

Also I have a lot of monk type epic feats that probably should have been in the ELH. I mean I know Crouching Tiger inspired some of the ELH designers, but I have been watching kung fu, samurai and wuxia movies for as long as I have been playing D&D, maybe even before that...not to mention I also watch DBZ. 

At this point the only class I'm not massively expanding is the Bard. They added a lot of epic feats in the ELH specifically targeting the Bard and its been tricky coming up with new epic bard feats and divine abilities. I have a few, but not as many as I had hoped for. I probably need to do some brainstorming and start thinking outside the box with them....although, that said, I just had a few good ideas for Bards...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Heya mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> You know, looking over the weapons, I once again saw a failure to mention durations of many of their abilities.  I think this is a problem for you.




Example?


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Heya mate!
> 
> Read before you post. Thats for the Neutronium Golem. I asked you about the Orichalcum Golem. Now who's silly.




D'oh!  Okay, here're the equation you can use to calculate this:

squareroot( mass of critter in kilograms * gravitational constant of 6.673x10^-11 / # of g's desired ) = distance for said g's in meters

And here are the results for a critter with a mass of 22.4 billion pounds (or approximately 10.1 billion kilograms):

100 g's: Touch.
10 g's: About 10 cm.
1 g: 0.5 m.
0.1 g: 2.6 m. (Adjacent on a battlemat)
0.01 g: 8.2 m (about 4 squares away)
0.001 g: 26 m (about 13 squares away)



> Example?




Okay, um, there's no 'several' about it.    Sorry for implying.  It's really just the Light Pillar of Omega Weapon...  And to be honest, I REALLY don't think that Level 5 death is appropriate outside of a video game.  I mean, really - what does it even MEAN?


----------



## Cheiromancer

Those distances should be from the center of mass of the critter, right?  So, assuming it is at least a couple of meters in diameter, you'll get at most 0.1 g when you touch it.

I think that's right.  I don't see any reference to the diameter of the object in the formula, so I think it must refer to the center of mass.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> D'oh!  Okay, here're the equation you can use to calculate this:
> 
> squareroot( mass of critter in kilograms * gravitational constant of 6.673x10^-11 / # of g's desired ) = distance for said g's in meters
> 
> And here are the results for a critter with a mass of 22.4 billion pounds (or approximately 10.1 billion kilograms):
> 
> 100 g's: Touch.
> 10 g's: About 10 cm.
> 1 g: 0.5 m.
> 0.1 g: 2.6 m. (Adjacent on a battlemat)
> 0.01 g: 8.2 m (about 4 squares away)
> 0.001 g: 26 m (about 13 squares away)




Okay, thanks. Doesn't appear that it should have any notable effect...and thanks also to Cheiromancer.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Okay, um, there's no 'several' about it.    Sorry for implying.




You made it sound like an epidemic!  



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> It's really just the Light Pillar of Omega Weapon...




Ah, okay. I did mention previously that I didn't think Omega was quite finished yet.   



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> And to be honest, I REALLY don't think that Level 5 death is appropriate outside of a video game.  I mean, really - what does it even MEAN?




I think its great. To me its perfect for a being indirectly linked to fate such as mother nature and by proxy Omega Weapon. If by 'chance' your HD/Levels happen to be a multiple of 5 then its goodnight from you.  

...of course, the more powerful this ability then the lower the multiple...come to think of it Omega should only have a Level 7 Death, but I guess the designers at Squaresoft weren't exactly thinking about balancing Final Fantasy with the Immortals Handbook at the time.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!

I have a couple of questions/requests:

1.  Do you still plan to post Galactus' stats on your homepage?  I'm hoping to see them shortly.

2.  Thus far, I have understood the stats as presented in the Bestiary as "default official" if you will, that is, a representative average for creatures or the default standard for individuals.  Is it possible that certain "alternate universe" versions of the creatures would be far more powerful than the default standard?  For instance, "the seraphim in Aeon X are known to be particularly strong?"  

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I have a couple of questions/requests:




Fire away!



			
				historian said:
			
		

> 1.  Do you still plan to post Galactus' stats on your homepage?  I'm hoping to see them shortly.




Yes. Sorry about that.You know me and my scatterbrain by now. I say one thing, then I get distracted and forget about them. They are about half finished, I sort of hit a brick wall because I want Galactus to have Psion abilities and I have only passing familiarity to those rules.

Either hes going to be a 200 HD Outsider Old One with 100th-level Psion abilities or a 200th-level Psion Old One. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> 2.  Thus far, I have understood the stats as presented in the Bestiary as "default official" if you will, that is, a representative average for creatures or the default standard for individuals.  Is it possible that certain "alternate universe" versions of the creatures would be far more powerful than the default standard?  For instance, "the seraphim in Aeon X are known to be particularly strong?"




Well I am not familiar with Aeon X but it sounds interesting?

In an alternate universe 'good' could be winning the war and tipping the cosmic balance in its favour. In such a universe Seraphim could indeed be more powerful. Also there may well be some seraphic time lords, wherein a universe has been completely dominated by good/spirit.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks in advance.




Anytime mate!


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> Yes. Sorry about that.You know me and my scatterbrain by now. I say one thing, then I get distracted and forget about them. They are about half finished, I sort of hit a brick wall because I want Galactus to have Psion abilities and I have only passing familiarity to those rules.
> 
> Either hes going to be a 200 HD Outsider Old One with 100th-level Psion abilities or a 200th-level Psion Old One.




My suggestion would be the former rather than the latter but I wouldn't be disappointed either way.  Galactus' psionic abilities seem to be a function of his primordialistic nature rather than the other way around if that makes any sense.  "He's" more fundamental than a class and in any event his ability to read minds appears to be his most prominent psionic ability (no matter the language).  Another of "his" interesting characteristic is that he appears to any race as a member of that race (to a brood a brood, a human a human, and to a salamander a salamander).  I think this underscores his potent originality rather than any psionic trick or class dependency.

Just my 2 cents (not sure of the conversion).  In any event, I wouldn't get overly bogged down with min/maxing and feats, but I'm sure it's difficult at higher levels.



> Well I am not familiar with Aeon X but it sounds interesting?




Aeon X was made up on the spot with X being any variable you wanted to attach to it.  Just an abstract.  I could make an interesting scenario though.  



> In an alternate universe 'good' could be winning the war and tipping the cosmic balance in its favour. In such a universe Seraphim could indeed be more powerful. Also there may well be some seraphic time lords, wherein a universe has been completely dominated by good/spirit.




That is unbelievably cool and seems to fit well within Marvel's Abraxas storyline.  I also believe it might offer a more plausible explanation for Thanos' rise to "supremacy" in Marvel's "The End."  My preference would be to interpret Thanos' new status in that storyline to "very powerful Aeon" or at least "usurper to the Living Tribunal" as opposed to "Supreme Being."


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I would prefer things to be right for the official release. The changes would only take a few hours, the art is the real hold up. I agree simplicity is better, but not in tandem with flawed rules.
> 
> With regards the comic book physics, I simply look at it as physics. D&D, as I have shown before, uses a low physical factor for its rules - so it is inherantly comic book already.
> 
> Also this could go a touch further to alleviate any discrepancies between warriors and spellcasters at epic levels.
> 
> Thanks for your help mate, I guess I am just trying to reason this in my own head.




Well, do as you will, but I still prefer the old way (15) to the new way (10).


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> My suggestion would be the former rather than the latter but I wouldn't be disappointed either way.




I was leaning towards the former. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Galactus' psionic abilities seem to be a function of his primordialistic nature rather than the other way around if that makes any sense.  "He's" more fundamental than a class and in any event his ability to read minds appears to be his most prominent psionic ability (no matter the language).




His power is clearly not mystical in nature, given that he has required the services of Dr. Strange on occasion.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Another of "his" interesting characteristic is that he appears to any race as a member of that race (to a brood a brood, a human a human, and to a salamander a salamander).  I think this underscores his potent originality rather than any psionic trick or class dependency.




Of course I have Stormbreaker.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Just my 2 cents (not sure of the conversion).




He converts to 197 HD/Levels, but lets just say hes 200th for simplicity.

...that way also makes it easier to detail the Silver Surfer. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> In any event, I wouldn't get overly bogged down with min/maxing and feats, but I'm sure it's difficult at higher levels.




Its not that difficult. It was the Psion thing that threw me off more than the power.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Aeon X was made up on the spot with X being any variable you wanted to attach to it.  Just an abstract.  I could make an interesting scenario though.




I thought it was some sort of anime show and I was looking forward to watching it. Grrr!



			
				historian said:
			
		

> That is unbelievably cool and seems to fit well within Marvel's Abraxas storyline.




I actually don't own that story unfortunately. Always seemed interesting.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I also believe it might offer a more plausible explanation for Thanos' rise to "supremacy" in Marvel's "The End."  My preference would be to interpret Thanos' new status in that storyline to "very powerful Aeon" or at least "usurper to the Living Tribunal" as opposed to "Supreme Being."




They never made it clear if he was operating in all universes or not. Although defeating the Living Tribunal suggests that he was, which is then contradicted by Warlocks appearance.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CRGreathouse mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Well, do as you will, but I still prefer the old way (15) to the new way (10).




Well you know I appreciate your opinion mate, but I just don't seem to be able to justify the '15' anymore...and I like things to make sense.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey CRGreathouse mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Well you know I appreciate your opinion mate, but I just don't seem to be able to justify the '15' anymore...and I like things to make sense.




Man, you've got freakin' neutronium golems with gravity wells !  You left sense behind a long time ago!

Just do the math and be done with it...  Dude, set a target, HIT the target, or this thing's vaporware.


----------



## Pssthpok

Wh... I must have missed that when I looked over my friend's shoulder!

Neutronium is matter so tightly condensed that is doesn't have any space between the electrons! How does anyone handle that stuff in order to MAKE the golem? 

Holy crap.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Man, you've got freakin' neutronium golems with gravity wells !  You left sense behind a long time ago!




The idea of a Neutronium Golem makes perfect sense given the factors involved.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Just do the math and be done with it...  Dude, set a target, HIT the target, or this thing's vaporware.




Theres still definately something I am missing with regards this VSC business. If anything its now looking like it should be +30 strength above averages to duplicate the mass of the next highest VSC, but I am still thinking it should be +15 to duplicate the extra damage of a Virtual Size Category.

On the surface it seems an 8 fold increase in strength (+15) is accompanied by the square root of the strength multiple as a mass increase (approx. x2.82). Boiled down that becomes x2 mass for +10 strength for characters, in contrast to x8 mass for +10 (+15 counting carry cap. modifier) strength for each size increase.

So a human with a natural str 40 would need to weigh (approx.) 1120 lbs. But deal 4d6 with a greatsword for instance. While a monster with strength 40 would weigh 32 tons.

Now human mass increase (paralleling strength) would be because of increased muscle size/density, whereas a monsters mass increase will still have the same proportion of muscle/strength, which of course will now be weaker because of the greater mass to move.

If we make the assumption that any extra energy from the increased mass, of a monster, will be offset by extra speed, of a character, then it seems to me that +1 VSC/+15 strength increase is valid.

Anyway I'll stop thinking out loud now.   

I'll sort it out tonight with any luck.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> They never made it clear if he was operating in all universes or not. Although defeating the Living Tribunal suggests that he was, which is then contradicted by Warlocks appearance.




It's not a contradiction. The events of Infinity Abyss made it clear that the totality of the Marvel Universe (including all of its multiple universes, far realities, etc.) are the sphere above the infinity abyss in that vortext. The sphere is anchored from falling into the abyss by the small "satellite" where the being that acts as the anchor lives (currently Atleza). 

Thanos's becoming God was, as I see it, becoming God of that sphere, but his power stopped at its limit (presumably anyway; what power he may or may not have had outside of it is speculative. It's also speculative that the previous God fled the sphere when he let Thanos get the HotU). Since Warlock was outside there, he wasn't affected. It's similar to why Hunger couldn't just enter the universe. He mentions it was spherical, and thus he couldn't get there on his own. The gateway Galactus opened thus (from what I'm inferring) reached a different one of those spheres.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Neutronium is matter so tightly condensed that is doesn't have any space between the electrons! How does anyone handle that stuff in order to MAKE the golem?




Heck, it's worse than that... the electrons are pressed so close to the nucleus that they combine with the protons to make neutrons.  Neutron stars (and so "neutronium") are really just neutrons pressed tightyl together by their own gravity.

Obviosuly it wouldn't be possible to build something from it, as the gravity just wouldn't be there (unless the thing you were building was a sphere, i.e. a neutron star  ).


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If we make the assumption that any extra energy from the increased mass, of a monster, will be offset by extra speed, of a character, then it seems to me that +1 VSC/+15 strength increase is valid.




...and this is why I said to just leave it -- otherwise you'll toy with it for ages, and we want our books. 

Frankly I'm probably going to use different rules for strength anyway, which will ruin all the careful planning of yours.  (I wanted to use the obvious quadratic progression for Str instead of the current power progression.)


----------



## Anabstercorian

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Obviosuly it wouldn't be possible to build something from it, as the gravity just wouldn't be there (unless the thing you were building was a sphere, i.e. a neutron star  ).




Unless you've got magic!   We can make a Dream Golem if we really want - you think GRAVITY will stop us?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Unless you've got magic!   We can make a Dream Golem if we really want - you think GRAVITY will stop us?




So the neutronium golem collapses into a sphere if it's in an _antimagic field_?


----------



## historian

Intereeting stuff.



> So the neutronium golem collapses into a sphere if it's in an antimagic field?




Only if it were summoned, but in that case I'm guessing it would only "wink out."  Then again (if I'm recalling correctly), it would take an epic level spell to summon one, in which case a quasi dispel check would apply.  Moreover, the magic necessary to summon one would likely only originate from an artifact or a being of demi-deity status or higher, in which case the summoning spell (and hence the neutronium golem) wouldn't be affected in the slightest.  



> They never made it clear if he was operating in all universes or not. Although defeating the Living Tribunal suggests that he was, which is then contradicted by Warlocks appearance.




Perhaps the most linear way to reconile this apparent (but maybe not, see Alzrius) discrepancy is to conclude that HOU Thanos had dominion over several universes but not all.  It seems that this interpretation could explain the superiority over LT but not all versions of Warlock.


----------



## CRGreathouse

historian said:
			
		

> Only if it were summoned, but in that case I'm guessing it would only "wink out."  Then again (if I'm recalling correctly), it would take an epic level spell to summon one, in which case a quasi dispel check would apply.  Moreover, the magic necessary to summon one would likely only originate from an artifact or a being of demi-deity status or higher, in which case the summoning spell (and hence the neutronium golem) wouldn't be affected in the slightest.




What does beiong summoned have to do with it?  I'm assuming it's physically present (called or just there).  The weight of the neutronium golem would collapse itself (if it's large enough) or the neutronium would decay over the course of a minute, mostly into hydrogen, as the unstable neutrons aren't being forced together tightly enough to keep them from reverting into p+e.


----------



## BSF

Hey UK!

So it looks like you will be doing Apotheosis next?  Any idea on a time frame?  Yeah I know you aren't good at hitting those.  But that book would be golden to me right now.  At some point I am going to need to decide if I am going to wait for it or just start winging it as best as I can.


----------



## Verequus

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> So the neutronium golem collapses into a sphere if it's in an _antimagic field_?




No - out of the same reason, undead don't collapse in an antimagic field, too.


----------



## historian

> What does beiong summoned have to do with it? I'm assuming it's physically present (called or just there). The weight of the neutronium golem would collapse itself (if it's large enough) or the neutronium would decay over the course of a minute, mostly into hydrogen, as the unstable neutrons aren't being forced together tightly enough to keep them from reverting into p+e.




So we've established that a neutronium golem should be impossible under contemporary physics.  Likewise, a stone golem should be impossible under contemporary physics (stone moving of its own volition and not crumbling despite the fact that it has no apparent joints).  But, we've assumed the existence of anti-magic and therefore magic.  The question then becomes how we apply anti-magic to magical creatures.  Per the rules:



> The spell [anti-magic] has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned.




It seems to me that your issue with the neutronium golem is not really an issue with the neutronium golem but either (1) an issue with the application of the anti-magic rules or (2) an issue with the existence and/or limits of magic.

Anyway, that's why I interjected the notion of summoning into the hypothetical.


----------



## Upper_Krust

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Hey UK!




Hey BardStephenFox matey! 



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> So it looks like you will be doing Apotheosis next?




Yes, and thanks to everyone who voted in the poll...even those who voted for the "don't like epic/immortal gaming" option, although I should have asked them why not.



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Any idea on a time frame?




Of course I have an idea, but I will only get burnt by revealing it methinks.  



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Yeah I know you aren't good at hitting those.




Yes I don't seem very good with those. 



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> But that book would be golden to me right now.  At some point I am going to need to decide if I am going to wait for it or just start winging it as best as I can.




Well how about the end of the month (as the first self imposed deadline to miss). I'm almost on top of the Bestiary art here so hopefully I'll have that out of the way soon and I can concentrate on Apotheosis which doesn't really need tons of work to complete so it shouldn't take too long when it has my full attention.


----------



## BSF

End of the month would be terrific!  I won't hold your feet to the fire on it though.    I just have several campaign elements coming up that would be much more solid and consistent if I don't start winging it as I need it.  

By no means am I as hardcore as you are, but once I get a grasp on a framework, I can do pretty good with maintaining consistency.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> End of the month would be terrific!  I won't hold your feet to the fire on it though.




Thats okay. I have Anabstercorian for that. 



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> I just have several campaign elements coming up that would be much more solid and consistent if I don't start winging it as I need it.
> 
> By no means am I as hardcore as you are, but once I get a grasp on a framework, I can do pretty good with maintaining consistency.




DMs have that luxury. Designers don't. I think a good designer should be able to objectively explain why everything is designed the way it is.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Thats okay. I have Anabstercorian for that.




God-darned right you do!  I want a time table, _now_.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> DMs have that luxury. Designers don't. I think a good designer should be able to objectively explain why everything is designed the way it is.




I heartily approve of this sentiment.


----------



## CRGreathouse

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> No - out of the same reason, undead don't collapse in an antimagic field, too.




Huh?  I'm talking about the fact that its own gravity is strong enough to force itself into a sphere by virtue of its weight alone, not quibbling about its animating force.


----------



## CRGreathouse

historian said:
			
		

> It seems to me that your issue with the neutronium golem is not really an issue with the neutronium golem but either (1) an issue with the application of the anti-magic rules or (2) an issue with the existence and/or limits of magic.
> 
> Anyway, that's why I interjected the notion of summoning into the hypothetical.




As above, I have no issues with the animating force (and such no problems with _antimagic_ in general) and am only considering the effects of said _antimagic field_.  The creature can't hold itself together without magic.


----------



## Fieari

I think the point is that the animating force also keeps it non-sphere shaped.


----------



## Verequus

Fieari said:
			
		

> I think the point is that the animating force also keeps it non-sphere shaped.




Exactly my thoughts.


----------



## CRGreathouse

...but nonmagically.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Yes.  Just like a flesh golem can move about in an anti-magic field despite being magical.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Anyhow, if I _am_ to be your manager, I want a better method of being in touch with you.  Send me an e-mail that I might remain in contact? re[ignore this]hughes A T mit DOT edu


----------



## historian

Hey Krust!   

I've got a couple of random questions.

(1) Will you tell us any more about High Lords, what they are/what they do?  I think you might have made mention of them by their esoteric name in the Bestiary Preview but can't be sure.

(2) Is Galactus' alignment chaotic neutral?

Thanks


----------



## Upper_Krust

I just got through updating the Neutronium Golem with the new VSC rules and its so powerful I'm too scared to print the figures, it'll 'pop a cap in yo planatary mass'.   

Its CR is a 'tad' higher too.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Hey Krust!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I've got a couple of random questions.




Well lets hear them! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> (1) Will you tell us any more about High Lords, what they are/what they do?




I have too keep a few secrets for the book. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I think you might have made mention of them by their esoteric name in the Bestiary Preview but can't be sure.




No I don't think I did. 

Spectrals (Mazzaroth) are not High Lords, they are something different. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> (2) Is Galactus' alignment chaotic neutral?




I would have said Neutral, possibly even Lawful Neutral.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks




Your welcome.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> I just got through updating the Neutronium Golem with the new VSC rules and its so powerful I'm too scared to print the figures, it'll 'pop a cap in yo planatary mass'.
> 
> Its CR is a 'tad' higher too.




Throw it up as a web enhancement and solicit feedback.  Conceptually it is worthy of just about any CR you would want to put on it, as are many of the other beings in the Bestiary (I think I could defend just about any CR, no matter how high, that one placed on Elder Gods and above).  If you think it's too powerful then you could perhaps place it into your standard construct framework (sentinel to leviathan) so that you have a low end to high end (it would certainly seem possible that neutronium constructs can differ in mass, at least until they reach the point of no return  .



> Spectrals (Mazzaroth) are not High Lords, they are something different.




Am I that transparent?  


> I would have said Neutral, possibly even Lawful Neutral.




Both make sense, the psionic flavor of Galactus threw me though (thought/chaos).

BTW, I would recommend Batman Begins if you haven't seen it.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hi historian matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Throw it up as a web enhancement and solicit feedback.  Conceptually it is worthy of just about any CR you would want to put on it, as are many of the other beings in the Bestiary (I think I could defend just about any CR, no matter how high, that one placed on Elder Gods and above).




I don't have a problem with high powered, but I do have a problem with it breaking design parameters for its Hit Dice (primarily due to its damage alone, which is unbelievably high). Basically what this tells me is that either its damage is too high or its Hit Dice is far too low.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> If you think it's too powerful then you could perhaps place it into your standard construct framework (sentinel to leviathan) so that you have a low end to high end (it would certainly seem possible that neutronium constructs can differ in mass, at least until they reach the point of no return  .




I hardly see that alleviating any problems, especially since the golem is the 2nd weakest type of construct listed.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Am I that transparent?




Yes. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Both make sense, the psionic flavor of Galactus threw me though (thought/chaos).




Cosmically, hes more linked to fate than thought.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> BTW, I would recommend Batman Begins if you haven't seen it.




I saw it about 6 weeks ago, thanks. It was fairly good, but I wasn't blown away to be honest, I know a lot of people are going 'ga-ga' for it. But with the exception of Sin City, I can't remember being impressed by anything in the cinema this year and I go almost every week.

Revenge of the Sith and Batman Begins were both good but nowhere near great. Fantastic Four was disappointing. War of the Worlds was awful. None of the summer blockbusters have really delivered the goods in my eyes.

I'm still looking forward to Unleashed, Land of the Dead, Doom and eventually King Kong at the end of the year. But none of them are really getting me especially excited at this point. As far as I can see Superman Returns (2006) is the movie I am waiting for.


----------



## Shariell

Hi UK, I'm an Italian DM, and my campaing is going in high-epic standard so far... me and my group are very very intrested in your work. How we can get it? I've not understand very well how to pay and how to request your work, if you can tell me how, I will very apprecciate (take count we are from Italy, not from US or even North America).

I'm glad to see people like you, who keep efforts to bring us epic players and DM, a huge set of options, despite the poor support of wizard of the coast on the epic side of the game.

PS. Sorry for my poor English...this is not my first language 

Can't wait to see your work!!
Shariell


----------



## Verequus

Shariell said:
			
		

> Hi UK, ... me and my group are very very intrested in your work. How we can get it? I've not understand very well how to pay and how to request your work, if you can tell me how, I will very apprecciate (take count we are from Italy, not from US or even North America).




I fill up for UK. Basically, for the non-art version you need a paypal account - only the finished version, which still isn't finished, will be available on places like RPGnow and hopefully also in print. If you don't want to wait for the finished version (which you will receive, if you have bought the non-art version), then you have to transfer *£3.50* over Paypal to agooddesigner (at) hotmail (dot) com.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Shariell said:
			
		

> Hi UK, I'm an Italian DM,




Ciao Shariell! 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> and my campaing is going in high-epic standard so far... me and my group are very very intrested in your work.




Hey thanks - I appreciate the interest! Tell the group I said hello!   



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> How we can get it? I've not understand very well how to pay and how to request your work, if you can tell me how, I will very apprecciate (take count we are from Italy, not from US or even North America).




Okay. Well Rulemaster already explained how (thanks dude), but I'll go over it again.

At the moment, only the unofficial version is available via Paypal. To get that, you paypal £3.50 (British Pounds Sterling) to my email address *agooddesigner@hotmail.com* and then I will send you the document.

However in about a weeks time *fingers crossed* I should have the official version (with all the artwork) available at places like www.rpgnow.com.

If you buy the unofficial version now, you get the official version free after its released.



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> I'm glad to see people like you, who keep efforts to bring us epic players and DM, a huge set of options, despite the poor support of wizard of the coast on the epic side of the game.




Well thanks. I think Wizards of the Coast support for epic/deity level play is a bit thin because their own books (Epic Level Handbook and Deities & Demgods) were not greatly received by the fans.

I am not sure if you are aware of it, but there is a fantastic website called dicefreaks which has a lot of epic material you should find interesting.

http://community.dicefreaks.com/

Also I have some stuff on my website as well.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> PS. Sorry for my poor English...this is not my first language




Don't worry about that mate! 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> Can't wait to see your work!!


----------



## Shariell

thanks for the reply!! (both to you and rulemaster)
Time to search info about paypal...and time to order our copy of your immortals handbook 

Also thanks for the links...I already know dicefreaks, but not your own site. Can't wait to go check it for some news about your project!!!

Greetings from all my gaming group: Almeridian, Rah'El, Shezan, Arashi Elendar an of course me, Shariell 

Ciao!


----------



## CR2000

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey CR2000!
> 
> 
> 
> In between trying to finish the Bestiary art I have been tweaking and fixing the various powers and abilities to get them perfect, as well as starting work on the (13) deity examples. I suppose I should have asked was there any deities people would like to see? Obviously I have the Time Lord and the one above time lord already sorted. The 9 immortals will be one of each alignment, then you have the two undergods (Disciple and Prophet).
> 
> I have my initial list around here somewhere, but off the top of my head it was something like Achilles, Baba Yaga, Lucifer, Shang-Ti, Surtur, Algol, Metatron (obviously thats missing a few, and I am not going to name the Time Lords either at this stage). Although I probably should have put Algol (ie. Azathoth) in the Bestiary in a grouping on Pseudonaturals.





That's great. 

So I assume your rules for divine ascension are ready and rearing to go?


----------



## Fieari

Would it be possible to release those divine ascension rules without the example deities, much like the Bestiary Preview?  Given the rules, I could probably stat out some deities on my own... after which point, of course, I'd love to see your take.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Ciao Shariell! 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> thanks for the reply!! (both to you and rulemaster)




My pleasure.



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> Time to search info about paypal...and time to order our copy of your immortals handbook




Well like I said, it should shortly be available at rpgnow and places like that. So you would be able to buy it with a credit card...if that would be easier.



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> Also thanks for the links...I already know dicefreaks, but not your own site. Can't wait to go check it for some news about your project!!!




Well I don't have as much stuff up as dicefreaks, but I am only one person.   

Some of it is quite good though. 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> Greetings from all my gaming group: Almeridian, Rah'El, Shezan, Arashi Elendar an of course me, Shariell
> 
> Ciao!




Ciao Italia!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CR2000! 



			
				CR2000 said:
			
		

> That's great.
> 
> So I assume your rules for divine ascension are ready and rearing to go?




Well they have been ready to go for about 3 years. 

So the difficulty was never in the ascension rules. It was more a case of the multitude of options, powers and portfolios that become available after ascension needing streamlined and refined.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to release those divine ascension rules without the example deities, much like the Bestiary Preview?




It would be possible, but I don't see it happening. The idea with the Bestiary preview was that the text wasn't finished. The apotheosis text is not yet finished, of which the sample deities are not a major stumbling block (although they won't be totally finished until after the rest is finished for obvious reasons).



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Given the rules, I could probably stat out some deities on my own... after which point, of course, I'd love to see your take.




I am sure you could. I designed the rules to be incredibly simple. I even show in the book how to create your own divine ranks or customise the existing ones.

Using the stats as given is incredibly easy. Thats the beauty of templates.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Regarding the neutronium golem:



> I don't have a problem with high powered, but I do have a problem with it breaking design parameters for its Hit Dice (primarily due to its damage alone, which is unbelievably high). Basically what this tells me is that either its damage is too high or its Hit Dice is far too low.




Understood -- the last thing the world needs is an asymmetrical neutronum golem.  

Also, good luck bringing Galactus together.  Something tells me that a great many people are going to be interested in that.


----------



## Shariell

I've just received my copy of the book... it looks very intresting!
Nice to see the LA listed too, and the tactics round by round.

My players now can start fear their enemy...eheheh

Thanks UK


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Regarding the neutronium golem:
> 
> Understood -- the last thing the world needs is an asymmetrical neutronum golem.




I like things to have a reason, even if I don't always explain what that reason is brazenly in the design.

As far as I can tell the Orichalcum Golem *should* have 604 Hit Dice, whilst the Neutronium Golem should have 28,577 Hit Dice and will, on average, destroy an Earth sized planet (low physical factor) with a single slam!   

Normally, I wouldn't bother including such a creature, but the Neutronium Golem was more of a fanciful creation to begin with, rather than something that will see much use in any but the most outlandish campaigns. So I am not adverse to this change. Either way, those who have the unofficial Bestiary will of course now have two versions of the Neutronium Golem to choose from, so they are not losing out at all...the new CR is a tentative 20,003 (13,335 WotC CR).

Dark Matter and Black Hole Golems weighing in at 50,818 HD and 90,369 Hit Dice respectively...but I am sure no one is interested in them.

A few of the others may also change (eg. The Mercury Golem would be 20 HD), but I am not sure if I am going to change them yet.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Also, good luck bringing Galactus together.  Something tells me that a great many people are going to be interested in that.




There you go putting the pressure on me to finish that too.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Ciao Shariell mate! 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> I've just received my copy of the book... it looks very intresting!
> Nice to see the LA listed too, and the tactics round by round.




I should point out that the Level Adjustments in the Dragon entries are wrong, but I'll have those sorted for the official release. 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> My players now can start fear their enemy...eheheh




Just keep them away from the Neutronium Golems. 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> Thanks UK




No thanks necessary dude, I appreciate the interest.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> As far as I can tell the Orichalcum Golem should have 604 Hit Dice, whilst the Neutronium Golem should have 28,577 Hit Dice and will, on average, destroy an Earth sized planet (low physical factor) with a single slam!




Sweet!  



> Normally, I wouldn't bother including such a creature, but the Neutronium Golem was more of a fanciful creation to begin with, rather than something that will see much use in any but the most outlandish campaigns. So I am not adverse to this change. Either way, those who have the unofficial Bestiary will of course now have two versions of the Neutronium Golem to choose from, so they are not losing out at all...the new CR is a tentative 20,003 (13,335 WotC CR).




Excellent.  Please consider me in the most outlandish camp.  



> Dark Matter and Black Hole Golems weighing in at 50,818 HD and 90,369 Hit Dice respectively...but I am sure no one is interested in them.




Dark Matter Golems!?  Man, I'm really out of the loop.  (Taking the bait), I'm very interested in both.



> There you go putting the pressure on me to finish that too.




I'm a good, loyal customer.


----------



## Kavon

Heya, Craig :3



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Dark Matter and Black Hole Golems weighing in at 50,818 HD and 90,369 Hit Dice respectively...but I am sure no one is interested in them.



Ooh, epic-gasm :B

*interested* XP


----------



## Cheiromancer

"Golem" is just the second of 4 categories, beginning with Sentinel and culminating in Leviathan, right?

What's the LA for a Black Hole Leviathan?  In case I'm ever playing in a *really* high powered campaign.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell the Orichalcum Golem *should* have 604 Hit Dice, whilst the Neutronium Golem should have 28,577 Hit Dice and will, on average, destroy an Earth sized planet (low physical factor) with a single slam!




Which reminds me, will you have rules on planet-busting? More specifically, what would a planet's AC, hardness, and hit points be? 



> _Either way, those who have the unofficial Bestiary will of course now have two versions of the Neutronium Golem to choose from, so they are not losing out at all...the new CR is a tentative 20,003 (13,335 WotC CR)._




Yet another reason why I wanted to have the Bestiary ASAP. Though I'm curious if you'll have creatures to fill in the big gap between CR 1000 (Orichalcum Leviathan and Lipika) and the new Neutronium Golem.



> _Dark Matter and Black Hole Golems weighing in at 50,818 HD and 90,369 Hit Dice respectively...but I am sure no one is interested in them._




Ha! (sarcastic)

Slightly more seriously though, I noticed that a lot of the most powerful classes of creatures (Qodeshim, Nehaschimic dragons, etc.) were ignored in the Bestiary. Any particular reason?


----------



## Fieari

I'm suddenly imagining a campaign in which there is a Neutronium Golem, or perhaps a Dark Matter or Black Hole Golem being controlled by a devestatingly evil master going about the universe destroying everything it can, and your home planet is only a couple thousand (or hundred thousand) light years away from it's last scryed position...

The campaign wouldn't be destroying the Golem.  It would be moving the entire planet (or population, for the wusses... moving the entire solar system including the star for more accomplished immortals) _out of the way of the rampage!_


----------



## Anabstercorian

Fieari said:
			
		

> I'm suddenly imagining a campaign in which there is a Neutronium Golem, or perhaps a Dark Matter or Black Hole Golem being controlled by a devestatingly evil master going about the universe destroying everything it can, and your home planet is only a couple thousand (or hundred thousand) light years away from it's last scryed position...
> 
> The campaign wouldn't be destroying the Golem.  It would be moving the entire planet (or population, for the wusses... moving the entire solar system including the star for more accomplished immortals) _out of the way of the rampage!_



Very cool idea.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> "Golem" is just the second of 4 categories, beginning with Sentinel and culminating in Leviathan, right?




Guardian < Golem < Sentinel < Gargant < Colossus < Leviathan



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> What's the LA for a Black Hole Leviathan? In case I'm ever playing in a *really* high powered campaign.




Its about -450,000...yes thats a minus sign.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Which reminds me, will you have rules on planet-busting? More specifically, what would a planet's AC, hardness, and hit points be?




AC is next to irrelevant, hardness would be 10 (iron core). Hit points I'll keep under wraps for now. 

I have the hit points for a planet, star, galaxy, super-cluster and universe.

Actually, I just went over the figures again and a Neutronium Golem wouldn't explode a planet completely unless it rolled very high on its damage roll. But either way it would still be game over for the planet. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Yet another reason why I wanted to have the Bestiary ASAP. Though I'm curious if you'll have creatures to fill in the big gap between CR 1000 (Orichalcum Leviathan and Lipika) and the new Neutronium Golem.




I don't know how much they would be warranted? Anything above about (WotC) CR 500 (which is when time lords start to enter into it) I really don't see being used very often. So even with epic/immortal gaming there is still a pyramid of power with low epic being the most used monsters, then mid-epic, then high epic etc. So obviously I want to reflect that in the bestiary, although the ELH does have a lot of low epic monsters so I am not going out of my way to accomodate those specifically (even though I do end up with a load of sub-epic monsters for some of the multifaceted entries like the elementals and golems).



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Ha! (sarcastic)








			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Slightly more seriously though, I noticed that a lot of the most powerful classes of creatures (Qodeshim, Nehaschimic dragons, etc.) were ignored in the Bestiary. Any particular reason?




The Qodeshim is an individual - Metatron. He is the sample First One in the IH. The Nehaschimic Dragons were dropped from the Bestiary because their Hit Dice is so high, ideally I wanted to use lots of Divine Abilities (from the IH) as surrogate feats. I'd really like to have the Nexus Dragon in there. The original plan was to have three volumes of the Bestiary with the following as the backbone:

Vol. 1: Angels, Elementars, 4 Neotic Dragons, 2 Adamic Dragons and 1 Nehaschimic Dragon.

Vol. 2: Inevitables, Intelligibles, another 7 dragons as above.

Vol. 3: Pseudonaturals, Umbrals, another 7 dragons as above.

The problem was that I couldn't quite pin down what I wanted from Elementars, so I decided I would explain those in either the 2nd or 3rd Volumes (I have those sorted now though...you'll like them). Then a few pseudonaturals crept into Volume 1. Everything got a bit confused, as I was creating new monsters every day as I went along. I thought I could design about 100 epic monsters (about 33-34 per Volume), but I now have over 150 epic monsters at some stage of development and the ideas don't really seem to be drying up just yet.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Its about -450,000...yes thats a minus sign.




So a Black Hole Leviathan/Wizard 450,001 is a first level character?  Cool.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The problem was that I couldn't quite pin down what I wanted from Elementars, so I decided I would explain those in either the 2nd or 3rd Volumes (I have those sorted now though...you'll like them). Then a few pseudonaturals crept into Volume 1. Everything got a bit confused, as I was creating new monsters every day as I went along. I thought I could design about 100 epic monsters (about 33-34 per Volume), but I now have over 150 epic monsters at some stage of development and the ideas don't really seem to be drying up just yet.




Save them for later, for crying out loud!  Making all these monsters without high level character rules is like painting a mural on the dark side of the moon.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> So a Black Hole Leviathan/Wizard 450,001 is a first level character?  Cool.




Well it would have 1,445,904 Hit Dice, ECL would be approx. 1 million (off the top of my head).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian dude! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Save them for later, for crying out loud!




Okay, okay.   



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Making all these monsters without high level character rules is like painting a mural on the dark side of the moon.




Well you do have high-level character rules...just not the best high-level character rules. 

...just thinking about it though, those 150+ monsters would make one heck of an Epic Bestiary Hardback.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> Well it would have 1,445,904 Hit Dice, ECL would be approx. 1 million (off the top of my head).




Exactly who/what would create a black hole golem and what would it defend?  

Assuming an upward adjustment in HD/CR and stats for the neutronium golem (and potentially the other golems), do you anticipate beefing up the other beasts, or at least expanding their range for HD advancement?  Potentially you could have a pretty significant gulf between First Ones and Time Lords.  I'm guessing this gulf could be explained by saying that not all Time Lords are capable of creating Neutronium Golems?

Thanks


----------



## Fieari

If you could somehow, SOMEHOW get him close enough to make a ranged attack, the infamous Hulking Hurler build on the WotC Character Optimization boards could probably still kill a Black Hole Golem.  But then, that's the trick, isn't it.... getting close enough to attack it and live.  And while the HH can dish out a couple trillion damage per iterative attack on a successful hit, he's known for having a terrible glass jaw, and his attack bonus isn't so great either, so it's quite hard for him to hit anything that isn't, say, a planet.


----------



## Sledge

But wouldn't a black hole golem have a terribly horrible AC due to it drawing all missile fire towards it?

So anyways, I've got this money laid out for the next book.  When can I fork it over?


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Exactly who/what would create a black hole golem and what would it defend?




Well, relatively speaking they are not that much more powerful than Neutronium Golems, so you have to expect they operate under similar criteria. If the Neutronium Golem was a (Movanic) Deva then the Black Hole Golem might be a Solar.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Assuming an upward adjustment in HD/CR and stats for the neutronium golem (and potentially the other golems), do you anticipate beefing up the other beasts, or at least expanding their range for HD advancement?




No.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Potentially you could have a pretty significant gulf between First Ones and Time Lords.




I could, but I don't really. There gulf between Time Lord and High Lord starts to grow pretty quickly though.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I'm guessing this gulf could be explained by saying that not all Time Lords are capable of creating Neutronium Golems?




I'll not know for definite until I finalise the magic system.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> If you could somehow, SOMEHOW get him close enough to make a ranged attack, the infamous Hulking Hurler build on the WotC Character Optimization boards could probably still kill a Black Hole Golem.




Unlikely. 

Okay I just tracked it down, is this what you mean?

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=142565

If so, I have already analysed the problem, in fact its one I already fix in the Bestiary under Universal Base Damage.

The way they have damage scale in the Complete Warrior is totally ludicrous.



			
				Complete Warrior said:
			
		

> The end of complete warrior says that a thrown weapon does 5d6 damage for a 400 pound object, plus another 1d6 for every 200 pounds beyond that.




Utter nonsense. No wonder the Hulking Hurler is broken.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> But then, that's the trick, isn't it.... getting close enough to attack it and live.  And while the HH can dish out a couple trillion damage per iterative attack on a successful hit, he's known for having a terrible glass jaw, and his attack bonus isn't so great either, so it's quite hard for him to hit anything that isn't, say, a planet.




Full marks to people for finding such a loophole in the official rules, but you have to get up a bit earlier to pull the wool over my eyes. Hulking Hurler indeed.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> But wouldn't a black hole golem have a terribly horrible AC due to it drawing all missile fire towards it?




Good point. Although the real problem is more likely to be penetrating its DR 45,180/- and whittling down its 400 million (or so) hit points. 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> So anyways, I've got this money laid out for the next book.  When can I fork it over?




I'm working on it. I'll let you all know as soon as its finished.


----------



## Sledge

Sledge taps his fingers nervously.....

"AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I can't take it anymore, I need my next epic fix"


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Full marks to people for finding such a loophole in the official rules, but you have to get up a bit earlier to pull the wool over my eyes. Hulking Hurler indeed.




But isn't the Hulking Hurler only not as big a deal once you get done changing the rules? Without your UBD table, the mechanics are sound and canon and the HH is as bad as it seems. I'd ask how much damage he would pump out with a similar build but with using your tables, but it seems like people don't want you distracted from finishing the Immortal rules. Have fun!


----------



## CR2000

C'mon Pssthpok, if you're gonna be so negative, do it in another thread.

APOTHEOSIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Pssthpok mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> But isn't the Hulking Hurler only not as big a deal once you get done changing the rules?




I don't see myself as changing the rules as much as fixing a broken rule. Its a mistake waiting for errata to happen.

If someone can categorically prove that a rule is broken, then you can't justify that rule simply because its been published - thats an appeal to authority as far as I am concerned. 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Without your UBD table, the mechanics are sound and canon and the HH is as bad as it seems.




The mechanics may be canon but they are certainly not sound. They follow the letter of the law, but laws which are easily dismissed as nonsense.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> I'd ask how much damage he would pump out with a similar build but with using your tables,




Well, lets see, off the top of my head; strength 62 Large size Humanoid. Crushing Damage from throwing what is effectively a Gargantuan object (based on its mass) would be 4d8+39.

I think they make a mistake on the HH thread at the start by multiplying his encumberance x3 (Large Quadruped) instead of x2 (Large), unless of course that is a feature of one of the prestige classes that I am not aware of (?). 

Increasing the objects size from Gargantuan to Colossal (requiring something like strength 64) would mean damage was 8d6+39 instead. 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> but it seems like people don't want you distracted from finishing the Immortal rules.




Well I am sure they mean well, although a few posts here and there do not interupt my flow. 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Have fun!




You have to understand that I don't change things simply for my own sake, or the sake of sticking two fingers up at the official rules. I change things because instigating the change is logical and will improve the game to some extent...and I'm just as critical with my own ideas, as my recent changes to my density rules attest.


----------



## Zoatebix

Hey UK,
I'm under the impression that you've given some thought to the "material science" presented in the core d20 rules.  Have you deconstructed a scheme of how to derive hardnesses and hit points from real-world information?  Does this scheme change based on the physical factor of the campaign, or is only damage that changes?  Is any of this information that you're even remotely ready to reveal?

I'm trying to establish a more realistic physical factor baseline for my sci-fantasy game.   

I may be spreading that game too thin, trying to have it be everything to everybody, but I haven't given up on it just yet.  See, in addition to my 'simulationst' desire for realism, I've got the various character thingies defined in very 'gamist' effects-based terms, and I've thrown some 'narativist' systems (based on FATE's Aspects and Fate points, Grim Tales' Action Points, and True20's Conviction) into the mix as well.  I put those theforge terms in quotes, because I think the distinctions can get pretty fuzzy (especially when you look at cool stuff like The Riddle of Steel, FATE, and Capes).  Basically, I want my game system to reward people whether they "game the system," (such as they can) play a really interesting character, make a great story, or understand how things work in the real world.  

Whew - tangent!

So any advice (or comprehensive lists of materials or design parameters  ) that you have would be great.

On a related note, have you checked out David Pulver's d20 Mecha or Military Vehicles?  He designed GURPS Vehicles, and he did a really good job making a comprehensive effects-based vehicle system in d20 Mecha.  There's even an SRD of it on Guardians or Order's website so you can check out the vehicle creations rules for free, though without any completed vehicles for context, IIRC.

Good luck with all your IH projects!
-George


----------



## Fieari

Can I highly reccomend Ken Hood's "Grim-n-Gritty Revised" system?  I let my group try it for a session, and they now won't play anything else.  They _love_ how it gets rid of some of the abstraction of combat, and actually remains reasonably cohesive with the system as a whole.  I mean, it's advertised as something that will make your game incredibly deadly and all, but really my experience has shown it to be incredibly balanced in almost all ways.  The only thing it doesn't really translate well from the normal system is the difference between a d4 HD and a d12 HD, but it tends to work out anyway with all the other peripherals.

Basically, it makes it so that damage is DAMAGE, and dodging is DODGING.  So HP isn't an abstraction of dodging and luck and rolling with the blows anymore.  If you want some more simulation, you should REALLY give it a shot.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Hey UK,




Hi Zoatebix mate! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I'm under the impression that you've given some thought to the "material science" presented in the core d20 rules.




Probably too much thought.   



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Have you deconstructed a scheme of how to derive hardnesses and hit points from real-world information?




Yes, although it uses iron as a basis.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Does this scheme change based on the physical factor of the campaign, or is only damage that changes?




Hardness would change, although iron would stay the same naturally.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Is any of this information that you're even remotely ready to reveal?




Well I could but I would rather save it for the Chronicle section, which has all the stuff on using gods within different settings (ie. Modern, Sci-fi, Superhero etc.). Also it would take a lot of time to type up, so thats not on the cards herein.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I'm trying to establish a more realistic physical factor baseline for my sci-fantasy game.




Well you can having a sliding scale with differing physical factors but personally I prefer to just have two, comic book (which includes both D&D and D20 Modern) and realistic.

One of the aspects of the VSCs is that it makes this kind of thing fairly easy to implement. 

A high physical factor coupled with a modern setting will really stick it to the PCs.  



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I may be spreading that game too thin, trying to have it be everything to everybody, but I haven't given up on it just yet.  See, in addition to my 'simulationst' desire for realism, I've got the various character thingies defined in very 'gamist' effects-based terms, and I've thrown some 'narativist' systems (based on FATE's Aspects and Fate points, Grim Tales' Action Points, and True20's Conviction) into the mix as well.  I put those theforge terms in quotes, because I think the distinctions can get pretty fuzzy (especially when you look at cool stuff like The Riddle of Steel, FATE, and Capes).  Basically, I want my game system to reward people whether they "game the system," (such as they can) play a really interesting character, make a great story, or understand how things work in the real world.
> 
> Whew - tangent!
> 
> So any advice (or comprehensive lists of materials or design parameters  ) that you have would be great.




Well in a high physical factor setting I suggest you double the hardness of (same mass) materials for every tech level.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> On a related note, have you checked out David Pulver's d20 Mecha or Military Vehicles?  He designed GURPS Vehicles, and he did a really good job making a comprehensive effects-based vehicle system in d20 Mecha.  There's even an SRD of it on Guardians or Order's website so you can check out the vehicle creations rules for free, though without any completed vehicles for context, IIRC.




What is his nuke damage - out of curiousity? If indeed he tackles nukes? If not what damage does he ascribe to something like an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank?



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Good luck with all your IH projects!
> -George




Thanks George!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari matey! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Can I highly reccomend Ken Hood's "Grim-n-Gritty Revised" system?  I let my group try it for a session, and they now won't play anything else.  They _love_ how it gets rid of some of the abstraction of combat, and actually remains reasonably cohesive with the system as a whole.  I mean, it's advertised as something that will make your game incredibly deadly and all, but really my experience has shown it to be incredibly balanced in almost all ways.  The only thing it doesn't really translate well from the normal system is the difference between a d4 HD and a d12 HD, but it tends to work out anyway with all the other peripherals.
> 
> Basically, it makes it so that damage is DAMAGE, and dodging is DODGING. So HP isn't an abstraction of dodging and luck and rolling with the blows anymore.  If you want some more simulation, you should REALLY give it a shot.




Sounds interesting. Although I would be curious as to how much it 'revises' the current system?

Its an idea I would hope WotC will adopt in future incarnations of D&D. Although noting that WotC have hired Mike Mearls who seems to have something like this in his Iron Heroes book, it seems like this may happen.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

I've got a few questions for you if you have time to answer.

First, I'm wondering at the rate at which damage scales upwards in the "comic book" genre.  For instance, if I were seeking to convert the kiloton spell to an exaton, what multiplier would I use (e.g. every eight-fold increase in damage is represented by a doubling of the damage dice).

Second, do you envision tweaking the existing rules for dispelling magic.  Even under the epic spell version the dispeller's caster level is limited to 20th, while the dispellee's caster level is unlimited.  This seems to have bizarre implications in higher powered campaigns.

Third, antimagic has peculiar implications at higher levels as well.  As an example, what would happen to a Cherubim's (Su) abilities if it entered the antimagic field of an Orichalcum Colossus?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Fieari

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Sounds interesting. Although I would be curious as to how much it 'revises' the current system?
> 
> Its an idea I would hope WotC will adopt in future incarnations of D&D. Although noting that WotC have hired Mike Mearls who seems to have something like this in his Iron Heroes book, it seems like this may happen.



The GnGr system gives everyone, from the lowliest insect to the mightiest deity, exactly fifteen hitpoints (I've seen some people who like to double it to 30, but the effect is the same, everyone has the same HP) which directly references how injured you are.  Every so many points of damage, you start taking negatives to all your rolls (like gaining negative levels).  You still have the 10 negative HP before you die.

Then, AC is removed entirely, and replaced with DEFENCE and SOAK.  Defense is basically all the "Dodging" style aspects of your AC, like dex bonus, size bonus (or penalty), deflection, shield bonus, and also adds in either your REF save or your BAB, whichever is higher.  I suppose it's possible to have a negative defense, but I've never encountered a monster that had one.

Soak is basically all the "absorb hits" aspects of AC, armor bonuses, nat armor, a SIZE BONUS (which outstrips the size penalty to defense, giving an advantage to larger things) and also your constitution bonus is thrown in there.  It's possible to have a negative soak, giving anything hitting you a bonus to damage.

Your defense basically acts as AC, and Soak acts as Damage Reduction (which also stacks with DR, of course).  One additional factor that makes combat a little more deadly than usual, is that both the attacker and defender roll on each attack.  Attack as normal, defender rolls d20 and adds the defense score.  For _each point higher the attacker rolls than the defender_, add one to the damage.  So if the defender gets a total of 36, and the attacker gets a total of 48, the attacker adds 12 to damage.  Furthermore, if you roll ten or more higher, that's a critical threat (a threat range of 19-20 requires an 8 or higher, 18-20 a 6 or higher, 17-20 a 4 or higher, 16-20 2 or higher, and 15-20 threatens a crit on evey successful hit) and critical hits (if confirmed) can do things like "Bypass Natural Armor" or "Blind Target".

There are a bunch of other little changes that have to take place to the game to make this work, like whenever something refers to a direct HP value (such as the paladin's Lay on Hands ability) divide that value by 3, magic missiles are assumed to auto-crit on every hit, and a couple of other little things, but mostly the rules are these:

1) Fifteen HP for everyone + penalties for damage
2) AC replaced by Defense, which is an opposed roll
3) AC (and part of the old HP) also replaced by Soak, which acts as DR.

With a little practise, I found myself able to use any monster from any source more or less instantly, calculating the def and soak within seconds by glancing at the AC and con value for the critter.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hi historian mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I've got a few questions for you if you have time to answer.




Of course.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> First, I'm wondering at the rate at which damage scales upwards in the "comic book" genre.  For instance, if I were seeking to convert the kiloton spell to an exaton, what multiplier would I use (e.g. every eight-fold increase in damage is represented by a doubling of the damage dice).




Off the top of my head I think its something like x1.5 damage dice for each eightfold energy increase.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Second, do you envision tweaking the existing rules for dispelling magic.  Even under the epic spell version the dispeller's caster level is limited to 20th, while the dispellee's caster level is unlimited.  This seems to have bizarre implications in higher powered campaigns.




Yes, I don't like double standards.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Third, antimagic has peculiar implications at higher levels as well.  As an example, what would happen to a Cherubim's (Su) abilities if it entered the antimagic field of an Orichalcum Colossus?




Anti-magic has been niggling me for quite some time. Originally I would have said it affected immortals completely and in part thats still my preference. I mean if anti-magic is not powerful enough to subdue an immortals magic, then chances are some deity will come up with an upgrade (dead magic?) that will. 

However this is one I'm going to leave up to individual DMs. All the abilities in the IH are noted as either EX or SU (usually the former have internal effects, the latter external effects), so you have the choice to apply this or not. My suggestion is that deities are affected by anti-magic, as are artifacts (although the artifact, like a construct, still retains its inherant power, so you can't just put the Sword of Kas in an antimagic field and break it - its still technically invulnerable).

I present some ways of circumnavigating it, such as the Numinous ability which allows you to create a field of anti-magic through which your own magic will function (for some reason this always reminds me of star trek, wherein you can shoot through your own shields because you have the right 'modulation'). There is also a metamagic feat that lets you cast spells through anti-magic, and like I mentioned above I'll have a dead magic field spell for those who simply want a more powerful option.

As to your example, given that both have anti-magic fields that do not impede their own abilities, I would say they both lose all supernatural powers, although as a sidereal, you could argue the Cherubim was immune to spells under 10th-level and as such only its abilities work (although for me, anti-magic was always the absence of magic, as opposed to magic, although maybe that makes little sense).



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks in advance.




My pleasure.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> The GnGr system gives everyone, from the lowliest insect to the mightiest deity, exactly fifteen hitpoints (I've seen some people who like to double it to 30, but the effect is the same, everyone has the same HP) which directly references how injured you are.  Every so many points of damage, you start taking negatives to all your rolls (like gaining negative levels).  You still have the 10 negative HP before you die.
> 
> Then, AC is removed entirely, and replaced with DEFENCE and SOAK.  Defense is basically all the "Dodging" style aspects of your AC, like dex bonus, size bonus (or penalty), deflection, shield bonus, and also adds in either your REF save or your BAB, whichever is higher.  I suppose it's possible to have a negative defense, but I've never encountered a monster that had one.
> 
> Soak is basically all the "absorb hits" aspects of AC, armor bonuses, nat armor, a SIZE BONUS (which outstrips the size penalty to defense, giving an advantage to larger things) and also your constitution bonus is thrown in there.  It's possible to have a negative soak, giving anything hitting you a bonus to damage.
> 
> Your defense basically acts as AC, and Soak acts as Damage Reduction (which also stacks with DR, of course).  One additional factor that makes combat a little more deadly than usual, is that both the attacker and defender roll on each attack.  Attack as normal, defender rolls d20 and adds the defense score.  For _each point higher the attacker rolls than the defender_, add one to the damage.  So if the defender gets a total of 36, and the attacker gets a total of 48, the attacker adds 12 to damage.  Furthermore, if you roll ten or more higher, that's a critical threat (a threat range of 19-20 requires an 8 or higher, 18-20 a 6 or higher, 17-20 a 4 or higher, 16-20 2 or higher, and 15-20 threatens a crit on evey successful hit) and critical hits (if confirmed) can do things like "Bypass Natural Armor" or "Blind Target".
> 
> There are a bunch of other little changes that have to take place to the game to make this work, like whenever something refers to a direct HP value (such as the paladin's Lay on Hands ability) divide that value by 3, magic missiles are assumed to auto-crit on every hit, and a couple of other little things, but mostly the rules are these:
> 
> 1) Fifteen HP for everyone + penalties for damage
> 2) AC replaced by Defense, which is an opposed roll
> 3) AC (and part of the old HP) also replaced by Soak, which acts as DR.
> 
> With a little practise, I found myself able to use any monster from any source more or less instantly, calculating the def and soak within seconds by glancing at the AC and con value for the critter.




I'm not sure about the 15 hit points for everyone idea. What about a Gargantuan Blubbery Flesh Ooze, shouldn't it have lots of hit points!?

This is why I came up with the idea of Hit Dice by mass. The difficulty in implementing it wholesale (and dropping the bonuses from levelling) is that it has serious repercussions on how the magic system will work on characters.


----------



## Fieari

Slight tangent on the subject of anti-magic...

Ever read a short story called "The Glass Dagger"?  The story follows the leader of a terrorist/freedom fighter group who wants to eradicate all magic in the world, because they feel that the wizards are controlling everything.  So they built devices that use up all the magic in an area, basically making permanent Anti-Magic Zones.

The story involves one wizard who casts a spell on a glass dagger to make it intangible, and plunges this intangible dagger through the leader of this group's heart, which is harmless unless he ever goes into a magic null zone, at which point the dagger would become real again.

It's a neat story with a bunch of twists, but more to the point, I rather like the idea of Anti-Magic zones not being "Anti-Magic" or magical in themselves, but rather areas that LACK magic.

By the way, I've been seeing a lot of "Extremely High Level" threads popping up recently, and some people have amused themselves by making up characters with hundreds of levels.  Whenever I see one of these, I always go to compare it to a critter of yours in the IH of an appropriate CR, and I've noticed that at these levels, will saves and such either make characters 100% immune to magic from a creature, or 100% vulnerable, with no halfway point.  Have you given any thought to how to make things more random (so there's a point to rolling that D20 from time to time) at these amazingly high levels?


----------



## Fieari

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about the 15 hit points for everyone idea. What about a Gargantuan Blubbery Flesh Ooze, shouldn't it have lots of hit points!?
> 
> This is why I came up with the idea of Hit Dice by mass. The difficulty in implementing it wholesale (and dropping the bonuses from levelling) is that it has serious repercussions on how the magic system will work on characters.



Well, the way it handles that, is that HP becomes basically a "life meter".  If a creature in regular D&D had 150 hp, then in GnGr, that'd be a bit like having a Soak of about 9ish or so, since a hit of ten damage would do the same amount, percentage wise.  But then, larger hits in GnGr do a bit more...

Hm.  You've made me think.  I wonder if there's an easy way to change the Soak system so that it lowers damage dealt by a percentage instead... perhaps raise the HP number for finer gradiations as well.  I might want to run the thought past my group.


----------



## Sledge

The problem with areas of "no magic" implies that magical things are continually drawing in energy.  A no magic area would be hard to cast spells in but precast spells are already powered.
The current antimagic system is somewhat undefined.  I prefer to think of it as a magical dampening field.  This field would be a magical effect.  I think I also need to write up rules for magical distortion fields.


----------



## Fieari

Actually, that problem is precicely why I like that system... because it implies that magic things need to constantly be drawing on magic to function.  And it also implies that were you able to find a way to bring a SOURCE of magic with you, you'd be able to get magic to work there.  Which isn't the way it works regularly, but exploring options like that is what I and my players enjoy doing.  Researching the fundamental nature of things like magic and anti-magic can be an enjoyable passtime to some.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Slight tangent on the subject of anti-magic...
> 
> Ever read a short story called "The Glass Dagger"?




No.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> The story follows the leader of a terrorist/freedom fighter group who wants to eradicate all magic in the world, because they feel that the wizards are controlling everything.  So they built devices that use up all the magic in an area, basically making permanent Anti-Magic Zones.
> 
> The story involves one wizard who casts a spell on a glass dagger to make it intangible, and plunges this intangible dagger through the leader of this group's heart, which is harmless unless he ever goes into a magic null zone, at which point the dagger would become real again.
> 
> It's a neat story with a bunch of twists, but more to the point, I rather like the idea of Anti-Magic zones not being "Anti-Magic" or magical in themselves, but rather areas that LACK magic.




 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> By the way, I've been seeing a lot of "Extremely High Level" threads popping up recently, and some people have amused themselves by making up characters with hundreds of levels.  Whenever I see one of these, I always go to compare it to a critter of yours in the IH of an appropriate CR, and I've noticed that at these levels, will saves and such either make characters 100% immune to magic from a creature, or 100% vulnerable, with no halfway point.  Have you given any thought to how to make things more random (so there's a point to rolling that D20 from time to time) at these amazingly high levels?




I have a number of ideas regarding this, but I haven't, as yet, settled on just one solution.

Can you give some examples of the discrepancies you speak of...that might help me sort the problems out.

One idea is to have divine abilities that grant a being good saves in a single saving throw type.

eg. Divine Fortitude could be taken by a wizard-deity and then they would have Good Fort and Will saves.

This way its much more likely a deity will only fail its saves on a '1', which is the sort of tense, 'Russian Roulette' game we played.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Well, the way it handles that, is that HP becomes basically a "life meter".  If a creature in regular D&D had 150 hp, then in GnGr, that'd be a bit like having a Soak of about 9ish or so, since a hit of ten damage would do the same amount, percentage wise.  But then, larger hits in GnGr do a bit more...




So its trying to be more realistic, but in actuality its just as arbitrary.

Also I still fail to see how it handles magic?   



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Hm.  You've made me think.  I wonder if there's an easy way to change the Soak system so that it lowers damage dealt by a percentage instead... perhaps raise the HP number for finer gradiations as well.  I might want to run the thought past my group.




Determining Hit Dice by mass seems logical to me, then you would use Hit Dice/hit points gained via levels as luck/skill etc..

In certain situations your luck would be of no use, immersion in lava, falling from a great height etc. In these cases you would ignore hit points gained via levels.

Thats how I would handle hit points in 4th Edition.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> The problem with areas of "no magic" implies that magical things are continually drawing in energy.




Or simply that magic permeates everything, a bit like background radiation, neutrinos etc. Magical effects would simply be concentrations of that 'radiation'.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> A no magic area would be hard to cast spells in but precast spells are already powered. The current antimagic system is somewhat undefined.  I prefer to think of it as a magical dampening field.  This field would be a magical effect.  I think I also need to write up rules for magical distortion fields.




Can anti-magic be a magic effect though? Its probably more a philosophical issue than a mechanical one to be fair.

As I mentioned previously, I suggest that anti-magic effects deities and artifacts in the same way that it affects constructs. But if individual DMs don't like this suggestion they are free to make deities arbitrarily immune to anti-magic.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Or simply that magic permeates everything, a bit like background radiation, neutrinos etc. Magical effects would simply be concentrations of that 'radiation'.



Such an interpretation could explain an upper limit for the effectiveness of an anti-magic spell. If you put a cap to the effectiveness of an anti-magic field (for example, any effect with a CL 5 higher than the the CL of the anti-magic field still works), you can easily explain it: the ability to cast higher level spells is simply the ability to use more magical energy, energy that lower-level casters can't even see. Gaining levels is just gaining the ability to tap more into that magical energy around you. When a spellcaster casts anti-magic field, he actually severs the access to the magical energy he can see around him. Faced with a anti-magic field cast by a 15th level wizard, a 25th level wizard would just say _"well, kiddo, you forgot this and that bit"_ and cast his spell normally.

I hope this makes sense, I'm not sure either when I reread it, even though it's crystal clear in my mind.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Thanks for the feedback.



> Off the top of my head I think its something like x1.5 damage dice for each eightfold energy increase.




That would have been my best guess.

I'm planning to follow your lead on antimagic.  Basically it will nullify the (sp) and (su) abilities of everything: deities, artifacts, etc.  Of course, it will be subject to disjunction if the antimagic originates from magic or a magic-like effect (1% per caster level chance of disjunction).  It will, however, be subject to feats and other abilities that specifically bypass it.

As far as the dispelling goes, I think I'm just going to uncap the dispeller's caster level.  While this might require upgrading the spell in no way do I think that this new version is more powerful than disjunction.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey poilbrun matey! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> Such an interpretation could explain an upper limit for the effectiveness of an anti-magic spell. If you put a cap to the effectiveness of an anti-magic field (for example, any effect with a CL 5 higher than the the CL of the anti-magic field still works), you can easily explain it: the ability to cast higher level spells is simply the ability to use more magical energy, energy that lower-level casters can't even see. Gaining levels is just gaining the ability to tap more into that magical energy around you. When a spellcaster casts anti-magic field, he actually severs the access to the magical energy he can see around him. Faced with a anti-magic field cast by a 15th level wizard, a 25th level wizard would just say _"well, kiddo, you forgot this and that bit"_ and cast his spell normally.
> 
> I hope this makes sense, I'm not sure either when I reread it, even though it's crystal clear in my mind.




I prefer the idea that either it blocks effects altogether or suppresses to some extent (and would be overcome through a metamagic feat). Otherwise it just becomes pointless.


----------



## Zoatebix

Thanks for the ideas, UK!  I'd say that I'm especially looking forward to Chronicle, but since I was already planning on buying everything...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> What is his nuke damage - out of curiousity? If indeed he tackles nukes? If not what damage does he ascribe to something like an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank?




He does indeed: one Russian nuclear cruise missile, the RK-55 Granat whose NATO reporting name is SS-N-21 Sampson, and one US ballistic missile (the Trident D-5).  The former has an average damage of 2415, the later 2100.  I believe that the Garant's warhead is 200 Kilotons, which puts Pulver's Nuke damage in the same order of magnitude as your Nuke damage, if I've extrapolated the shockwave damage from the kiloton epic spell correctly (5906.25 damage for 200 kilotons.  I'd get a pretty number if I converted using dice of damage rather than just raw damage...).  The area of effect for the Granat's blast is 40,960 feet, and 20,480 feet for the Trident missile.

As far as I'm concerned, that's so close that I'd call you guys pretty much on the same page.

As for the M1A1's damage, Military Vehicle stats an 120mm smoothbore tank gun firing an armor-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot round does 10d12 damage and either reduces a targets armor (hardness) by ten or halves its hardness, whichever results in a greater reduction.  HEAT-MP ammo does only 10d8 damage but has a blast radius of 20 ft.  For non-military buffs, the HEAT stands for high explosive anti tank and the MP stands for multi-purpose, meaning the ammo has an anti-personal fragmentation effect in addition to it's shaped-charge tank killing properties.

Pulver does provide design formula for his stats.  Vehicle hit points are derived with the formula 23 times (the square root of the square root of the vehicle's usual operating weight in tons), with adjustments up or down based on known ruggedness or lack of survivability in the real world.

Real world vehicle armor is described in terms as being equivalent to some thickness (in milimeters) of rolled homogenous armor (RHA), AKA military steel plate.  Amor (hardness) in the Military Vehicles book is equal to 5 times the cube root of the RHA equivalent of the armor.

Unarmored vehicles were assigned a hardness from 3 to 5.  Other vehicles have real-world armor described as resistant "to small arms fire" or "up to 23mm cannon".  Such vehicles were assigned a hardness equal to or greater than an average damage roll made by that particular attack.

Explosive damage has a formula, too: approximately (the square root of the square root of the warhead weight in pounds) times 1.66 for missiles and bombs, or times 2 for torpedos.  Nuclear ordinance replaces the warhead weight with the value (2 million times the yield in kilotons).  So he ends up at about 1/3 your damage at 1 kiloton and 1/2 your damage at 200, ignoring the heat damage and vaporisation.  Not too bad.

Okay - I think if I paraphrased any more information I'd have to slap an OGL on this post  .


Fieari, thanks for recommending Ken Hood's Grim 'n Gritty rules.  I'm actually going to be using a rather similar variant damage system in my game: the damage save system from Steve Kenson's True 20.  It's pretty much the Mutants and Masterminds/BlueRose damage system ('cause, you know, Kenson wrote those too).  It's simpler and more elegant than Grim 'n Gritty, but not quite as simple as hit points.  I like it a lot, especially for human-like targets, but I'm not sure how well it works on objects, vehicles, and really big and fantastic creatures.  But since True20 and normal d20 convert pretty easily back and forth, I was hoping to get a good, accurate, d20 object and material damage system that I could jury-rig to give similar results with the damage-save mechanic.

-George


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Thanks for the ideas, UK!  I'd say that I'm especially looking forward to Chronicle, but since I was already planning on buying everything...








			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> He does indeed: one Russian nuclear cruise missile, the RK-55 Granat whose NATO reporting name is SS-N-21 Sampson, and one US ballistic missile (the Trident D-5).  The former has an average damage of 2415, the later 2100.  I believe that the Garant's warhead is 200 Kilotons, which puts Pulver's Nuke damage in the same order of magnitude as your Nuke damage, if I've extrapolated the shockwave damage from the kiloton epic spell correctly (5906.25 damage for 200 kilotons.  I'd get a pretty number if I converted using dice of damage rather than just raw damage...).  The area of effect for the Granat's blast is 40,960 feet, and 20,480 feet for the Trident missile.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, that's so close that I'd call you guys pretty much on the same page.




Yes, I must admit I am quite impressed.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> As for the M1A1's damage, Military Vehicle stats an 120mm smoothbore tank gun firing an armor-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot round does 10d12 damage and either reduces a targets armor (hardness) by ten or halves its hardness, whichever results in a greater reduction.  HEAT-MP ammo does only 10d8 damage but has a blast radius of 20 ft.  For non-military buffs, the HEAT stands for high explosive anti tank and the MP stands for multi-purpose, meaning the ammo has an anti-personal fragmentation effect in addition to it's shaped-charge tank killing properties.




Again, thats pretty much on the money.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Pulver does provide design formula for his stats.  Vehicle hit points are derived with the formula 23 times (the square root of the square root of the vehicle's usual operating weight in tons), with adjustments up or down based on known ruggedness or lack of survivability in the real world.




Wow, I was using square root of the square root to determine the golems Hit Dice. I like this guy. 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Real world vehicle armor is described in terms as being equivalent to some thickness (in milimeters) of rolled homogenous armor (RHA), AKA military steel plate.  Amor (hardness) in the Military Vehicles book is equal to 5 times the cube root of the RHA equivalent of the armor.
> 
> Unarmored vehicles were assigned a hardness from 3 to 5.  Other vehicles have real-world armor described as resistant "to small arms fire" or "up to 23mm cannon".  Such vehicles were assigned a hardness equal to or greater than an average damage roll made by that particular attack.
> 
> Explosive damage has a formula, too: approximately (the square root of the square root of the warhead weight in pounds) times 1.66 for missiles and bombs, or times 2 for torpedos.  Nuclear ordinance replaces the warhead weight with the value (2 million times the yield in kilotons).  So he ends up at about 1/3 your damage at 1 kiloton and 1/2 your damage at 200, ignoring the heat damage and vaporisation.  Not too bad.




I can sort of see where we are deviating slightly, hes using the square of the square wholesale, whereas I use the staggered doubling approach. Both probably have minor pros and cons, extrapolating up to planetary level I think his 'Earth' would have about ten times the hit points.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Okay - I think if I paraphrased any more information I'd have to slap an OGL on this post  .






Thanks, most interesting, this guy definately knows his stuff. They should have hired him to do d20 Modern.


----------



## historian

This is all very interesting guys.  Is this to say that the square root of the square root of the weight of objects in tons (celestial or otherwise) is the proxy for hit points?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey historian mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> This is all very interesting guys.  Is this to say that the square root of the square root of the weight of objects in tons (celestial or otherwise) is the proxy for hit points?




I only use it as a guideline for constructs. I already outline how I give creatures with a natural physiognomy size in the Bestiary.

Speaking of bestiaries, I just noticed on the ENWorld news page that there is a new epic bestiary over at rpgnow.com called "Quirin Mythology #1: A Handful Epic Creatures"

I always like to support other peoples epic material so here is the link:

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=5304&SRC=EnWorld

I can't attest to how good it is (does rpgnow allow you to purchase using paypal I wonder?), it only has 5 monsters in it but it is fairly inexpensive at $2.59.

Maybe someone will buy it and give us a quick review?


----------



## Kerrick

> As far as the dispelling goes, I think I'm just going to uncap the dispeller's caster level. While this might require upgrading the spell in no way do I think that this new version is more powerful than disjunction.




No, it won't make it more powerful than disjunction, but it would obviate the need for greater dispelling.



> Can anti-magic be a magic effect though? Its probably more a philosophical issue than a mechanical one to be fair.




No, you can easily justify it thus: an antimagic field creates an "anti-harmonic field" that interferes with the normal magic field, effectively negating it - it'd be the same as a silence spell, or a bard's countersong. That way, it also explains how it can be dispelled - you're merely disrupting the harmonics.



> As I mentioned previously, I suggest that anti-magic effects deities and artifacts in the same way that it affects constructs. But if individual DMs don't like this suggestion they are free to make deities arbitrarily immune to anti-magic.




The way we do it is this: non-epic spells/effects cannot affect epic beings, artifacts, or epic spells/effects. An antimagic field has no effect on epic spells or beings with divine status. Of course, I had to make an epic version of antimagic field, but that wasn't hard*; I also moved disjunction to epic status, where it properly belongs (it's a 12th level spell; it automatically dispels non-epic spells, but you must make a caster level check for epic spells/effects, and it has the normal chances of affecting an epic antimagic field and artifacts). BTW, artifacts all have a CL of 21+.

*The non-epic version of antimagic field, obviously, affects only non-epic spells, while the epic version affects everything. The rationalization for this is that epic spells/beings tap into a deeper, more powerful source of magic (the True Source, if you will, to borrow from Jordan), which is something that non-epic casters cannot detect (and thus cannot affect).



> Originally Posted by Fieari
> By the way, I've been seeing a lot of "Extremely High Level" threads popping up recently, and some people have amused themselves by making up characters with hundreds of levels. Whenever I see one of these, I always go to compare it to a critter of yours in the IH of an appropriate CR, and I've noticed that at these levels, will saves and such either make characters 100% immune to magic from a creature, or 100% vulnerable, with no halfway point. Have you given any thought to how to make things more random (so there's a point to rolling that D20 from time to time) at these amazingly high levels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a number of ideas regarding this, but I haven't, as yet, settled on just one solution.
Click to expand...



I have one that they should have implemented - mid-level saves. It was in Modern, so why didn't they throw it into 3.5? Course, it likely would have required too much playtesting...

Another idea (and one that I really like) is the rule of 10s. I don't know if you've seen this one before, but it goes like this: drop all modifiers to +30. For each +10 above 30, roll an additional 1d20 for checks or saves; anything left over becomes a modifier to the roll. For example, a +57 becomes 3d20+37. 

On a related topic: how do you handle the ridiculous monster BABs versus PC ACs? Even if you munchkinize, you can't get your AC much over 55-60, but some of the monsters in the ELH have BABs well over 60. After awhile, unless you're using absurd epic spells to jack up the AC, you'll be reduced to fighting monsters well below your level.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> I only use it as a guideline for constructs. I already outline how I give creatures with a natural physiognomy size in the Bestiary.




Thanks, I hadn't forgotten about that either.  I'm ultimately more interested in the formula for extra-universal outsiders.  

Hello Kerrick:



> No, it won't make it more powerful than disjunction, but it would obviate the need for greater dispelling.




 

Actually my comment was that an uncapped dispel spell would _not _ be more powerful than disjunction, hence, I didn't see the need to upgrade the spell's level dramatically.


----------



## Sledge

RPGNow does indeed accept paypal.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Kerrick mate! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> No, it won't make it more powerful than disjunction, but it would obviate the need for greater dispelling.




But both dispel magic and greater dispelling have set totals, I think that was the point.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> No, you can easily justify it thus: an antimagic field creates an "anti-harmonic field" that interferes with the normal magic field, effectively negating it - it'd be the same as a silence spell, or a bard's countersong. That way, it also explains how it can be dispelled - you're merely disrupting the harmonics.




Thats a neat way of putting it. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> The way we do it is this: non-epic spells/effects cannot affect epic beings, artifacts, or epic spells/effects. An antimagic field has no effect on epic spells or beings with divine status. Of course, I had to make an epic version of antimagic field, but that wasn't hard*; I also moved disjunction to epic status, where it properly belongs (it's a 12th level spell; it automatically dispels non-epic spells, but you must make a caster level check for epic spells/effects, and it has the normal chances of affecting an epic antimagic field and artifacts). BTW, artifacts all have a CL of 21+.
> 
> *The non-epic version of antimagic field, obviously, affects only non-epic spells, while the epic version affects everything. The rationalization for this is that epic spells/beings tap into a deeper, more powerful source of magic (the True Source, if you will, to borrow from Jordan), which is something that non-epic casters cannot detect (and thus cannot affect).




That would be along the same lines as my dead magic idea.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I have one that they should have implemented - mid-level saves. It was in Modern, so why didn't they throw it into 3.5? Course, it likely would have required too much playtesting...




I think the problem lies in having low saves at all.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Another idea (and one that I really like) is the rule of 10s. I don't know if you've seen this one before, but it goes like this: drop all modifiers to +30. For each +10 above 30, roll an additional 1d20 for checks or saves; anything left over becomes a modifier to the roll. For example, a +57 becomes 3d20+37.




That seems okay, I am just not sure if its necessary.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> On a related topic: how do you handle the ridiculous monster BABs versus PC ACs? Even if you munchkinize, you can't get your AC much over 55-60, but some of the monsters in the ELH have BABs well over 60. After awhile, unless you're using absurd epic spells to jack up the AC, you'll be reduced to fighting monsters well below your level.




At epic level, attacks are generally meant to hit, but at the same time damage totals will be proportionally less when compared to hit point totals....although when I introduce metamartial feats it will make all those misgivings obsolete anyway. 

By the way, something of particular interest to yourself, I have been tinkering about with my magic system and I may be looking for a playtester for that in a few weeks. As far as I can tell, the core of the system and the application of dimensional magic is perfect, I'm just not sure if the implementation of my recent damage changes is balanced in the sense that spell damage starts to eclipse the paralleled accruement of hit points at about 45th-level and rise exponentially, so by the time you are capable of blowing up a planet (approx. 100th-level when min/maxed) you will almost certainly be able to kill any opponent whose spell resistance you penetrate with a single spell...which is a fairly narrow band. 

My solution to this (work in progress) is to turn spell resistance into a sort of spell dampening/anti-magic type of spell-level DR.

eg. Divide SR by 5 to gauge how many levels of anti-magic you apply to a spell effect.

Or something like that. Anyway, the idea still needs some work.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks, I hadn't forgotten about that either.  I'm ultimately more interested in the formula for extra-universal outsiders.




Well for the most part thats simply linked to the beings internal power. See the conversion table on my website for examples (eg. Lesser Gods will 'generally' be Outsiders with 40-59 HD etc.)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Sledge said:
			
		

> RPGNow does indeed accept paypal.




Thanks dude!


----------



## Sledge

The problem with low saves is why they capped saves for characters right?
So cap them based on all HD and you should somewhat limit the disparity in saving throws.

Add to that a system wherein it is cheaper to boost weak saves, and let it all fly.


----------



## Farealmer3

Considering what you do with "normal" vehicle damages. What do you do with the sad starship weapons damage from future?


----------



## Kerrick

> No, it won't make it more powerful than disjunction, but it would obviate the need for greater dispelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my comment was that an uncapped dispel spell would _not_ be more powerful than disjunction, hence, I didn't see the need to upgrade the spell's level dramatically.
Click to expand...



I was agreeing with you - sorry that didn't look right. Yeah, if you lifted the cap, it _might_ bump the spell up a level. We don't play with caps at all in our game, and we don't see any real problems, beyond having to roll huge amounts of dice at higher levels (hehe). Yeah, I know that's why they instituted that rule, but... I dunno.



> No, it won't make it more powerful than disjunction, but it would obviate the need for greater dispelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But both dispel magic and greater dispelling have set totals, I think that was the point.
Click to expand...



Right, right. But if you lifted the caps, there'd be no point for greater dispelling - it's only there now because dispel magic has a +10 cap. For that matter, there'd be no need for superb dispelling, unless you go with my version of things.



> I think the problem lies in having low saves at all.




How's that? You kind of have to have low saves for game balance... 



> At epic level, attacks are generally meant to hit, but at the same time damage totals will be proportionally less when compared to hit point totals....although when I introduce metamartial feats it will make all those misgivings obsolete anyway.




I dunno... seems to take something away from combat...

DM: "The monster has a BAB of +75. Anyone have an AC score above that?"

Players, looking at each other: "Umm... no..."

DM: "Oh good. I don't have to make attack rolls then."

Players: "Oh boy..."

Don't forget, too, special attacks that go along with the normal ones, like poison, ability/level drain, etc. Sure, they have saves for them, but if they always hit, there's a proprtionately greater chance that the characters will fail the saves (especially if it's against the bad save). The metamartial feats thing sounds interesting, though.



> By the way, something of particular interest to yourself, I have been tinkering about with my magic system and I may be looking for a playtester for that in a few weeks.




Sweet!  I wouldn't be able to actually playtest it, since our group is only 5th-6th level, but I can still offer comments and such. 



> As far as I can tell, the core of the system and the application of dimensional magic is perfect, I'm just not sure if the implementation of my recent damage changes is balanced in the sense that spell damage starts to eclipse the paralleled accruement of hit points at about 45th-level and rise exponentially, so by the time you are capable of blowing up a planet (approx. 100th-level when min/maxed) you will almost certainly be able to kill any opponent whose spell resistance you penetrate with a single spell...which is a fairly narrow band.




Well that's not good... 



> My solution to this (work in progress) is to turn spell resistance into a sort of spell dampening/anti-magic type of spell-level DR.
> 
> eg. Divide SR by 5 to gauge how many levels of anti-magic you apply to a spell effect.




IOW, if you cast a 15th-level spell at a creature with SR 25, it would effectively be a 10th-level spell for purposes of save, damage, and duration, if applicable? That's a really cool idea. Kind of harks back to 1E/2E magic resistance. 

The only problem I see is that you're violating the KISS rule (you know, Keep It Simple, Stupid) - one change requires another change, which requires another, and so on. This would be great for an alternate system, like something you'd see in Unearthed Arcana, but if you say, "I've got this infinitely scaling system for spells, but you have to use this new SR system too," that might not go over as well. But, like you said, it's a work in progress.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> The problem with low saves is why they capped saves for characters right?
> 
> So cap them based on all HD and you should somewhat limit the disparity in saving throws.
> 
> Add to that a system wherein it is cheaper to boost weak saves, and let it all fly.




I don't really think there is any great problem with saves.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Farealmer3 matey! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Considering what you do with "normal" vehicle damages. What do you do with the sad starship weapons damage from future?




Its pretty simple to modify weapons and armour based on tech levels, I simply treat each leap as an eightfold energy increase.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya Kerrick dude! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> How's that? You kind of have to have low saves for game balance...




I know, I don't know what I was thinking before. I don't think there is a major problem with saving throws.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I dunno... seems to take something away from combat...




It just shifts the dynamic of combat, you don't really lose anything.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> DM: "The monster has a BAB of +75. Anyone have an AC score above that?"
> 
> Players, looking at each other: "Umm... no..."
> 
> DM: "Oh good. I don't have to make attack rolls then."
> 
> Players: "Oh boy..."




Well, they would still miss on a '1' regardless, so you would still have to roll, also to determine crits.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Don't forget, too, special attacks that go along with the normal ones, like poison, ability/level drain, etc. Sure, they have saves for them, but if they always hit, there's a proprtionately greater chance that the characters will fail the saves (especially if it's against the bad save).




The higher you ascend the less chance those things would be fatal and the greater chance the character has of possessing some defensive measure that would nullify the ability anyway.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> The metamartial feats thing sounds interesting, though.






An idea I have been toying with for years now. I think it gives a lot of flexibility to epic combat.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Sweet!  I wouldn't be able to actually playtest it, since our group is only 5th-6th level, but I can still offer comments and such.








			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Well that's not good...




The weird thing is that, logically, the changes actually make sense! ...don't ask me to explain it, because that would mean revealing the system.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> IOW, if you cast a 15th-level spell at a creature with SR 25, it would effectively be a 10th-level spell for purposes of save, damage, and duration, if applicable? That's a really cool idea. Kind of harks back to 1E/2E magic resistance.




Yes, its along those lines I am working on.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> The only problem I see is that you're violating the KISS rule (you know, Keep It Simple, Stupid) - one change requires another change, which requires another, and so on.




I know, thats why I am not satisfied with it.

Technically you don't 'need' spell dampening. But I am just not comfortable putting so much pressure on the Spell Resistance mechanic.

I suppose in many ways this parallels the save or die mechanic that Monte Cook commented he wasn't happy with (and can be prevailant at epic levels)....although I think I have a solution to that specific problem. 

However, with the new changes to epic magic I propose, this would mean that damage, will begin to comfortably eclipse hit points. Meaning that the spells would only require the spellcaster to penetrate spell resistance to kill an opponent, even one vastly more powerful than itself, and I am just not sure this is the right approach.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> This would be great for an alternate system, like something you'd see in Unearthed Arcana, but if you say, "I've got this infinitely scaling system for spells, but you have to use this new SR system too," that might not go over as well. But, like you said, it's a work in progress.




I'm sure I'll sort it out eventually.


----------



## historian

Hey Kerrick!




> I was agreeing with you - sorry that didn't look right. Yeah, if you lifted the cap, it might bump the spell up a level. We don't play with caps at all in our game, and we don't see any real problems, beyond having to roll huge amounts of dice at higher levels (hehe). Yeah, I know that's why they instituted that rule, but... I dunno.




No worries.  I'm with you as I can't come up with one sound reason to limit the dispeller's caster check.  Seems a bit 2E to me.



> As far as I can tell, the core of the system and the application of dimensional magic is perfect, I'm just not sure if the implementation of my recent damage changes is balanced in the sense that spell damage starts to eclipse the paralleled accruement of hit points at about 45th-level and rise exponentially, so by the time you are capable of blowing up a planet (approx. 100th-level when min/maxed) you will almost certainly be able to kill any opponent whose spell resistance you penetrate with a single spell...which is a fairly narrow band.




This is very interesting subject matter U_K.  It's possible that you could run into, or exacerbate, the 1E problem whereby Tiamat could kill herself with one hit.

I think the downside risk here is somewhat limited when the spellcaster faces more powerful opponents as these opponents will have access to a variety of abilities (cosmic string/counterspells/unlimited dispel checks/etherealness stowaway) that either counter the spell in question or minimize the inconvenience of being hit with it.

Perhaps the bigger implication arises when meeting a huge group of lesser powered foes or the ability to destroy large objects (such as a planet)?  I mean, Galactus is going to be awfully upset if some "lowly" 100th level caster robs him of a hard earned meal.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey dude! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> This is very interesting subject matter U_K.  It's possible that you could run into, or exacerbate, the 1E problem whereby Tiamat could kill herself with one hit.




Its slightly more pronounced. At 100th-level you could kill yourself to a factor of about 100.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I think the downside risk here is somewhat limited when the spellcaster faces more powerful opponents as these opponents will have access to a variety of abilities (cosmic string/counterspells/unlimited dispel checks/etherealness stowaway) that either counter the spell in question or minimize the inconvenience of being hit with it.
> 
> Perhaps the bigger implication arises when meeting a huge group of lesser powered foes or the ability to destroy large objects (such as a planet)?  I mean, Galactus is going to be awfully upset if some "lowly" 100th level caster robs him of a hard earned meal.




Galactus would be saved by his spell resistance. Otherwise he would get vapourised, create some sort of damaging spell that you don't get SR against and its adios muchachos.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*The basic idea behind the uber-epic magic system.*

Hey all! 

Okay I am just going to briefly explain the changes to spellcasting that allow for things like destroying a planet at about 100th-level. I wasn't going to reveal it, but I think its looking increasingly like I will have to rely on dimensional magic for the really big effects. So it'll be interesting to hear your opinions.

Anyway, the idea was really simple. What if, stacked metamagic multiplied an effect rather than added to it.

eg. 3rd-level Fireball with Empower Spell x8* (+16 levels for a 19th-level spell) would deal: 10d6 x16 (10d6 x2 x2 x2 x2) = 160d6 damage.

*With Metamagic Freedom.

Instead of 10d6 x5 = 50d6

Of course this would be applied to Widen Spell, or Enlarge Spell etc.

Now the logical aspect is this.

Imagine if you create a 6th-level spell that mimics fireball with the Widen Spell attached.

Fireball = 3rd level, Widen Spell = +3 levels. So its logical that you could create a 6th-level spell that was like fireball, only double the area of effect, right!?

Lets call this spell Greater Fireball.

Now if we apply the Widen Spell feat to Greater Fireball, the area will double. 

Fireball (3rd) = 20 ft. radius
Greater Fireball (or Widened Fireball, both 6th) = 40 ft. radius
Widened x2 Fireball (9th) = 60 ft. radius (if a double, double equals a triple)
Widened Greater Fireball (9th) = 80 ft. radius

So the question is, should a double, double equal a triple, or a quadruple? It seems to me that you can keep creating spells and then doubling them, effectively mimicking the quadruple approach.

Anyway, that was the idea. Told you it was a very simple tweak.

Any thoughts?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Okay I am just going to briefly explain the changes to spellcasting that allow for things like destroying a planet at about 100th-level. I wasn't going to reveal it, but I think its looking increasingly like I will have to rely on dimensional magic for the really big effects. So it'll be interesting to hear your opinions.
> 
> Anyway, the idea was really simple. What if, stacked metamagic multiplied an effect rather than added to it.
> 
> eg. 3rd-level Fireball with Empower Spell x8* (+16 levels for a 19th-level spell) would deal: 10d6 x16 (10d6 x2 x2 x2 x2) = 160d6 damage.
> 
> *With Metamagic Freedom.




Why 160d6 and not 256d6 (10*1.5^8 dice, rounded to the nearest) or 244d6 (10 * 1.5, riound down, * 1.5, round down,...)?  For that matter why not 270d6 (round to nearest each time)?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Now the logical aspect is this.
> 
> Imagine if you create a 6th-level spell that mimics fireball with the Widen Spell attached.
> 
> Fireball = 3rd level, Widen Spell = +3 levels. So its logical that you could create a 6th-level spell that was like fireball, only double the area of effect, right!?
> 
> Lets call this spell Greater Fireball.
> 
> Now if we apply the Widen Spell feat to Greater Fireball, the area will double.
> 
> Fireball (3rd) = 20 ft. radius
> Greater Fireball (or Widened Fireball, both 6th) = 40 ft. radius
> Widened x2 Fireball (9th) = 60 ft. radius (if a double, double equals a triple)
> Widened Greater Fireball (9th) = 80 ft. radius
> 
> So the question is, should a double, double equal a triple, or a quadruple? It seems to me that you can keep creating spells and then doubling them, effectively mimicking the quadruple approach.




If you created a spell called _Empowered fireball_ that had the effects of an Empowered _fireball_ (5th level, 15d6 damage) it would be better than the Empowered _fireball_, since its save DC would be higher. That's why this step-up method comes up with more powerful results.

In the end, it's all about power and potential abusability -- what's best for the game?


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!




> Galactus would be saved by his spell resistance. Otherwise he would get vapourised, create some sort of damaging spell that you don't get SR against and its adios muchachos.




But it still wouldn't cure the problem of the planet being destroyed in the first place, which would rob the G-man of a hard earned meal.  BTW, I like the fact that the uber-damaging spells like kiloton don't allow for spell resistance.  How would spell resistance that is limited to one's person (assuming moderate size) protect you from all the consequences of a spell like that?



> Anyway, the idea was really simple. What if, stacked metamagic multiplied an effect rather than added to it.




I think this is akin to saying that metamagic should work like compound rather than simple interest.

This seems cool to me, albeit potentially very destructive.  The biggest question I have with it relates to mechanics and is probably strictly limited to campaigns in the 30th-150th or so level range.

First, it would seem that spellcasters would more quickly begin to outstrip non-spellcasters in power unless there are new feats created to counterbalance "compounding metamagic."

Second, it would seem like the supernatural abilities of creatures, which are ostensibly limited to its hit dice in terms of dice of effect, might largely be obviated.  I would hate to think that "flavor creatures" would eschew their supernatural abilities in favor of casting only the most destructive spell it could metagame.  Of course, if the supernatural ability were quickened then it would still become utilized, it just wouldn't be what characters feared most.

All that said I'm not bothered by it at all, but those would be my two fears as a DM.

Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Kerrick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upper_Krust said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My solution to this (work in progress) is to turn spell resistance into a sort of spell dampening/anti-magic type of spell-level DR.
> 
> eg. Divide SR by 5 to gauge how many levels of anti-magic you apply to a spell effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, if you cast a 15th-level spell at a creature with SR 25, it would effectively be a 10th-level spell for purposes of save, damage, and duration, if applicable? That's a really cool idea. Kind of harks back to 1E/2E magic resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, its along those lines I am working on.
Click to expand...



Interesting... *Makes a mental note to remember that idea*

*thinks better of it, and makes a physical note*


----------



## Zoatebix

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Thanks, most interesting, this guy definately knows his stuff. They should have hired him to do d20 Modern.



My thoughts exactly.  He must not have been interested.  I did find his personal webpage and some stuff about him: a bio (http://www3.telus.net/dlpulver/about.htm) and list of published works (http://www3.telus.net/dlpulver/published.htm).

I totally forgot that he did GURPS Ultra-Tech.  Yowza.  The GURPS Vehicles book stuck out in my mind because it is so quintessentially GURPS-y (you need a calculator or a scratch piece of paper to design a wheelbarrow's stats) and so seemingly different from his BESM and d20 Mecha work.


On to epic magic: I really like the rapid expansion of capabilities that your basic change offers, but CRGreathouse's point about save DCs and metamagic is valid.  Historian's point about HD-based design parameters for creatures is a mighty big concern, too.  Maybe a sensable re-tooling of Heighten spell is all we need to make it all come together, but I don't think it'll be quite that simple.  The "glass jaw" problem is the one that really gets me.  

It seems that I've run into this problem with another kind of high-powered gaming... Yeah!  White Wolf's Exalted had to specifically point out to players that Exalts need to pick up a few good defensive Charms or they're toast!  Smart play, mundane defenses, and the basic task resolution system wouldn't save them from supernatural might (or a group of well trained and impeccably armed mortals).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CRGreathouse mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Why 160d6 and not 256d6 (10*1.5^8 dice, rounded to the nearest) or 244d6 (10 * 1.5, riound down, * 1.5, round down,...)?  For that matter why not 270d6 (round to nearest each time)?




Well for the same simplicity inherant in damage increases by size.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> If you created a spell called _Empowered fireball_ that had the effects of an Empowered _fireball_ (5th level, 15d6 damage) it would be better than the Empowered _fireball_, since its save DC would be higher. That's why this step-up method comes up with more powerful results.




Good point.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> In the end, it's all about power and potential abusability -- what's best for the game?




Exactly.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> But it still wouldn't cure the problem of the planet being destroyed in the first place, which would rob the G-man of a hard earned meal.  BTW, I like the fact that the uber-damaging spells like kiloton don't allow for spell resistance.  How would spell resistance that is limited to one's person (assuming moderate size) protect you from all the consequences of a spell like that?




That could have went either way with the Kiloton spell to be fair. But you could argue that the spell only splits the atom and the explosion is a natural byproduct of that. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I think this is akin to saying that metamagic should work like compound rather than simple interest.
> 
> This seems cool to me, albeit potentially very destructive.  The biggest question I have with it relates to mechanics and is probably strictly limited to campaigns in the 30th-150th or so level range.
> 
> First, it would seem that spellcasters would more quickly begin to outstrip non-spellcasters in power unless there are new feats created to counterbalance "compounding metamagic."




Well I had the opportunity of balancing it with metamartial feats* (which can also benefit from either the double-double = triple or double-double = quadruple approaches). So obviously the former is more balanced with things now.

*in tandem with Metamartial Freedom. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Second, it would seem like the supernatural abilities of creatures, which are ostensibly limited to its hit dice in terms of dice of effect, might largely be obviated.  I would hate to think that "flavor creatures" would eschew their supernatural abilities in favor of casting only the most destructive spell it could metagame.  Of course, if the supernatural ability were quickened then it would still become utilized, it just wouldn't be what characters feared most.




That was a possibility, but there were substantial mitigating factors required to fuel these spells.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> All that said I'm not bothered by it at all, but those would be my two fears as a DM.
> 
> Thanks for sharing it.




Well if I had thought I was still going to be using it I probably wouldn't have posted it. So its more food for thought at this point.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well for the same simplicity inherant in damage increases by size.




Yeah, but that method ends up with about half the damage of the other.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Knight Otu matey! 

hope you have been keeping well?



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Interesting... *Makes a mental note to remember that idea*
> 
> *thinks better of it, and makes a physical note*




Oi! Cheeky! 

Fortunately it won't be necessary now.

You can still have spells that can blow up planets, but now you need to be a 'tad' closer to 2,000th-level.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Zoatebix mate! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> My thoughts exactly.  He must not have been interested.  I did find his personal webpage and some stuff about him: a bio (http://www3.telus.net/dlpulver/about.htm) and list of published works (http://www3.telus.net/dlpulver/published.htm).




Thanks for that.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I totally forgot that he did GURPS Ultra-Tech.  Yowza.  The GURPS Vehicles book stuck out in my mind because it is so quintessentially GURPS-y (you need a calculator or a scratch piece of paper to design a wheelbarrow's stats) and so seemingly different from his BESM and d20 Mecha work.




Thats some pedigree hes got there.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> On to epic magic: I really like the rapid expansion of capabilities that your basic change offers, but CRGreathouse's point about save DCs and metamagic is valid.




Absolutely.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Historian's point about HD-based design parameters for creatures is a mighty big concern, too.




Agreed, although that problem was lessened by the impending mitigating factors. But obviously even I 'cannae change the laws of physics* cap'n'

*Or in this case design parameters.   



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Maybe a sensable re-tooling of Heighten spell is all we need to make it all come together, but I don't think it'll be quite that simple.  The "glass jaw" problem is the one that really gets me.




I don't think it can be made to work. I was drawn into this fools errand because the system actually functions well up to about 50th-level, although after that it really starts to skyrocket. I must have been designing this one wearing rose tinted spectacles.  



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> It seems that I've run into this problem with another kind of high-powered gaming... Yeah!  White Wolf's Exalted had to specifically point out to players that Exalts need to pick up a few good defensive Charms or they're toast!  Smart play, mundane defenses, and the basic task resolution system wouldn't save them from supernatural might (or a group of well trained and impeccably armed mortals).




I don't want to fall into that trap naturally.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Knight Otu matey!
> 
> hope you have been keeping well?



Well, if you've looked at my avatar, I've turned a bit more boney 
I'm reasonably well, though the two PbP games I DM are a bit of a headache, especially as both are currently in a combat (juggling 9 PCs, 2 canines on their side, and 14 kobolds, 2 of them spellcasters in one of them... what was I thinking?!  ). Also, I've been made a moderator for the Gaming Action forums.



> Oi! Cheeky!



Should I ever use it, you'll get credit.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that method ends up with about half the damage of the other.




When you can cast "Death Star Superlaser" you don't care if the opponent makes his save for half damage!


----------



## Knight Otu

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> The GURPS Vehicles book stuck out in my mind because it is so quintessentially GURPS-y (you need a calculator or a scratch piece of paper to design a wheelbarrow's stats) and so seemingly different from his BESM and d20 Mecha work.



Would it be inappropriate to say I LOVE GURPS Vehicles? Honestly, a book in that vein should be a must-exist for the d20 Modern/Future line.


----------



## Upper_Krust

To CRGreathouse.

Hiya mate, do you still have a link to the thread with all the epic monsters on it? Or even have the list itself saved?


----------



## Anabstercorian

Finish Your Work, You So And So.


----------



## Sledge

Did I hear someone say playtesting?  My level 42 (still) semiactive campaign would love playtesting. 

Oh and for the record do not use fireball as your baseline for damage.  Use the theoretical damage caps that where put in place when third edition was designed.


----------



## Fieari

I'd volunteer my group to playtest, but they're wallowing around 20th level right now.  They keep spending XP instead of leveling up.  On the other hand, I've been considering running an example "Really High Level Game" at an upcomming gaming con, since interest in the subject seems to have been rising recently.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya mate, do you still have a link to the thread with all the epic monsters on it? Or even have the list itself saved?




Here's the most updated version. It's not the version I first posted here, but it has more monsters and a prettier format. 

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2431689#post2431689


----------



## Kerrick

> Anyway, the idea was really simple. What if, stacked metamagic multiplied an effect rather than added to it.




That's it? That's all there is to it? Wow.



> eg. 3rd-level Fireball with Empower Spell x8* (+16 levels for a 19th-level spell) would deal: 10d6 x16 (10d6 x2 x2 x2 x2) = 160d6 damage.
> 
> *With Metamagic Freedom.
> 
> Instead of 10d6 x5 = 50d6




CR is right - it would be 256d6. For a 19th level spell, the cap (if we're using caps) would be 50d6 (when I posted that quote, I was wondering where that had come from, but now I know). Course, with the existing epic system (or even the one I use), damage caps pretty much go out the window anyway, but the epic system has a sort of built-in balance, in that getting it that high jacks the DC waaay up (making that spell as an epic would be somewhere around DC 510, before mitigation).

And speaking of mitigation: you mentioned you have mitigating factors. It'd be kind of interesting to see how you use those with a system that would work for all levels.



> Now if we apply the Widen Spell feat to Greater Fireball, the area will double.
> 
> Fireball (3rd) = 20 ft. radius
> Greater Fireball (or Widened Fireball, both 6th) = 40 ft. radius
> Widened x2 Fireball (9th) = 60 ft. radius (if a double, double equals a triple)
> Widened Greater Fireball (9th) = 80 ft. radius




You know, I've always wondered what math system WotC was using, where a double double equals a triple instead of a quadruple. This example amply illustrates the point, especially with CR's comment about save DCs. Why make a really big 3rd-level fireball when I can make the same size fireball at 9th level, using the same slot, and have a better chance of doing damage? The only reason people don't make greater fireballs is that it's silly - you can do the same thing with a feat. 



> I don't think it can be made to work. I was drawn into this fools errand because the system actually functions well up to about 50th-level, although after that it really starts to skyrocket. I must have been designing this one wearing rose tinted spectacles.




Do you mean 50th character level or 50th spell level?

I noticed that you're using damage spells as examples. What about the odd spells? Blowing up a planet is all well and good, but epic magic is about more than that, IMO. How would I, frex, create a tesseract using your system? Or transform the caster into a lich? Or wrench a castle from the ground and make it fly? These are harder to adjudicate simply using metamagic feats.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Re: Playtesting. That would have been to help iron out problems in the magic system, which I no longer have. 

...and thanks for the list CRGreathouse. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> That's it? That's all there is to it? Wow.




I told you it was simple didn't I. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> CR is right - it would be 256d6.




Yes, but a multiplying x1.5 increase is much too complicated. The staggered doubling is much simpler and easier.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> For a 19th level spell, the cap (if we're using caps) would be 50d6 (when I posted that quote, I was wondering where that had come from, but now I know).




Interesting. Although, worth noting that Meteor Swarm already breaks damage cap limitations. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Course, with the existing epic system (or even the one I use), damage caps pretty much go out the window anyway, but the epic system has a sort of built-in balance, in that getting it that high jacks the DC waaay up (making that spell as an epic would be somewhere around DC 510, before mitigation).
> 
> And speaking of mitigation: you mentioned you have mitigating factors. It'd be kind of interesting to see how you use those with a system that would work for all levels.




Wouldn't it. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> You know, I've always wondered what math system WotC was using, where a double double equals a triple instead of a quadruple. This example amply illustrates the point, especially with CR's comment about save DCs. Why make a really big 3rd-level fireball when I can make the same size fireball at 9th level, using the same slot, and have a better chance of doing damage? The only reason people don't make greater fireballs is that it's silly - you can do the same thing with a feat.




Exactly, its always better to set the lowest common denomiator for an effect where possible.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Do you mean 50th character level or 50th spell level?




50th-level character.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I noticed that you're using damage spells as examples. What about the odd spells? Blowing up a planet is all well and good, but epic magic is about more than that, IMO. How would I, frex, create a tesseract using your system? Or transform the caster into a lich? Or wrench a castle from the ground and make it fly? These are harder to adjudicate simply using metamagic feats.




You would be surprised how simple it is really. The basis for 95% of spell effects already exists within the framework of non-epic spellcasting. Then all you need do is introduce the lowest common denominator for these new effects as new spells.


----------



## Kerrick

> Re: Playtesting. That would have been to help iron out problems in the magic system, which I no longer have.




Wait a minute! You can't dangle the possibility of getting to playtest this in front us and then take it away! That's, like, evil and stuff.   



> Interesting. Although, worth noting that Meteor Swarm already breaks damage cap limitations.




No it doesn't. Max damage (assuming you don't get hit by the meteors) is 24d6. The impact damage is kind of incidental, since it only happens if someone's got bad luck and gets in the way. 



> Wouldn't it.




Tease. 



> You would be surprised how simple it is really. The basis for 95% of spell effects already exists within the framework of non-epic spellcasting. Then all you need do is introduce the lowest common denominator for these new effects as new spells.




Well yeah... I mean, that's how I came up with the elements (seeds) that I use for my system. Between the 30 elements, I can make just about any spell you want, with very few ad hoc factors (that's one thing I hated about the epic system - too many ad hoc factors), including the ones I was asking about (I just wanted to see how you would handle them).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Kerrick dude! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Wait a minute! You can't dangle the possibility of getting to playtest this in front us and then take it away! That's, like, evil and stuff.




Its probably more chaotic neutral. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> No it doesn't. Max damage (assuming you don't get hit by the meteors) is 24d6. The impact damage is kind of incidental, since it only happens if someone's got bad luck and gets in the way.




Yes, but lets assume you do get hit by the meteors, its 8d6 + 24d6 = 32d6



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Tease.




Guilty as charged.   



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Well yeah... I mean, that's how I came up with the elements (seeds) that I use for my system. Between the 30 elements, I can make just about any spell you want, with very few ad hoc factors (that's one thing I hated about the epic system - too many ad hoc factors), including the ones I was asking about (I just wanted to see how you would handle them).




I'm sure the principles are somewhat similar.


----------



## Sledge

Okay I correct myself.  Use the max damage that should have been put in place.  For instance we all know that a 3rd level spell should do less than a 4th, but yet the same damage cap.  So what do we do?  Up the dice size as well.  Progression as follows:
5d4, 10d4, 10d6, 15d6, 15d8, 20d8, 20d10, 25d10, 25d12.  What do you think, am I too insane?  Seriously though there needs to be a better system in place here for regulating damage.  Something that make mechanical sense.


----------



## Kerrick

> Yes, but lets assume you do get hit by the meteors, its 8d6 + 24d6 = 32d6




Okay. As 9th level spells go, though, it's not as badly overpowered as some we could name - gate, disjunction, implosion, wish. Gate would be fine if it just made a 2-way gate to any plane - I'd drop it to 8th level, halve the XP cost, and it'd be good to go. Disjunction I made epic. Implosion - kill 1 creature/level? Epic. Wish... I don't know _what_ to do with that, but DM who interprets things literally is a good enough limitation (along with the 5K XP).



> 5d4, 10d4, 10d6, 15d6, 15d8, 20d8, 20d10, 25d10, 25d12. What do you think, am I too insane? Seriously though there needs to be a better system in place here for regulating damage. Something that make mechanical sense.




Except that different spells use different damage types - magic missile uses d4, most energy spells use d6, etc. If you made it a straight number of dice (3rd level - 10, 4th - 12, 5th - 15, etc.) that might work; getting rid of the caps altogether is another viable solution. I never saw the need for caps in any case, but some people point to swarms of magic missiles dealing huge amounts of unavoidable damage. Okay then, drop the damage to 1d4. Our group has a couple spells that protect from force damage; shield has a chance of negating magic missiles, as does a brooch of shielding.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> However each Pantheon has a mirror opposite that allows you to simply swop the alignments around. So for instance the Greek Pantheon is led by the Chaotic Good Zeus, whereas its shadow counterpart (the occult term for this is _favarshi_); the Roman Pantheon is led by the Lawful Evil Jupiter.




I know this is about a month old, but I just got around to reading through this thread (distractions, distractions) up to this point, and I wanted to stop and point out that this is a brilliant idea.  As someone whose campaign world began with, and was created around, the gods (illustrating my deep interest in the topic) I love this.


----------



## Shariell

Jupiter LE?!? Is this only an example, or did you intend really Jupiter to be LE?
I don't see any concrete basis or any "historical" reference to say that.
In fact, the Greek and the Roman pantheon are nearly the same with differents names (the greek culture has largely influenced the Roman one).
Jupiter is no way LE... Asmodeus is LE.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Kerrick said:
			
		

> IOW, if you cast a 15th-level spell at a creature with SR 25, it would effectively be a 10th-level spell for purposes of save, damage, and duration, if applicable? That's a really cool idea. Kind of harks back to 1E/2E magic resistance.
> 
> The only problem I see is that you're violating the KISS rule (you know, Keep It Simple, Stupid) - one change requires another change, which requires another, and so on. This would be great for an alternate system, like something you'd see in Unearthed Arcana, but if you say, "I've got this infinitely scaling system for spells, but you have to use this new SR system too," that might not go over as well. But, like you said, it's a work in progress.




Kerr, Kerr, Kerr...  have I taught you nothing lo these past few years?    If the idea's good, and the execution is elegant, there's nothing in the world wrong with a reasonable amount of changes-supporting changes.  KIIC I say..  Keep It Internally Consistent.  

(And I'm so sure that even this close to the end of the thread, I'm going to encounter at least something or another that'll make posting before I get to the thread's end seem inane)


----------



## Wolv0rine

Kerrick said:
			
		

> You know, I've always wondered what math system WotC was using, where a double double equals a triple instead of a quadruple. This example amply illustrates the point, especially with CR's comment about save DCs. Why make a really big 3rd-level fireball when I can make the same size fireball at 9th level, using the same slot, and have a better chance of doing damage? The only reason people don't make greater fireballs is that it's silly - you can do the same thing with a feat.




Oh, I don't know.  I'm still slightly fond of the Fireball series of spells I have lying around (a degree of Fireball for every level, from 1-9).  Although I grant you, those spells predate 3E by nearly a decade.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Glad you liked the idea Wolv0rine dude! 

Hey Shariell matey! 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> Jupiter LE?!? Is this only an example, or did you intend really Jupiter to be LE? I don't see any concrete basis or any "historical" reference to say that.
> In fact, the Greek and the Roman pantheon are nearly the same with differents names (the greek culture has largely influenced the Roman one).
> Jupiter is no way LE... Asmodeus is LE.




This may sound weird, but I don't really care about the gods alignments that much, so the bottom line is that I am going to use alignment for my purposes, not bust my hump trying to determine the ethics of such mythological figures, an endeavour which is unlikely to result in everyone agreeing with me anyway.

Thats not to say I don't want to do them justice, of course I do, but I want to show that you don't have to be beholden to the myth alone, because when you introduce the gods to your campaign you add to their legend. Hercules never battled Cthulhu, Songoku never had a showdown with Demogorgon, Thor never introduced Tiamat to Mjolnir...but in someones campaign they might. So you can't say that the gods are simply a measure of the meagre handful of stories we have on them. 

As for whether Zeus is Chaotic Good and Jupiter is Lawful Evil, who can say for sure, although the Ancient Greeks prized their independance and the Romans tried to subdue the world. The cultures were in some way opposites, so why not their gods.

Incidently the idea of shadow pantheons was inspired by the Zoroastrian word _favarshi_. 

eg. Ahriman is the _favarshi_ of Ormuzd.

I thought to myself how people are always going on about how the books get the alignments of the gods wrong, Odin was a bloodthirsty battle god, hes not good aligned, yadda yadda yadda.

Then I thought, wouldn't it be interesting if every pantheon had an opposite, the classic sort of 'evil twin' idea, brought to life. The duality of so many pantheons seemed to marry this idea perfectly; Greek-Roman being the classic example, but there are lots of others (Norse-Germanic, Irish-Welsh, Aztec-Mayan etc.) So I decided this would make an interesting adventure or campaign idea for an epic/immortal campaign.

I would be remiss if I also didn't say that the Palladium Book "Pantheons of the Megaverse" wasn't also an inspiration in this regard. For me its still the greatest immortal-centric book ever...even though I don't understand most of the mechanics (I don't own the RIFTS RPG, although I do have half a dozen of their books). What I admire so much about that book is the imaginative way it maintains the verisimilitude of so many fantastical ideas. The gods therein are not the stale interpretations often regurgitated - instead they take account of the universe around them and are all the more interesting for it! Neither is the book afraid to talk about the relationships between pantheons it even goes so far to talk about any pertinent relationship between other major forces of the universe. Such as: the Alien Splugorth; the Vampire Kingdoms; the Mechanoids; the Demons etc.


----------



## Verequus

I'm wondering, why the metamagic feats don't up the save DC automatically - giving Heighten Spell for free. Where is the problem? In Elements of Magic Revised, the spell DC is 10 + 1/2 used MP + Cha mod - metamagic feats add to the used MP. But there are some major differences to the core magic system, which could prevent the change in core, especially for epic gaming.

1. The spells are entirely caster level independent - if a fireball deals 5d6 damage, then being 20th-level does nothing to increase the damage. Damage caps aren't necessary - you only get, what you pay for.

2. Many core metamagic feats are integrated in the spell creation system - if you want a bigger area, a longer duration or simply more damage, then you have only to spent more MP, no need for extra feats. (Of course, creating spells is in EoMR far more easily than in core - but also weaker for the added versatility.)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Some of you may find a few interesting notes in this thread here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=144613&page=2

Hiya Rulemaster matey! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I'm wondering, why the metamagic feats don't up the save DC automatically - giving Heighten Spell for free. Where is the problem?




Never give anything for free - always make them work for it. 

People go to a lot of trouble to get their ability scores raised and pick spell focus feats to do the same thing you want to give for free!


----------



## Farealmer3

*The Big One*

I got a tiny problem i need help with. And seeing as how this has something to do with UK's rules set i will post it here(no reason to start a new thread for one question). How can i create system with Xona-Titanic size creatures without exceeding 1 million HD? My best guess would be to create a damage resistance system of some kind to compensate for the lack of HD but i am lost edge wise. I don't know if it's possible but if anyone can help Upper Krust can.


----------



## Pssthpok

Still waiting for news on Apotheosis.. that is next, right? I mean after the illustrated Bestiary?


----------



## Anabstercorian

There is no 'next'.  That's it.  That's all there will ever be.


----------



## Sledge

Any updates UK?  I have players asking about ascending to godhood and I want rules for it.  I'd rather have yours, but if the time comes I'll be putting my own together.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Farealmer matey! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> I got a tiny problem i need help with. And seeing as how this has something to do with UK's rules set i will post it here (no reason to start a new thread for one question). How can i create system with Xona-Titanic size creatures without exceeding 1 million HD? My best guess would be to create a damage resistance system of some kind to compensate for the lack of HD but i am lost edge wise. I don't know if it's possible but if anyone can help Upper Krust can.




Well, only creatures with a natural physiognomy have their HD related to size, so the first thing that springs to mind is make it either a construct, fey, outsider or intelligent undead.

Another idea might be to give it the mass of something smaller (maybe its made of gas? or something very light like background radiation?)

What I have learnt from toying with the rules is that things are a certain size for a reason (much as in nature itself). So it might help if you ask yourself why the creature would be Xona-Titanic.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Still waiting for news on Apotheosis.. that is next, right? I mean after the illustrated Bestiary?




Correct. I'll let you all know when I am ready on those. I'm trying to get the art finished before the end of this month (as well as the modifications to the text), but I have also been working on parts of Apotheosis from time to time (such as the Metamartial feats).



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> There is no 'next'. That's it. That's all there will ever be.




 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Any updates UK?




Almost, see above.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I have players asking about ascending to godhood and I want rules for it. I'd rather have yours, but if the time comes I'll be putting my own together.




What level are they?


----------



## Farealmer3

> So it might help if you ask yourself why the creature would be Xona-Titanic.




Because each creature is the largest most powerful entity with stats in my cosmos. You seen what it's like UK from my thread on dicefreaks, brave new world redux. I am statting my creatures and the most powerful will be the alignment lords each will have a million HD(condensed into 1000 from being special class immortals of course). And they will each be xona-titanic to show that they are the size of a prime unit(a universe).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again mate! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Because each creature is the largest most powerful entity with stats in my cosmos.




I think the thing to remember here is that size does not necessarily relate to power.

To quote Yoda "Judge me by my size do you?". 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> You seen what it's like UK from my thread on dicefreaks, brave new world redux. I am statting my creatures and the most powerful will be the alignment lords each will have a million HD (condensed into 1000 from being special class immortals of course). And they will each be xona-titanic to show that they are the size of a prime unit (a universe).




Well its certainly not my place to tell people their business, but I am just curious what, if anything, you gain from having beings that size?

Its worth noting that in the comics, cosmic beings are not depicted at the same size as the things they represent. For example, Eternity is the embodiment of the universe:

http://members.fortunecity.com/dm_bishop2/marvel/eternity.html

Its physical manifestation "is merely the perception of the individual witnessing its presence."

The Celestials are (seemingly) born from an imploding galaxy, and have the power to destroy a planet, but they are only 2000 feet tall.


----------



## Verequus

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Never give anything for free - always make them work for it.
> 
> People go to a lot of trouble to get their ability scores raised and pick spell focus feats to do the same thing you want to give for free!




But the higher-level spells already give the higher DC for free - and everyone can research spells, which mimic a metamagicked spell. If you want to raise the DC to the maximum, then you will create such a spell in addition to the raising of ability scores and picking the appropriate feats.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

>





You BEST blush mr. terrible-at-finishing


----------



## Farealmer3

> I am just curious what, if anything, you gain from having beings that size?




 To show what the pinnacle of alignment existance is.



> Its worth noting that in the comics, cosmic beings are not depicted at the same size as the things they represent. For example, Eternity is the embodiment of the universe




Yes but each of these entities represents 10^100 prime units of space. So even at Xona-Titanic they are a micofraction of what they represent.


----------



## Animus

*Just read through the Bestiary*

I just read through hte Bestiary and I must say that I am impressed! I really like the monsters overall, even if I never get to use most of them (my games will only reach between 35-40 tops). Still, there is plenty to use for my level of comfort. PLEASE get Apotheosis done! I have a campaign I need to start and I'd like to have it before the game gets to epic levels.


----------



## Sledge

The party is still at ECL 42 right now.  Of course I use the term party loosely as every character has their own separate areas most of the time.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> But the higher-level spells already give the higher DC for free - and everyone can research spells, which mimic a metamagicked spell. If you want to raise the DC to the maximum, then you will create such a spell in addition to the raising of ability scores and picking the appropriate feats.




If the DC is automatic then spells who rely on the that mechanic alone (save or be affected by 'x') are less effective at higher levels than their damage counterparts. 

If I maximise a fireball and gain the increased DC as well, you can't boost 'save or be affected' spells by the same margin.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Farealmer3 dude! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> To show what the pinnacle of alignment existance is.




Yes but why would they manifest at that size, it doesn't make any sense! You can't really interact with anything at that size...at least nothing 'inside' the universe that is 'you'.



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Yes but each of these entities represents 10^100 prime units of space. So even at Xona-Titanic they are a micofraction of what they represent.




A King may represent a Kingdom, but that doesn't mean he has to be 'kingdom-sized'. 

Xona-Titanic is, for all intents and purposes Universe sized. For such beings to interact they would have to go to a higher dimension (such as the 8th-dimension I describe in the bestiary).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Animus! 



			
				Animus said:
			
		

> I just read through hte Bestiary and I must say that I am impressed!




Thanks!   



			
				Animus said:
			
		

> I really like the monsters overall, even if I never get to use most of them (my games will only reach between 35-40 tops). Still, there is plenty to use for my level of comfort.




Well I tried to give a fairly decent spread, things like the dragons, elementals and golems also cover a lot of ground. The Epic Level Handbook covers a lot of 'low-epic' monsters so I didn't feel the need to 'play to that crowd' so much. 

If I get to do a print version of the Bestiary I will likely increase it to 128 pages, with 51 monsters in it. I went over my notes and I have 150+ epic monsters in total, so there is enough for 3 volumes at the moment. I really would like to add the Elementars into the first volume as well as all the templates I left out (about 8). With one or two other additions this would increase volume 1 to 51 monsters (50 feasible monsters plus one ridiculous entry* just for fun)

*Such as the Neutronium Golem or Lipika.



			
				Animus said:
			
		

> PLEASE get Apotheosis done! I have a campaign I need to start and I'd like to have it before the game gets to epic levels.




I appreciate the concern, I will try to get it done as soon as possible without compromising the quality.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> The party is still at ECL 42 right now.  Of course I use the term party loosely as every character has their own separate areas most of the time.




What races/classes/levels/templates are the party...out of curiousity.


----------



## Aquarius Alodar

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> You BEST blush mr. terrible-at-finishing



  Point.


----------



## Kerrick

This is a bit off-topic, but since you brought up monsters, I guess I can slip this in. I was wondering, do you have a list of abilities and the CR adjustments they have? A lot of the monsters we do have strange abilities, and I have to guess, most of the time, at what they should be. At epic levels, it's even worse, since you have very little to compare them to, and I'm flying by the seat of my pants - I throw out a number and hope it works.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Kerrick mate! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> This is a bit off-topic, but since you brought up monsters, I guess I can slip this in. I was wondering, do you have a list of abilities and the CR adjustments they have? A lot of the monsters we do have strange abilities, and I have to guess, most of the time, at what they should be. At epic levels, it's even worse, since you have very little to compare them to, and I'm flying by the seat of my pants - I throw out a number and hope it works.




Well if the ability is not something thats been scaled up, I usually determine them by assigning one of the following figures which best represents them in comparison to other abilities:

0.1
0.2 = feat
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
50
etc.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

I'm enjoying this discussion regarding the xona-large creatures.  By my reckoning Eternity is an overgrown First One (at least his standard incarnation).  I was thinking it would be cool if First Ones had a special ability whereby they could, through siphoning the full content of what they represent, grow to the size of a dimension with a corresponding increase in hit dice.  This would facilitate battles on a grand stage (imagine a xona-medium Zurvan taking on a xona-medium Limbus   ).

Of course I appreciate that an outsider's hit dice, and therefore power, are not related to its size.  I mean, no matter how large Aditi grows, Living Tribunal (at roughly 50' tall) will spank her.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I'm enjoying this discussion regarding the xona-large creatures.  By my reckoning Eternity is an overgrown First One (at least his standard incarnation).




Macro-Diminutive is probably big enough.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I was thinking it would be cool if First Ones had a special ability whereby they could, through siphoning the full content of what they represent, grow to the size of a dimension with a corresponding increase in hit dice.  This would facilitate battles on a grand stage (imagine a xona-medium Zurvan taking on a xona-medium Limbus   ).




I have an ability called Divine Immensity that lets you increase/decrease your size and it stacks.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Of course I appreciate that an outsider's hit dice, and therefore power, are not related to its size.  I mean, no matter how large Aditi grows, Living Tribunal (at roughly 50' tall) will spank her.




Indeed.


----------



## Farealmer3

> Yes but why would they manifest at that size, it doesn't make any sense! You can't really interact with anything at that size...at least nothing 'inside' the universe that is 'you'



They don't contain lifeforms(for the most part). But they don't interact with creatures anyway, they are too pure in they're alignment to know anything else.



> Xona-Titanic is, for all intents and purposes Universe sized.



Yes sir and thats why i need a way to keep that size in 1 million HD. The alignment lords aside you'd be suprised how often my PC's gods grow to that size.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Farealmer3 matey! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> They don't contain lifeforms (for the most part). But they don't interact with creatures anyway, they are too pure in they're alignment to know anything else.




If they don't interact, then whats the point of statting them?  



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Yes sir and thats why i need a way to keep that size in 1 million HD.




I'd probably need to know more about your PCs, at the moment I am just not sure as to the benefit of detailing creatures with 1 million HD.



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> The alignment lords aside you'd be suprised how often my PC's gods grow to that size.




Well, my own view is that size for its own sake is pointless, but the main thing is that you guys are having fun.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Regarding Eternity:



> Macro-Diminutive is probably big enough.




 -- That's like a minimum of 262,144 HD.  Of course, because he's an outsider it's possible that HD could outstrip size category, but that's a very respectable minimum.



> I have an ability called Divine Immensity that lets you increase/decrease your size and it stacks.




I'm looking forward to seeing that one.


----------



## Farealmer3

> If they don't interact, then whats the point of statting them?



Those are words that i never expected to hear from you. 



> I'd probably need to know more about your PCs, at the moment I am just not sure as to the benefit of detailing creatures with 1 million HD.




It is more for the NPC's than for my PC's. But keep in mind that the HD is 1 thousand on paper, it represents i million.



> Well, my own view is that size for its own sake is pointless, but the main thing is that you guys are having fun.



Well i am going to be controlling that(it's getting a little out of hand). But the reason for my alignment lords is still stands.


----------



## Amen-Zulu

*Artwork*

*Greetings,


I have followed this work from its beginnings. It is good to see that it is taking shape.

I wonder though, why no one has jumped on as an artist. I would imagine there are dozens of decent artists who would like to show their talents with such a creative work. I know they wouldn't get paid much, but the chance to put thier work out there would be advantageous. 

Have you approached anyone from the fantasy art sites?

Someone could be working on that, freeing you up for Apothesis.  

Peace *


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hi historian mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Regarding Eternity:
> 
> -- That's like a minimum of 262,144 HD.




I don't think so, I think you are confusing Macro-Diminutive with Mega-Diminutive.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Of course, because he's an outsider it's possible that HD could outstrip size category, but that's a very respectable minimum.




Yes and good luck working out those feats to anyone contemplating using a 262,144 HD creatures. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to seeing that one.




Its nothing special. Much more interesting Abilities than that.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya matey! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Those are words that i never expected to hear from you.




I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not against statting beings of any measure of power, but if you are going to the trouble of statting it then make it practical.



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> It is more for the NPC's than for my PC's. But keep in mind that the HD is 1 thousand on paper, it represents i million.




Well there could be something to using the square root of the creatures Hit Dice for the manifestation of massive cosmic entities. Interesting... 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Well i am going to be controlling that (it's getting a little out of hand). But the reason for my alignment lords is still stands.




D&D apes nature to a certain extent in the way that design and practicality go hand in hand. Thats why I think its important to link HD with Size and vice versa. Even Outsiders who are not determined by their physiognomy gain *no net benefit* from increasing their size beyond the typical size for that amount of Hit Dice.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> Greetings,




Hey there Amen-Zulu! 



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> I have followed this work from its beginnings. It is good to see that it is taking shape.




Thanks, any sloth is really my fault, but its slowly but surely coming together.



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> I wonder though, why no one has jumped on as an artist.




Well I guess I haven't widely publicised or advertised the issue.

There have been three or four inquiries, but none of them have panned out, which is unfortunate.



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> I would imagine there are dozens of decent artists who would like to show their talents with such a creative work.




Its possible, if anyone knows any I'd be happy to take a look at their work.



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> I know they wouldn't get paid much, but the chance to put thier work out there would be advantageous.




I could only afford to offer a percentage of the profits at this stage. Though presumably a publisher would also pay them for any art used in the printed version.



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> Have you approached anyone from the fantasy art sites?




Honestly, no. I sort of get the impression that anyone I approached, whose art I liked,  would either already be employed or simply be too expensive. Maybe thats a misconception on my part?



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> Someone could be working on that, freeing you up for Apothesis.




Well exactly. Though at this stage Its almost certainly going to be all my art in the Bestiary. Hopefully at that point a publisher will take the art duties off my hands for future supplements, although I am sort of getting back to form with the art, so I may still dabble from time to time in the future. 



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> Peace [/B]




Why thank you.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Funny this came up, actually.  I had seriously considered contacting you about this very issue, but haven't because my frelling scanner's broken.  So I can't pick up any illustration work until I can get a new one.

On the other hand, when I *do* get a new scanner, I may still contact you.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Wolv0rine dude! 



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Funny this came up, actually.  I had seriously considered contacting you about this very issue, but haven't because my frelling scanner's broken.  So I can't pick up any illustration work until I can get a new one.
> 
> On the other hand, when I *do* get a new scanner, I may still contact you.




I think that bottom link in you sig is defunct, also some of the gallery links don't work either, though I did manage to see some of your (I assume) pencil studies. Your figure drawing is pretty good, do you have people posing for any of those? Do you ever work in other mediums?


----------



## Kavon

Hey, I can draw too (planning to go to an art academy in the future, anyway) XP

I think I've got my site linked in my profile.. but those are all quite old drawings (I haven't bothered updating my site that much, and I don't draw as much as I used to). If you want, I could show you some more (newer) stuff o_o

Though, I'm probably just as bad with putting a date on getting something finished as you, Craig XO

Still need to make a tattoo for a classmate of mine, and I also need to make something for math class (some Nietsche-like thing), but I guess I could make a few if you wanted me to (reading the descriptions of some of those beasties made me feel like drawing, anyway) :B


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya Kavon matey! 



			
				Kavon said:
			
		

> Hey, I can draw too (planning to go to an art academy in the future, anyway) XP




Good luck with that! 



			
				Kavon said:
			
		

> I think I've got my site linked in my profile.. but those are all quite old drawings (I haven't bothered updating my site that much, and I don't draw as much as I used to). If you want, I could show you some more (newer) stuff o_o




I'd be interested in seeing some of your new stuff, certainly.

I really liked the line art for Gorand:

http://arthe-gaea.sky-reaction.net/gallery/gods/gorand.html



			
				Kavon said:
			
		

> Though, I'm probably just as bad with putting a date on getting something finished as you, Craig XO




You can get away with it when you are the boss, not the hired help though! 



			
				Kavon said:
			
		

> Still need to make a tattoo for a classmate of mine, and I also need to make something for math class (some Nietsche-like thing), but I guess I could make a few if you wanted me to (reading the descriptions of some of those beasties made me feel like drawing, anyway) :B




Well I have probably got Volume One of the Bestiary all but sewn up with the exception of the cover. I have been running ideas for the cover over and over again - what monster or monsters do people thing are the iconic volume #1 creatures I wonder? What would people like to see on the cover? Like I said, I have ideas of my own (probably too many) but I am not sure what to do for the best.


----------



## Fieari

For the cover you need something that really demonstrates massive epicness.  This means you need somthing BIG and POWERFUL, perhaps even a unique entity.  What about something like Nimrod dueling with a higher echalon angel, like a Cherub, with the tower of Babel in the background, and various dieties looking down from the clouds, perhaps frightened?


----------



## Kavon

Yes, yes! Big and powerful 

An angel vs. something big and nasty is certainly a nice thing to have on the cover *nods*


As for the more recent artsy stuff (like, from within a year's time), I'll email some links and stuff later :3


----------



## Wolv0rine

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Wolv0rine dude!
> I think that bottom link in you sig is defunct, also some of the gallery links don't work either, though I did manage to see some of your (I assume) pencil studies. Your figure drawing is pretty good, do you have people posing for any of those? Do you ever work in other mediums?



You know, you're right.  I'd completely forgotten about that link still being in my sig.  I'll have to remove it.  (The domain name got yoinked out from under the Brood *just* as it expired)

Egads, I have broken links?!  G'aahhh!  I know a fair number of the thumbnails don't lead to a larger version (*So* many HD crashes, so much lost art scanned.  The originals are...  err..  packed somewhere from the last move).

As for models, I maintain a rather extensive collection of pics (yeah, sure 3/5ths of it's porn, but it's models darnit!) but sadly have yet to have a live model.  Those sorts tend to want to be paid and whatnot.    They're as bad as I am, I swear.

Mediums...  I'm primarily a pencil monkey, although I do work in ink at times.  But if you mean colored mediums; not yet, although I've been meaning to teach myself watercolors when I can manage to afford a set and take the time to.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> For the cover you need something that really demonstrates massive epicness.  This means you need somthing BIG and POWERFUL, perhaps even a unique entity.  What about something like Nimrod dueling with a higher echalon angel, like a Cherub, with the tower of Babel in the background, and various dieties looking down from the clouds, perhaps frightened?




I'll see what I can do, I like the idea of having an angel on the cover (since its one of the iconic dimensional beings of that volume), maybe a Seraphim would stand out most.

I think the two things you need to address then is the scale of the piece and probably some sort of adversary...mmmm...I may do a Seraphim versus a Primal Elementar (the two main dimensional forces of Volume #1 if it ever gets to a print version will be the Angels and the Elementars*) over a mortal battlefield (to give it scale).

*I'll add Elementars (and about another 10 monsters) into the print version of Volume 1. Although the Akishra and Cogent, both Pseudonaturals, would be moved to Volume #3, although you are still getting a net gain of +15 monsters.

I also like the idea of two covers (or front and back illustrations), one with a Seraphim over-looking an angelic throng, the other an Elementar over-looking an assemblage of evil.


----------



## Amen-Zulu

*Pay Pal*

Greetings,


I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but when I typed in Pay Pal on Google, the main site came up and at least 3 or more anti-Pay Pal sites. After reading through them it has me on pause. 

I was ready to send money for the Beastiery Preview but, my only card is used to pay for most of my bills. I am definitely not a half-empty glass thinker, but I can't afford to have those type of problems with my account. 

With that being said, have you looked into a merchant account like the one on the anti-paypal site so we could deal with you directly?

http://www.paypalsucks.com/


Or how about some special arrangement with RPG now or even this site. I have dealt with both and would feel much better supporting you through them.

Thanks for your time


----------



## Upper_Krust

Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> Greetings,




Hi Amen-Zulu! 



			
				Amen-Zulu said:
			
		

> I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but when I typed in Pay Pal on Google, the main site came up and at least 3 or more anti-Pay Pal sites. After reading through them it has me on pause.
> 
> I was ready to send money for the Beastiery Preview but, my only card is used to pay for most of my bills. I am definitely not a half-empty glass thinker, but I can't afford to have those type of problems with my account.
> 
> With that being said, have you looked into a merchant account like the one on the anti-paypal site so we could deal with you directly?
> 
> http://www.paypalsucks.com/
> 
> Or how about some special arrangement with RPG now or even this site. I have dealt with both and would feel much better supporting you through them.
> 
> Thanks for your time




Well, I can only speak from my limited experience with paypal, so far I have had no trouble at all with them. I wonder if anyone who has sent me money via paypal has experienced any problems?

Once I have the art completed I expect to have the Bestiary on rpg.now and similar places. So its probably worth your while waiting for that if you have any doubts at all.


----------



## Sledge

Before I signed up for paypal I checked with Mastercard to see if they had a lot of complaints.  Almost none.  As far as big businesses go paypal is no different that your local bank.  This doesn't mean that they won't screw up, but banks do it all the time.
As for chargebacks, I've heard paypal approves all chargebacks and rejects all chargebacks.  Realistically they can't reject and approve everything.  I believe they have a slight slant to the buyers end, but that is nothing abnormal.
Banks do crazy things every day and yet we still give them our money.  Paypal is no worse, and their agreements are not as one-sided and dangerous as some of the complainers imply.


----------



## Sledge

You asked for it UK


Rancellus  Fighter(2), Wizard(2), Elf Paragon(3), Spellsword(9), Windsong Guardian(Homebrew11), Spellmaster(HomebrewEpic)(15) (Character that was played from level 1 through several editions)

Sharynie  Wizard, Martial Artist(Homebrew), Shadowdancer(10), Spellmaster(HomebrewEpic)(3) Can't find the sheet atm, so can't remember how much went into wizards and how much went into ma.

Psion 3/Wizard 3/Cerebremancer 16/Metamind 10/Thrallherd 10  (New character to this game)

We also have two characters whose player aren't in the games regularly and a new character being added in the near future.  I also a couple of semi retired characters whose player has moved on to the Thrallherd from.  In a pinch those character may be recruited as NPC's.

Our campaign is a shared one, every does their part and takes turns, but I get the job of rules figuring as I've been DMing since grade 4 or such.  So any questions?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> You asked for it UK
> 
> Rancellus  Fighter(2), Wizard(2), Elf Paragon(3), Spellsword(9), Windsong Guardian(Homebrew11), Spellmaster(HomebrewEpic)(15) (Character that was played from level 1 through several editions)
> 
> Sharynie  Wizard, Martial Artist(Homebrew), Shadowdancer(10), Spellmaster(HomebrewEpic)(3) Can't find the sheet atm, so can't remember how much went into wizards and how much went into ma.
> 
> Psion 3/Wizard 3/Cerebremancer 16/Metamind 10/Thrallherd 10  (New character to this game)
> 
> We also have two characters whose player aren't in the games regularly and a new character being added in the near future.  I also a couple of semi retired characters whose player has moved on to the Thrallherd from.  In a pinch those character may be recruited as NPC's.
> 
> Our campaign is a shared one, every does their part and takes turns, but I get the job of rules figuring as I've been DMing since grade 4 or such.  So any questions?




Yes, alignments and patron god(s)...if any.

I think I have a quick way of setting you on the path to immortality, without all the bells and whistles of the IH (just yet).

At 40th-level you have to assume they have enough Worship Points for at least Quasi-divinity, probably even demi-divinity. But of course you need more than WPs to become an immortal.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Sledge said:
			
		

> Spellmaster(HomebrewEpic)




I'm curious about this class.  Is there any chance you'll post information on it?


----------



## Sledge

CRGreathouse: Well I am reworking the class too make it better balanced.  Will post when I am more satisfied with it.  Also renaming it... thinking Integral Adept.  Spellmaster may not satisfy as the name doesn't feel right to me.

UK: Only one has a serious patron deity (in the active group, inactive list holds a paladin) Rancellus started off as a follower of Torm and still has a high place in that church.  Has a few thousand "worshippers" as part of his history, but no game effects from that as yet.

Rancellus is Lawful Good and is a Hero of Torm
Sharynie is Chaotic Good and follows nature in a very loose sense.  No official god worshipped.
Gorman is Neutral Good and officially worships Garl Glittergold
I expect the upcoming character to be NG or CG as well.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> UK: Only one has a serious patron deity (in the active group, inactive list holds a paladin) Rancellus started off as a follower of Torm and still has a high place in that church.  Has a few thousand "worshippers" as part of his history, but no game effects from that as yet.
> 
> Rancellus is Lawful Good and is a Hero of Torm
> Sharynie is Chaotic Good and follows nature in a very loose sense.  No official god worshipped.
> Gorman is Neutral Good and officially worships Garl Glittergold
> I expect the upcoming character to be NG or CG as well.




Okay, I have been giving this some thought. At this measure of power (just over 40th-level) the characters will at least have the Worship Points equivalent of a powerful quasi-deity. So I can neatly avoid the 'how you gain WPs' bit at this juncture.

However the characters still have to pledge themselves to a Pantheon (optional), discover their portfolios and awaken their divinity. 

Seemingly you are running a Realms centred campaign, so the characters won't need to pledge themselves to a specific Pantheon.

The next step is for the PCs to discover their portfolios. 

The DM (secretly) chooses a portfolio for them based on the characters history. "What does the DM think that character should be the god of?" For newly created characters the DM can either roll randomly or have the player write up a brief backstory and base it on that.

Each PC then gets to choose one portfolio they want to follow. "What does the PC want to be the god of?" 

Depending on how well the Player has roleplayed the character, and how strong its identity is, the DM and the Player may choose the same Portfolio, in which case the player has gained a double portfolio (which has far greater benefits, albeit in a more limited capacity).

If the player has a patron, then it would be them explaining that they must choose their destiny.

Once you know the portfolios, design a brief encounter or adventure around each portfolio, I have a number of poignant adventure ideas for these in the IH.

So once you have the portfolios I can suggest a few adventure ideas.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Okay, I have been giving this some thought. At this measure of power (just over 40th-level) the characters will at least have the Worship Points equivalent of a powerful quasi-deity. So I can neatly avoid the 'how you gain WPs' bit at this juncture.



I know you don't want to get into details, so I won't bother you (too much), but do you plan on including details on specific cases which can arise from character having very  little worship even though they are high level? In the only epic level campaign I have ever run (the current one should soon become epic, the characters are at level 19!), the most important adventure the characters ever had (saving the world, how common!) took place mainly out of the spotlight, most of the world never knowing it was in danger. The same could happen in a plane-hopping campaign, with the character never spending any amount of time on the prime (or never doing anything significant there).

IMHO, in such a campaign, a 40th-level character deserves less to become a god than a 20th-level character in a campaign where every adventure ended in the character saving the biggest city of the world by defeating the BBEG in front of the whole population.

Also the power level of a campaign should also have impact on the power/reputation needed to raise to godhood. Let's take our 15th-level fighter: in Eberron, he's one of the most powerful character in the world, with more personal power than a king, and, if played logically, as much political power as a king; and he's probably known by all. Compare this to the same character in the FR, who is probably just a farmer in Shadowdale, unknow by all    I'm taking it a bit too far, but not by much.

OK, that's it, I said I wouldn't bother you too much, so I'll stop here... Oh yes, just another thingie: how's the art progressing?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya poilbrun matey! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> I know you don't want to get into details, so I won't bother you (too much), but do you plan on including details on specific cases which can arise from character having very  little worship even though they are high level?




Its possible for high level characters to have no worship at all. 

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'include details on specific cases'?

If you mean what happens to non-immortal epic characters in an otherwise immortal adventuring party then I have some notes on how to handle that. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> In the only epic level campaign I have ever run (the current one should soon become epic, the characters are at level 19!), the most important adventure the characters ever had (saving the world, how common!) took place mainly out of the spotlight, most of the world never knowing it was in danger. The same could happen in a plane-hopping campaign, with the character never spending any amount of time on the prime (or never doing anything significant there).




Dude, this is me. When you see the Worship Points mechanic you will realise that my email address ain't just to bolster my ego. Trust me - this is covered. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> IMHO, in such a campaign, a 40th-level character deserves less to become a god than a 20th-level character in a campaign where every adventure ended in the character saving the biggest city of the world by defeating the BBEG in front of the whole population.




Absolutely. But on average I guesstimated that 40+ level characters would have been involved in some major events over the course of their careers. So when I said to Sledge that his party would almost certainly have enough Worship Points to become Quasi-deities I was making an educated guess.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> Also the power level of a campaign should also have impact on the power/reputation needed to raise to godhood. Let's take our 15th-level fighter: in Eberron, he's one of the most powerful character in the world, with more personal power than a king, and, if played logically, as much political power as a king; and he's probably known by all. Compare this to the same character in the FR, who is probably just a farmer in Shadowdale, unknow by all    I'm taking it a bit too far, but not by much.




See the Immortals Handbook: Apotheosis pages 8-9 for details.   



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> OK, that's it, I said I wouldn't bother you too much, so I'll stop here...




No bother mate. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> Oh yes, just another thingie: how's the art progressing?




The usual...unfortunately.


----------



## Sledge

*looks for pages 8-9.....*

Will have the portfolios posted in a few hours.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Quick question -- where would you place Master Order/Lord Chaos on the divinity scale?  I'm thinking that they are more like avatars of First Ones rather than First Ones.

Thanks


----------



## historian

Oh yeah, one more thing.  Does Limbus have a Marvel counterpart?


----------



## Farealmer3

Hi Upper Krust
I got the solution to the problem. I also had to change so rules to fit my costum RPG you can see an example of this on DF, i would like to know what you think.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure what you mean by 'include details on specific cases'?



Well, you said before that you had other ways than worship for a god to gain godly power, so would it be possible for a mortal to ascend to godhood by syphoning energy (must this process be active, or can it be passive?)?

Otherwise, thanks for the reply!


----------



## Verequus

Hi UK!

Could this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140322 be the one, you were looking for?


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hi historian matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Quick question -- where would you place Master Order/Lord Chaos on the divinity scale?  I'm thinking that they are more like avatars of First Ones rather than First Ones.




By rights they should be First Ones, but the Marvel iterations seem to suggest that they are notably less than the likes of Eternity, Infinity, Death (and the rarely seen Oblivion), so maybe they are both 'merely' Old Ones.

The Marvel Hierarchy is slightly confusing in that 'Eternity' has nothing to do with time.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, one more thing. Does Limbus have a Marvel counterpart?




Technically it should be Lord Chaos.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Hi Upper Krust.




Hi Farealmer3 mate! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> I got the solution to the problem. I also had to change so rules to fit my costum RPG you can see an example of this on DF, i would like to know what you think.




Yes I saw that.

http://community.dicefreaks.com/viewtopic.php?t=1116&start=45

Interesting take on Demogorgon.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> Well, you said before that you had other ways than worship for a god to gain godly power, so would it be possible for a mortal to ascend to godhood by syphoning energy (must this process be active, or can it be passive?)?




No *mortal* could do this in and of their own power.

Outsiders (ie. immortals) can.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> Otherwise, thanks for the reply!




Thats what I'm here for.


----------



## Upper_Krust

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Hi UK!




Hi Rulemaster mate! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Could this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140322 be the one, you were looking for?




Thats the one!

You are brilliant. 


Incidently, speaking of Sean K Reynolds, I was reading a very interesting article over on his website recently:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html

and it sort of parallels a line of reasoning I was seeking to explore with divinity and the erstwhile illogic of absolute immunity. I was going over a few things and you really can paint yourself into a corner with immunities, to the extent that they could ruin epic/immortal gaming...that bit about Megaflames sent chills down my spine. So expect very few immunities in the IH.

Oh and the way I have revised the Critical Hit Immunity is inspired.


----------



## Verequus

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Thats the one!
> 
> You are brilliant.




Thanks! I've remembered, that I could have emailed you that link - and I had still my copy available.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Incidently, speaking of Sean K Reynolds, I was reading a very interesting article over on his website recently:
> 
> http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html
> 
> and it sort of parallels a line of reasoning I was seeking to explore with divinity and the erstwhile illogic of absolute immunity. I was going over a few things and you really can paint yourself into a corner with immunities, to the extent that they could ruin epic/immortal gaming...that bit about Megaflames sent chills down my spine. So expect very few immunities in the IH.
> 
> Oh and the way I have revised the Critical Hit Immunity is inspired.




I've seen this article already - I can't find a single flaw with that. Incidentally, SKR hasn't mentioned Anti-magic Field yet - another horrible absolute. EoMR solved this problem - antimagic fields can be overcome with SR checks. A brilliant solution, IMO. And I can't wait to see your take regarding the Critical Hit Immunity!


----------



## Sledge

Well I'm still waiting on a couple players, but for Rancellus and Sharynie we have:
Rancellus: War and Honour
Sharynie: Nature and Shadows

Edit:
Gorman: Knowledge and Power


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> By rights they should be First Ones, but the Marvel iterations seem to suggest that they are notably less than the likes of Eternity, Infinity, Death (and the rarely seen Oblivion), so maybe they are both 'merely' Old Ones.




That's basically what I thought.  The MU has several candidates on the First One roster:

Eternity -- Time
Oblivion -- Entropy
Death -- Entropy
Infinity -- Space
Master Order -- Time
Lord Chaos -- Thought
Eon?

Of course, I haven't identified the First One of Good or Evil and I suspect Marvel has intentionally avoided this subject matter.  Also, Death and Oblivion might be two aspects of the same being (likely) as they appear to be equally fundamental (perhaps Oblivion is the counterpart to Death in another universe which would explain the infrequent appearances).  However, the other overlap involving Eternity and Master Order doesn't quite work as they often appear simultaneously in the same universe and MO is clearly a subordinate.  This gives me pause regarding Lord Chaos.


----------



## Sledge

Looks like we'll have to wait a while for the 4th character.  It seems the players computer is having some serious hardware issues.  UK could you give me a hint of the next step according to the IH?


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 

Apologies for being offline for so long (although Friday nights Saturday afternoon are the main times I'm away from the computer). I've been working on a few articles for the website which I'll try to update tomorrow...no its not Galactus historian...not yet, I'm still not confident about the psionics side of things, although I may just do his stats without psionics list.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> That's basically what I thought.  The MU has several candidates on the First One roster:
> 
> Eternity -- Time
> Oblivion -- Entropy
> Death -- Entropy
> Infinity -- Space
> Master Order -- Time
> Lord Chaos -- Thought
> Eon?
> 
> Of course, I haven't identified the First One of Good or Evil and I suspect Marvel has intentionally avoided this subject matter.  Also, Death and Oblivion might be two aspects of the same being (likely) as they appear to be equally fundamental (perhaps Oblivion is the counterpart to Death in another universe which would explain the infrequent appearances).  However, the other overlap involving Eternity and Master Order doesn't quite work as they often appear simultaneously in the same universe and MO is clearly a subordinate.  This gives me pause regarding Lord Chaos.




Well Eternity could be good/spirit, Abraxas could be evil/matter?

Or its possible that Lord Order/Master Chaos could be two halfs of 'spirit'*

*Which would be 'soul' in the Marvel Universe.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Well I'm still waiting on a couple players, but for Rancellus and Sharynie we have:
> 
> *Rancellus:* War and Honour, LG
> *Sharynie:* Nature and Shadows, NG
> *Gorman:* Knowledge and Power, CG




Can you define 'power' a bit better, its somewhat ambiguous.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Looks like we'll have to wait a while for the 4th character.  It seems the players computer is having some serious hardware issues.




Thats okay, no hurry.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> UK could you give me a hint of the next step according to the IH?




Well its in three parts (once you have the prerequisites, worship points for one thing):

The Test of Faith (for immortality), the Trial by/of [Insert Portfolio], and the Task(s) of Fealty (for Pantheons...think of the Labours of Hercules).

The Test of Faith is not as obvious as the others, but I don't really want to expound on it right now.


----------



## Sledge

Power as in the pursuit of power.  Is that a little more explanatory?  I'm not sure how else to put it.

So do those steps need to be taken in order?

You know it would be really nice if we could have the finished book soon.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> Apologies for being offline for so long (although Friday nights Saturday afternoon are the main times I'm away from the computer).




Don't sweat it at all (at least not where I'm concerned).



> I've been working on a few articles for the website which I'll try to update tomorrow...no its not Galactus historian...




   No worries mate, I always enjoy the articles.



> I'm still not confident about the psionics side of things, although I may just do his stats without psionics list.




Me neither.


> Well Eternity could be good/spirit




You have an idea there as Eternity's essence seems to spring more from the spirit of things rather than time.  The only potential problems I see are that he is so often portrayed as rather selfish and infantile, more concerned with form rather than substance.  



> Abraxas could be evil/matter?




Abraxas is the best candidate to come to mind, although I think his showings are more consistent with a Time Lord that has "gone off the reservation" so to speak, dominated by chaos (primarily) and evil (secondarily).  The fact that he was purging every universe of Galactus also seems consistent with Time Lord status (I think?).

It's actually very difficult to find a genuine First One of matter/evil in the MU.  Walker, Dormmamu, and Ego are each appealing in their own ways but lack overall.  My next best guess would be something that Dr. Strange has encountered.  


> Or its possible that Lord Order/Master Chaos could be two halfs of 'spirit'*




That definitely makes sense and would give Warlock an IH counterpart.  Both halves actually  behave as if they are of good alignment.  

Maybe the In-Betweener has androgyne powers?

Thanks dude.


----------



## Wolv0rine

historian said:
			
		

> Abraxas is the best candidate to come to mind, although I think his showings are more consistent with a Time Lord that has "gone off the reservation" so to speak, dominated by chaos (primarily) and evil (secondarily).  The fact that he was purging every universe of Galactus also seems consistent with Time Lord status (I think?).




How can someone purge every universe of Galactus, seeing as how it was shown that the Galactus that exists in the 616 universe is the same Galactus that exists in all the others?  Keeping in mind that my comics knowledge (and Marvel knowledge in specific) is a good 10-15 years old.


----------



## Anabstercorian

How long until the next book comes out?


----------



## Verequus

Hi UK!

I think, that this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146613 might be of interest for you.


----------



## historian

> How can someone purge every universe of Galactus, seeing as how it was shown that the Galactus that exists in the 616 universe is the same Galactus that exists in all the others?




I was really pulling from the following:

"He [Abraxas] soon began to cut a swath of terror through various alternate realities, including the murder of other versions of Galactus. He used the head of Galactus to target and home in on the prime reality Earth and to plant a mole in his version of the Herald known as Nova."

http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/g/galactus.htm 

"With the intention of attracting the attention of the Fantastic Four, Abraxas killed another universe's Galactus, and sent his skull to Earth-616, also using the skull as a homing beacon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraxas_%28comics%29 


> Keeping in mind that my comics knowledge (and Marvel knowledge in specific) is a good 10-15 years old.




Regretfully, I must say that mine pre-dates but I am afraid to give my age away.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Here's my massive critique of U_K's Revising Epic Feats.


1. Armor Skin

I think this feat is fine as written and too weak at +1. Clearly someone at Wizards agrees with you though, as when they reprinted Armor Skin it gave a +1 bonus.  Frankly I think it's a little weak if anything at +2.

2. Automatic Quicken Spell
3. Automatic Silent Spell
4. Automatic Still Spell
19. Improved Metamagic
23. Multispell

I still like these feats, and tend to prefer them to your new system.

5. Bane of Enemies
6. Chaotic Rage
16. Holy Strike
29. Righteous Strike
31. Thundering Rage
33. Unholy Strike

These changes are probably good, though I'd just as soon simply strike the '(doesn't stack)'.

7. Damage Reduction

You're probably right here; this is a little too popular at +3/--.

10. Epic Dodge

Your critique is probably accurate, much as I like the feat as written, but your revision is much too weak.  With those prerequisites no one would ever take it; without any prerequisites other than Dodge, it would be taken only rarely I suspect.

11. Epic Fortitude
12. Epic Reflexes
14. Epic Will

I don't know what you're thinking, these are fine as is.  In fact, they're weak enough I rarely see them taken, even though Iron Will is fairly popular in my games.

13. Epic Toughness

I agree that it's weak, although I will note it was revised later to +30.  Some of us, though, don't use Improved Toughness in their games -- I won't allow players to take it at all.  I don't even allow it as an epic feat.

15. Great Smiting

I'm not sure I agree with your fix, nor that it represents as great a problem as you suggest.  I'll have to look into the issue more carefully before passing judgement; you may be right, although I'm sure this is too weak as a cosmic or even divine ability.

17. Improved Combat Reflexes

Attacks of Opportunity have many problems in their current manifestation, and this simply reveals them.  I don't like the feat conceptually, although in practice I suspect it's extremely weak for an epic feat.

18. Improved Heighten Spell

I agree, this is what I've done ever since the ELH came out.

20. Improved Spell Capacity

I rather like this feat, and certainly prefer it to the system you propose.  I especially like how synergistic it is with ability scores.

21. Infinite Deflection

This is, as you say, "more a problem with deflection itself rather than infinite deflection".  You don't propose a fix for the epic feat itself, only for the underlying nonepic feat, but this seems appropriate.

22. Intensify Spell

You're probably right that this isn't needed; your Metamagic Freedom or something like it is surely a better solution.  I'm not sure what the perfect fix is yet; for the time being, I allow this in my game.  No one's taken it yet.

24. Music of the Gods

I don't agree in general that immunity to mind-affecting effects "should probably be a bonus rather than an immunity".  Some things just literally don't have minds.

25. Overwhelming Critical

I like the simplicity of this change, but note that it's not balanced -- this gives almost no benefit to, say, picks and a very powerful benefit to 18-20 weapons.

26. Perfect Health

Your suggestion is absurdly weak, although the epic feat as written is similarly weak.

27. Perfect Multi-weapon Fighting

I'm not sure where I stand on this one.

28. Polyglot

Your suggestion is silly (it's just ESF (Decipher Script)).  I like the ability as written; it's a lot of fun.  I had a character (a very intelligent fighter) set this as his goal and eventually achieve it, to great effect.

30. Self-Concealment

You don't recommend any changes to the feat, which is fine.  The Transcendental ability sounds pretty weak, though.

32. Uncanny Accuracy

You've got to be kidding.  I'm stunned you think this is overpowered.

34. Vorpal Strike

I don't think this is so powerful, considering that the basic vorpal ability is available to PCs from about level 12.  I'm not sure how powerful it is, but unless divine powers are a lot weaker than I thought they were this isn't on par with them.


----------



## Sledge

I've got to say, that I agree about Polyglot.  Your suggestion is embarassing.  Any character with Polyglot as it currently stands, is not gaining a lot from it.  But your suggestion is flat out useless.  It's less useful than a 3rd level spell.

Multiattack is currently a problem so I see no problem with your suggestions there by the way.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

Haven't been online much in the past 24 hours. By the way, I forgot to mention that on Sunday I got to watch the D&D movie sequel - Wrath of the Dragon God.

You can read my thoughts on it here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=145870



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Power as in the pursuit of power.  Is that a little more explanatory?




Slightly.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how else to put it.








			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> So do those steps need to be taken in order?




Well, technically you can't gain a portfolio before you become an immortal. However, I am working on a way in which you can use portfolios as basic character/monster templates - so under those circumstances you wouldn't need to be an immortal first.

The Pantheon Tasks are optional



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> You know it would be really nice if we could have the finished book soon.




I know...and hello Anabstercorian too.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> You have an idea there as Eternity's essence seems to spring more from the spirit of things rather than time.




Well its been stated that he is the embodiment of all life in the universe.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> The only potential problems I see are that he is so often portrayed as rather selfish and infantile, more concerned with form rather than substance.




Well at that strata of power, beings are probably far more used to seeing the 'big picture' and acting accordingly.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Abraxas is the best candidate to come to mind, although I think his showings are more consistent with a Time Lord that has "gone off the reservation" so to speak, dominated by chaos (primarily) and evil (secondarily).




Similarly Hunger might be a Time Lord dominated by Entropy.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> The fact that he was purging every universe of Galactus also seems consistent with Time Lord status (I think?).








			
				historian said:
			
		

> It's actually very difficult to find a genuine First One of matter/evil in the MU.  Walker, Dormmamu, and Ego are each appealing in their own ways but lack overall.  My next best guess would be something that Dr. Strange has encountered.




Well its certainly not Dormammu - if anything hes a champion of chaos (much like Thanos is/was a champion of death).

Walker is slightly more complicated, but it appears he was a powerful force of entropy who almost displaced death.

Ego is far too weak to be the first one of matter, however its possible that Super-Ego (whom you may or may not be familiar with?) could fit this role. He took on an army of Celestials.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> That definitely makes sense and would give Warlock an IH counterpart.  Both halves actually behave as if they are of good alignment.




Warlock would be the champion of soul/spirit.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Maybe the In-Betweener has androgyne powers?




Almost certainly.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Wolv0rine mate! 



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> How can someone purge every universe of Galactus, seeing as how it was shown that the Galactus that exists in the 616 universe is the same Galactus that exists in all the others?  Keeping in mind that my comics knowledge (and Marvel knowledge in specific) is a good 10-15 years old.




You have to try and fathom the unfathomable with cosmic stories sometimes.

Cosmic characters all (purportedly) wield infinite power. The only difference is how quickly they can bring it to bear.

I think the example used is that if you count only even numbers up to infinity, then you still arrive at an infinite number, but the sum total of your numbers would be less than if you count both odd and even numbers.


----------



## Upper_Krust

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Hi UK!




Hiya dude! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I think, that this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146613 might be of interest for you.




Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Here's my massive critique of U_K's Revising Epic Feats.




I appreciate the response mate, there were a handful of feats even I wasn't sure about, so it will be good to thrash this about a bit.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 1. Armor Skin
> 
> I think this feat is fine as written and too weak at +1. Clearly someone at Wizards agrees with you though, as when they reprinted Armor Skin it gave a +1 bonus.  Frankly I think it's a little weak if anything at +2.




I'm torn on this one to be honest, in a perfect world it would be +1.66.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 2. Automatic Quicken Spell
> 3. Automatic Silent Spell
> 4. Automatic Still Spell
> 19. Improved Metamagic
> 23. Multispell
> 
> I still like these feats, and tend to prefer them to your new system.




Lets see if you still think that when your guys reach mid-epic levels. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 5. Bane of Enemies
> 6. Chaotic Rage
> 16. Holy Strike
> 29. Righteous Strike
> 31. Thundering Rage
> 33. Unholy Strike
> 
> These changes are probably good, though I'd just as soon simply strike the '(doesn't stack)'.




If they don't stack then theres no net gain for someone like the Paladin to take such a feat if they have a Holy sword, Holy Avenger, Holy Power weapon.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 7. Damage Reduction
> 
> You're probably right here; this is a little too popular at +3/--.




Indeed.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 10. Epic Dodge
> 
> Your critique is probably accurate, much as I like the feat as written, but your revision is much too weak.  With those prerequisites no one would ever take it; without any prerequisites other than Dodge, it would be taken only rarely I suspect.




This could be tied in with your thoughts on Armor Skin. If you think Armor Skin should be +2 then Dodge should be +3 and Epic Dodge +6.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 11. Epic Fortitude
> 12. Epic Reflexes
> 14. Epic Will
> 
> I don't know what you're thinking, these are fine as is.  In fact, they're weak enough I rarely see them taken, even though Iron Will is fairly popular in my games.




If Great Fortitude is a +2 bonus how can Epic Fortitude be +4. Are you telling me that epic feats should be uniformly 'double' the power of regular feats (with no prerequisites)?

I mean I know Epic Weapon Focus is, but that should be +2 from the start.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 13. Epic Toughness
> 
> I agree that it's weak, although I will note it was revised later to +30.  Some of us, though, don't use Improved Toughness in their games -- I won't allow players to take it at all.  I don't even allow it as an epic feat.




Why not? Its perfectly balanced, especially for epic games.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 15. Great Smiting
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with your fix, nor that it represents as great a problem as you suggest.  I'll have to look into the issue more carefully before passing judgement; you may be right, although I'm sure this is too weak as a cosmic or even divine ability.




Well I must admit that some part of my fears for this is seeing it in tandem with other divine/cosmic abilities.   



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 17. Improved Combat Reflexes
> 
> Attacks of Opportunity have many problems in their current manifestation, and this simply reveals them.  I don't like the feat conceptually, although in practice I suspect it's extremely weak for an epic feat.




Like I mention on the website theres no problem until you start toying with supernatural means of manipulating reach.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 18. Improved Heighten Spell
> 
> I agree, this is what I've done ever since the ELH came out.








			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 20. Improved Spell Capacity
> 
> I rather like this feat, and certainly prefer it to the system you propose.  I especially like how synergistic it is with ability scores.




Try outfitting spell lists for a load of epic spellcasters and you will soon come to loathe this mechanic.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 21. Infinite Deflection
> 
> This is, as you say, "more a problem with deflection itself rather than infinite deflection".  You don't propose a fix for the epic feat itself, only for the underlying nonepic feat, but this seems appropriate.








			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 22. Intensify Spell
> 
> You're probably right that this isn't needed; your Metamagic Freedom or something like it is surely a better solution.  I'm not sure what the perfect fix is yet; for the time being, I allow this in my game.  No one's taken it yet.








			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 24. Music of the Gods
> 
> I don't agree in general that immunity to mind-affecting effects "should probably be a bonus rather than an immunity". Some things just literally don't have minds.




A lich is immune to mind-affecting effects and it has an intelligence.

A zombie is mindless, but can be controlled by a control undead.

If the feat were phrased along the lines of allowing it to affect mindless (as per control undead) creatures. Then thats okay. But I suppose I really wanted to point out that no intelligent creature should be immune to mind-affecting effects.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 25. Overwhelming Critical
> 
> I like the simplicity of this change, but note that it's not balanced -- this gives almost no benefit to, say, picks and a very powerful benefit to 18-20 weapons.




I've went over this a few times and the current weapons are not balanced to begin with.

To be balanced a 20 crit attack needs a multiplier of x4, a 19-20 crit attack needs a multiplier of x2 and an 18-20 crit attack needs a multiplier of x1.5.

Technically, to keep things balanced you should use the staggered double progression (x1.5, x2, x3, x4, x6, x8, x12) with 18-20 weapons starting at x1.5.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 26. Perfect Health
> 
> Your suggestion is absurdly weak, although the epic feat as written is similarly weak.




Maybe it should be a +10 bonus.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 27. Perfect Multi-weapon Fighting
> 
> I'm not sure where I stand on this one.




Think about the Hindu deities with dozens upon dozens of attacks. 

That said, I am working on a method to solve the effect of having multiple (smaller) arms on the same size frame has on strength. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 28. Polyglot
> 
> Your suggestion is silly (it's just ESF (Decipher Script)).  I like the ability as written; it's a lot of fun.  I had a character (a very intelligent fighter) set this as his goal and eventually achieve it, to great effect.




I was sort of in two minds with this one. Although absolutes are broken by default, I was struggling to come up with a situation where this is going to break a game. I'll probably remove it from the list.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 30. Self-Concealment
> 
> You don't recommend any changes to the feat, which is fine.  The Transcendental ability sounds pretty weak, though.




Well it means that not only do you have to hit the tarrgets AC, but that you also only have a 1 in 8 chance that the blow actually connects. For many circumstances this is akin to multiplying hit points by 8...and its not really 'concealment' it should be said (in that Uncanny Accuracy won't trump it), I probably confused things by lumping it in there.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 32. Uncanny Accuracy
> 
> You've got to be kidding.  I'm stunned you think this is overpowered.




This one is sort of confusing.

If it takes one feat for an archer to reduce concealment by 90%, and it takes 5 feats for a character to gain self-concealment 50%, can they both be balanced?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> 34. Vorpal Strike
> 
> I don't think this is so powerful, considering that the basic vorpal ability is available to PCs from about level 12.  I'm not sure how powerful it is, but unless divine powers are a lot weaker than I thought they were this isn't on par with them.




This one has been annoying me for ages, I'm grasping for an objective answer. Part of me says its too powerful, part of me thinks it isn't. I sort of adde it to get some feedback on it and help thrash it out in my head.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> You have to try and fathom the unfathomable with cosmic stories sometimes.
> 
> Cosmic characters all (purportedly) wield infinite power. The only difference is how quickly they can bring it to bear.
> 
> I think the example used is that if you count only even numbers up to infinity, then you still arrive at an infinite number, but the sum total of your numbers would be less than if you count both odd and even numbers.




As a mathematician, I have to disagree -- and this seems to dull your point for me.  Are you just trying to say that there are different 'degrees' of infinity?  That is true, even though there are just as many even numbers as even + odd numbers.  (This may seem both unusual and trivial to point out, but it isn't -- the fact that this is possible is what makes the whole numbers infinite in the first place!)

If you just want different 'sizes of infinity', use ω and C (little omega or aleph-null and the continuum).


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I appreciate the response mate, there were a handful of feats even I wasn't sure about, so it will be good to thrash this about a bit.




Yep.  I don't run a divine campaign (although I did have one character ascend once... but only to quasi-deity, and then only with a sponsor), so I'm not particularly qualified to address the ultra-high level issues, but I feel quite good addressing epic levels.  I've run a few games that have gone into epic levels, and I've written a pretty good number of epic feats to go along with my game.  I thought if I was able to help I'd do so.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Lets see if you still think that when your guys reach mid-epic levels.




Tavidar, the self-taught lich mage, took these feats extensively into the low-mid epic levels.  They weren't a problem for him.

I agree that there's a degree of complexity for making NPCs that doesn't so much matter for PCs, but I do prefer the core mechanic.  Perhaps if I get lazy enough I'll look into them at length, but until then I'll likely keep it as is.  I also have a fair deal invensted in custom feats building on these, you see.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If they don't stack then theres no net gain for someone like the Paladin to take such a feat if they have a Holy sword, Holy Avenger, Holy Power weapon.




Oh, I agree with this.  I just tend to think the feats can be modified simply b making them stack, rather than replacing the damage by +1d12 or whatnot.  Frankly these feats haven't attracted much attention, though they might if they were known to stack.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If Great Fortitude is a +2 bonus how can Epic Fortitude be +4. Are you telling me that epic feats should be uniformly 'double' the power of regular feats (with no prerequisites)?




Epic Skill Focus has no significant requirements and gives more than triple the non-epic benefit.  Legendary Reputation gives twice the bonus to twice the skills (total power x4 compared to, say, Acrobatic).

Are you saying that Automatic Metamagic Capacity (which has trivial requirements for a Wiz21) is really going to be overshadowed by a +4 save feat?  How about Fast Healing?

Actually, a word on that last one: How powerful is Fast Healing compared to Damage Reduction?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Why not? Its perfectly balanced, especially for epic games.




I don't feel that it is balanced even as an epic feat, since it grants more than half the benefits of +2 Con.  I think Great Constitution is the better way (game-design-wise) of doing it, since you get all the benefits instead of just one outstripping the other.

I'm not suggesting that you stop using the feat, but I did want to remind you that not everyone uses such feats.  Consider it one of my ideosynchrocies.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well I must admit that some part of my fears for this is seeing it in tandem with other divine/cosmic abilities.




I can't properly address this without knowing the abilities, but I stand by my assertion that it's too weak as a cosmic ability.  Perhaps if it did standard doubling instead of D&D doubling then it would be balanced as epic/divine/cosmic (x2/x4/x8)...?  Again, I haven't run a divine campaign.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If the feat were phrased along the lines of allowing it to affect mindless (as per control undead) creatures. Then thats okay. But I suppose I really wanted to point out that no intelligent creature should be immune to mind-affecting effects.




Admittedly, though, this has nothing to do with the feat itself.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I've went over this a few times and the current weapons are not balanced to begin with.
> 
> To be balanced a 20 crit attack needs a multiplier of x4, a 19-20 crit attack needs a multiplier of x2 and an 18-20 crit attack needs a multiplier of x1.5.
> 
> Technically, to keep things balanced you should use the staggered double progression (x1.5, x2, x3, x4, x6, x8, x12) with 18-20 weapons starting at x1.5.




No.  Here's the mathematically equal breakdown:

20/x5 = 19/x3 = 18/x2.33 = 17/x2
20/x4 = 19/x2.5 = 18/x2 = 17/x1.75
20/x3 = 19/x2 = 18/x1.67 = 17/x1.5

20/xA = 19/x(A/2+0.5) = 18/x(A/3+0.67) = 17/x(A/4+0.75) = X/(A/(21-X)+(20-X)/(21-X))

This is tempered somewhat by game concerns, but these are largely self-balancing (large crits and large crit ranges are often wasted).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Maybe it should be a +10 bonus.




(Perfect Health)

Maybe.  I don't know how much diseases are used in the ultra-high levels, but I'd think not that often.  This would be more your realm than mine.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well it means that not only do you have to hit the tarrgets AC, but that you also only have a 1 in 8 chance that the blow actually connects. For many circumstances this is akin to multiplying hit points by 8...and its not really 'concealment' it should be said (in that Uncanny Accuracy won't trump it), I probably confused things by lumping it in there.




Well, since I don't know what exactly it is then, I'll leave it without further comment.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If it takes one feat for an archer to reduce concealment by 90%, and it takes 5 feats for a character to gain self-concealment 50%, can they both be balanced?




Yes.

Look in your 3.5 Player's Handbook, though: it has Improved Precise Shot.

Further, note that concealment in melee has no good counter.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> This one has been annoying me for ages, I'm grasping for an objective answer. Part of me says its too powerful, part of me thinks it isn't. I sort of adde it to get some feedback on it and help thrash it out in my head.




(Vorpal Strike)

I don't know how powerful it is, just that if it's too strong then vorpal needs to become a +6 ability.  I don't think it is, so I tend to think the feat's fine.  Again, this one comes down to experience more than anything.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> As a mathematician, I have to disagree -- and this seems to dull your point for me.  Are you just trying to say that there are different 'degrees' of infinity?  That is true, even though there are just as many even numbers as even + odd numbers.  (This may seem both unusual and trivial to point out, but it isn't -- the fact that this is possible is what makes the whole numbers infinite in the first place!)
> 
> If you just want different 'sizes of infinity', use ω and C (little omega or aleph-null and the continuum).




I never said I agreed with it, in fact disagreeing with it has got me into some big debate battles in the past over on comics forums.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Yep.  I don't run a divine campaign (although I did have one character ascend once... but only to quasi-deity, and then only with a sponsor), so I'm not particularly qualified to address the ultra-high level issues, but I feel quite good addressing epic levels.  I've run a few games that have gone into epic levels, and I've written a pretty good number of epic feats to go along with my game.  I thought if I was able to help I'd do so.




If something is balanced from the beginning then it should be balanced _ad infinitum_. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Tavidar, the self-taught lich mage, took these feats extensively into the low-mid epic levels.  They weren't a problem for him.




Relatively easy for a PC to keep track of things as they ascend.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I agree that there's a degree of complexity for making NPCs that doesn't so much matter for PCs, but I do prefer the core mechanic.  Perhaps if I get lazy enough I'll look into them at length, but until then I'll likely keep it as is.  I also have a fair deal invensted in custom feats building on these, you see.




Ah...the plot thickens. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree with this.  I just tend to think the feats can be modified simply b making them stack, rather than replacing the damage by +1d12 or whatnot.




Well the change in damage was to try and inject some uniformity with energy dealing d6 damage, aligned effects dealing d8 and bane effects d12. I agree its a minor change*, but an attractive one I think.

*As noted under each such changed entry.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Frankly these feats haven't attracted much attention, though they might if they were known to stack.




Every feat should attract attention, so obviously these aren't doing their jobs.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Epic Skill Focus has no significant requirements and gives more than triple the non-epic benefit.  Legendary Reputation gives twice the bonus to twice the skills (total power x4 compared to, say, Acrobatic).




Well, according to the CR/EL system, skill focus feats should provide more than the +3 (non-epic). At least a base +5, or perhaps a +3 to two (related) skills, the minor increase representing a small synergy bonus.

As with the saving throw issue, all I am saying is that the feats should be the same at epic/non-epic levels.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Are you saying that Automatic Metamagic Capacity (which has trivial requirements for a Wiz21) is really going to be overshadowed by a +4 save feat?




No, what I am saying is that a feat that increases saving throws should be the same at epic level as it is at non-epic level.

Whether Great Fortitude or Epic Fortitude is the better balanced is debateable.

AMC provides a net +1 spell level increase. Could a 1st-level spell provide a +4 Fort save? Personally I think it probably could, which tells us that the +2 for Great Fortitude is perhaps too weaker rather than Epic Fortitude being too strong.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> How about Fast Healing?
> 
> Actually, a word on that last one: How powerful is Fast Healing compared to Damage Reduction?




Personally I have been thinking that Fast Healing should be 4 per (epic) feat.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't feel that it is balanced even as an epic feat, since it grants more than half the benefits of +2 Con.  I think Great Constitution is the better way (game-design-wise) of doing it, since you get all the benefits instead of just one outstripping the other.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that you stop using the feat, but I did want to remind you that not everyone uses such feats.  Consider it one of my ideosynchrocies.








			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I can't properly address this without knowing the abilities, but I stand by my assertion that it's too weak as a cosmic ability.  Perhaps if it did standard doubling instead of D&D doubling then it would be balanced as epic/divine/cosmic (x2/x4/x8)...?  Again, I haven't run a divine campaign.




35th-level Demigod Paladin could have (using all its divine ability slots):

Example A (your idea of the double double)

Four smites per round, dealing +280 damage per smite (+1020 assuming all hit), thats enough to kill an average Lesser God.

Example B (my idea)

Three smites per round, dealing +140 damage per smite (+420 assuming all hit), thats certainly going to make a serious dent in the average demigod, but remember the Paladin is pretty min/maxed. for smiting.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Admittedly, though, this has nothing to do with the feat itself.




Agreed, I probably have more of an issue with the immunity to mind affecting effects for any intelligent creature.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> No.  Here's the mathematically equal breakdown:
> 
> 20/x5 = 19/x3 = 18/x2.33 = 17/x2
> 20/x4 = 19/x2.5 = 18/x2 = 17/x1.75
> 20/x3 = 19/x2 = 18/x1.67 = 17/x1.5
> 
> 20/xA = 19/x(A/2+0.5) = 18/x(A/3+0.67) = 17/x(A/4+0.75) = X/(A/(21-X)+(20-X)/(21-X))
> 
> This is tempered somewhat by game concerns, but these are largely self-balancing (large crits and large crit ranges are often wasted).




What are you using for the confirmation roll?

At epic levels chances are you hit more often than not, so the higher you ascend the more the confirmation roll is going to be marginalised.

In fact I am considering a feat/ability(?) called Threatening Critical which allows you to ignore the confirmation roll altogether.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> (Perfect Health)
> 
> Maybe.  I don't know how much diseases are used in the ultra-high levels, but I'd think not that often.  This would be more your realm than mine.




Well the feat makes you immune to all natural diseases and poisons, but what darn natural disease/poison is going to defeat an epic characters saves anyway?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Well, since I don't know what exactly it is then, I'll leave it without further comment.




Well, for instance, incorporeality grants a 50% miss chance, but its not treated as concealment.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> Look in your 3.5 Player's Handbook, though: it has Improved Precise Shot.
> 
> Further, note that concealment in melee has no good counter.




Exactly, which only compounds the discrepancy.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> (Vorpal Strike)
> 
> I don't know how powerful it is, just that if it's too strong then vorpal needs to become a +6 ability.  I don't think it is, so I tend to think the feat's fine.  Again, this one comes down to experience more than anything.




As far as I can see vorpal weapons become more effective the higher you ascend; more attacks and much better chance of hitting. The problem is probably inherant within its quasi-absolute mechanic. Maybe the vorpal ability should increase the weapons critical multiplier instead...?


----------



## Sledge

UK I already do that with vorpal weapons.  Increase the multiplier that is.  I realized back in 2e that vorpal became inanely dangerous, when the heros were fighting Balor's.  In 3e with criticals as they are, vorpal became a no-brainer.  Vorpal now just adds to the critical multiplier.
It works very well and I haven't had one complaint yet.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Ah...the plot thickens.




I prefer the standard system alone for many reasons, even for NPCs.  It's incomparably better for me with the addition of my custom feats, since they're designed by me for my campaign.  If at level 50 (or 500 for that matter) I decide to give up preferences for convenience I'll do that, reluctantly, as needed.  Frankly I may not even abandon it then; I might just find an easier way to track it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Every feat should attract attention, so obviously these aren't doing their jobs.




In principle I agree, but the Epic Level Handbook alone has 152 feats... there are only so many that can be taken by a mid-level epic group.  Considering that I allow nearly 200 epic feats in my game, there are a lot of good feats that don't get much attention.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well, according to the CR/EL system, skill focus feats should provide more than the +3 (non-epic). At least a base +5, or perhaps a +3 to two (related) skills, the minor increase representing a small synergy bonus.
> 
> As with the saving throw issue, all I am saying is that the feats should be the same at epic/non-epic levels.




Craig, I'm a pragmatist.  I see that Skill Focus is a little weak, but since people in my campaigns still take it (at +3; no one really took it at +2) it doesn't seem that bad.  Nonepic save feats are very common in my games; Iron Will especially is considered a 'must have' for many character types.  For this reason I say the nonepic save feats are balanced (perhaps on the strong side for IW).

The epic save feats have never been taken, and no one has even expressed interest in eventually getting them.  They're just dead weight.  This leads me to the conclusion that they're weak, and I think that most would agree with me.  You would halve their power in the name of balance, and yet I would much sooner see them at +5 then +2.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Personally I have been thinking that Fast Healing should be 4 per (epic) feat.




Wow, that's strong.  I'll hold off on that one.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> 35th-level Demigod Paladin could have (using all its divine ability slots):
> 
> Example A (your idea of the double double)
> 
> Four smites per round, dealing +280 damage per smite (+1020 assuming all hit), thats enough to kill an average Lesser God.
> 
> Example B (my idea)
> 
> Three smites per round, dealing +140 damage per smite (+420 assuming all hit), thats certainly going to make a serious dent in the average demigod, but remember the Paladin is pretty min/maxed. for smiting.




I don't understand your breakdowns.  My idea:

Great Smiting [Epic]: Smites do double damage.
DA/SDA Divine Smiting (requires Great Smiting): Smites deal quadruple damage.

This would allow your example paladin to deal +140 damage per smite at the cost of 1 epic feat and 1 divine ability.  I don't understand where you get +280, nor why mine smites 4 times and yours only 3.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> What are you using for the confirmation roll?
> 
> At epic levels chances are you hit more often than not, so the higher you ascend the more the confirmation roll is going to be marginalised.




It doesn't matter.  The result is exactly the same (percentage-wise) as long as you can hit on all of your threat range and none of the damage is wasted.

If you confirm 95% of the time, the results I wrote stand and the ones you wrote will fail.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> In fact I am considering a feat/ability(?) called Threatening Critical which allows you to ignore the confirmation roll altogether.




This would be unbalanced at low levels and weak at high levels.  Don't do it, please -- it makes every hit against a 'hard' creature a crit, but not all against 'weak' creatures, throwing sense out the window.  Bad balance + nonsensical in-game interpretation = bad idea.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well the feat makes you immune to all natural diseases and poisons, but what darn natural disease/poison is going to defeat an epic characters saves anyway?




Of course.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well, for instance, incorporeality grants a 50% miss chance, but its not treated as concealment.




Yes, but I know what a character can do to get around incorporeality.  I don't know what (if anything) would let a character avoid this ability.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Exactly, which only compounds the discrepancy.




The fact that the epic feat does almost nothing and yet you've rated it overpowered means nothing to you, I see.  That's fine; we'll just agree to disagree.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> As far as I can see vorpal weapons become more effective the higher you ascend; more attacks and much better chance of hitting. The problem is probably inherant within its quasi-absolute mechanic. Maybe the vorpal ability should increase the weapons critical multiplier instead...?




This has been suggested by many people and might be the best solution.  I haven't decided how to address it in my game yet.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Wolv0rine mate!
> You have to try and fathom the unfathomable with cosmic stories sometimes.
> 
> Cosmic characters all (purportedly) wield infinite power. The only difference is how quickly they can bring it to bear.
> 
> I think the example used is that if you count only even numbers up to infinity, then you still arrive at an infinite number, but the sum total of your numbers would be less than if you count both odd and even numbers.



Okay, but (and don't think me daft, please) how does that address an entity slaying the Galactus of every universe when it was shown/said/whatever that there is only a single Galactus in all universes.  I'm not sure if that was only an Excalibur thing or not (they went pretty far at one point with the whole Cross-Time Caper thing), but it was pretty solidly put forward that there's only One Galactus.  
Then again, it's not like anything's set in stone in comics.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> UK I already do that with vorpal weapons.  Increase the multiplier that is.  I realized back in 2e that vorpal became inanely dangerous, when the heros were fighting Balor's.  In 3e with criticals as they are, vorpal became a no-brainer.  Vorpal now just adds to the critical multiplier. It works very well and I haven't had one complaint yet.




I'm wondering if it should add +1, +2 or double the critical multiplier? What boost do you use?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CRGreathouse dude! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I prefer the standard system alone for many reasons, even for NPCs.  It's incomparably better for me with the addition of my custom feats, since they're designed by me for my campaign.  If at level 50 (or 500 for that matter) I decide to give up preferences for convenience I'll do that, reluctantly, as needed.  Frankly I may not even abandon it then; I might just find an easier way to track it.




I was only teasing you mate. 

Trying to work out the spell lists for the Bestiary using the old system was soul destroying. I think my new system is a lot quicker, cleaner and does much the same thing for far fewer feats.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> In principle I agree, but the Epic Level Handbook alone has 152 feats... there are only so many that can be taken by a mid-level epic group.  Considering that I allow nearly 200 epic feats in my game, there are a lot of good feats that don't get much attention.




I am not saying there are feats that won't get taken but all feats should tease players into choosing them.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Craig, I'm a pragmatist.  I see that Skill Focus is a little weak, but since people in my campaigns still take it (at +3; no one really took it at +2) it doesn't seem that bad.  Nonepic save feats are very common in my games; Iron Will especially is considered a 'must have' for many character types.  For this reason I say the nonepic save feats are balanced (perhaps on the strong side for IW).
> 
> The epic save feats have never been taken, and no one has even expressed interest in eventually getting them.  They're just dead weight.  This leads me to the conclusion that they're weak, and I think that most would agree with me.  You would halve their power in the name of balance, and yet I would much sooner see them at +5 then +2.




So are you suggesting that (for example) epic feats *need* to be twice as powerful as non-epic feats?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Wow, that's strong.  I'll hold off on that one.




I know, its difficult getting a handle on Fast Healing.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't understand your breakdowns.  My idea:
> 
> Great Smiting [Epic]: Smites do double damage.
> DA/SDA Divine Smiting (requires Great Smiting): Smites deal quadruple damage.
> 
> This would allow your example paladin to deal +140 damage per smite at the cost of 1 epic feat and 1 divine ability.  I don't understand where you get +280, nor why mine smites 4 times and yours only 3.




I was min/maxing.

Epic - Increase Smite Damage; Epic - Increase Smite Frequency Per Round; Divine - Increase Smite Damage; Divine - Increase Smite Frequency Per Round; Cosmic - Increase Smite Damage.

Your idea doubles frequency and damage once for epic, once for divine and then damage again of x8 with the cosmic.

My idea adds two smites per round and adds three to the smite multiplier.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter.  The result is exactly the same (percentage-wise) as long as you can hit on all of your threat range and none of the damage is wasted.
> 
> If you confirm 95% of the time, the results I wrote stand and the ones you wrote will fail.




Maybe you can help solve the vorpal problem below...



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> This would be unbalanced at low levels and weak at high levels.  Don't do it, please -- it makes every hit against a 'hard' creature a crit, but not all against 'weak' creatures, throwing sense out the window.  Bad balance + nonsensical in-game interpretation = bad idea.




Good point.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Of course.




 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Yes, but I know what a character can do to get around incorporeality.  I don't know what (if anything) would let a character avoid this ability.




Only an opposed epic, divine or cosmic ability.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> The fact that the epic feat does almost nothing and yet you've rated it overpowered means nothing to you, I see.  That's fine; we'll just agree to disagree.




As with a few other cases, I am not so much attacking the feat itself as attacking the possibility of 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> This has been suggested by many people and might be the best solution.  I haven't decided how to address it in my game yet.




The trick would be to accurately guesstimate exactly how much of a critical multiplier the +5 market modifier was worth. Does your above equation for critical hits help us in this regard I wonder?

My problem is that I have to consider the ramifications of this type of ability when the likes of Thor takes the cosmic version in tandem with Mjolnir and hes dealing x24 damage on a crit and threatening on a 14-20...or something like that.   

Should _Keen_* stack with Improved Critical, should _Razor_ stack with Superior Critical (Divine), should _Mono_ stack with Perfect Critical (Cosmic)...?

*Or its bludgeoning peer.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Wolv0rine dude! 



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Okay, but (and don't think me daft, please) how does that address an entity slaying the Galactus of every universe when it was shown/said/whatever that there is only a single Galactus in all universes.  I'm not sure if that was only an Excalibur thing or not (they went pretty far at one point with the whole Cross-Time Caper thing), but it was pretty solidly put forward that there's only One Galactus. Then again, it's not like anything's set in stone in comics.




Probably doesn't explain it, but I was simply wanting to point out that they can make the impossible possible.

Its likely that statement about Galactus was retconned. 

The only beings who exist outside the universe (to the best of my knowledge) are the Living Tribunal and probably the Infinites and the True Beyonders...and maybe Atleza?


----------



## Wolv0rine

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Wolv0rine dude!
> Probably doesn't explain it, but I was simply wanting to point out that they can make the impossible possible.



Well, given that magic is anything you don't understand, and performing the impossible is somewhat expected of cosmic beings, I'd have to agree. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Its likely that statement about Galactus was retconned.
> 
> The only beings who exist outside the universe (to the best of my knowledge) are the Living Tribunal and probably the Infinites and the True Beyonders...and maybe Atleza?



Likely either retconned or ignored.  I'm tempted to say something like "Frell, I'm glad my interest shifted back to DC in the last decade", but it's not like they're any better.  They just commit the same sins in different colors.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

okay, the big news of the night, Northern Ireland beat England 1:0 in the world cup qualifiers! 



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Well, given that magic is anything you don't understand, and performing the impossible is somewhat expected of cosmic beings, I'd have to agree.




I alway like the Marvel Cosmic stories. The DC stuff tends to be a bit more black and white.



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Likely either retconned or ignored.  I'm tempted to say something like "Frell, I'm glad my interest shifted back to DC in the last decade", but it's not like they're any better.  They just commit the same sins in different colors.




The only serial comic I am buying at the moment is Godland by Image (though I'll be getting the forthcoming Thor: Tales of Asgard miniseries naturally). You can read the full first issue in the following link, its a totally awesome book.

http://www.newsarama.com/Image/Godland/issue01/Godland01Pre.htm


----------



## Sledge

Yes Improved Critical and Keen are supposed to stack, I've seen the numbers, I've done the numbers, it just isn't very worthwhile otherwise.  They were designed to stack, and so they should.
I'm not sure for some reason what Razor and Mono are btw...

Anyway while vorpal is very expensive, a high level fighter with an increase to his multiplier is crazy deadly.  With Improved Crit and Keen stacking from an 18-20 perspective becomes 12-20 which means 45% of rolls threaten.  Not all of them will of course, but you need to consider the worst case scenario.  For a high strength fighter every multiplier is worth a +2 to a +3 at a minimum.  For the opposite end of the spectrum when crits are rare, the multiplier is almost valueless.  Because of all that I equate vorpal to +2 to the multiplier.  However, it has yet to see use be an insanely strong opponent.  When that happens I may revise my number.  This ability seems to be one that vastly improves for stronger (higher base damage) opponents.
The solution of course is to have more items that reduce crits rather than negate them, but I haven't gone that far as yet.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Trying to work out the spell lists for the Bestiary using the old system was soul destroying. I think my new system is a lot quicker, cleaner and does much the same thing for far fewer feats.




Yep, it's just different approaches for different tastes.  Your method is good, too.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> So are you suggesting that (for example) epic feats *need* to be twice as powerful as non-epic feats?




In almost all cases, yes.  I think they should usually be twice as powerful, and sometimes even more.  Of course, in some cases (spell penetration and initiative) I think that the numerical increase should be about the same.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Epic - Increase Smite Damage; Epic - Increase Smite Frequency Per Round; Divine - Increase Smite Damage; Divine - Increase Smite Frequency Per Round; Cosmic - Increase Smite Damage.
> 
> Your idea doubles frequency and damage once for epic, once for divine and then damage again of x8 with the cosmic.
> 
> My idea adds two smites per round and adds three to the smite multiplier.




You don't need any special abilities to smite more than once in a give round.  A fifth-level paladin can smite twice in a round if she has that many attacks (two-weapon fighting, attacks of opportunity, etc.).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Only an opposed epic, divine or cosmic ability.




So much for a "one-upmanship that is detrimental to the game".   



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The trick would be to accurately guesstimate exactly how much of a critical multiplier the +5 market modifier was worth. Does your above equation for critical hits help us in this regard I wonder?
> 
> My problem is that I have to consider the ramifications of this type of ability when the likes of Thor takes the cosmic version in tandem with Mjolnir and hes dealing x24 damage on a crit and threatening on a 14-20...or something like that.




I'm not sure this will help much.  A straightforward damage analysis will tell you that "doubling" the critical multipliers (x2 --> x3, x3 --> x5, x4 --> x7; or x2 --> x4, x3 --> x7, x4--> x10) gives the same damage on average.  The trouble is that the high crit weapons will tend to have wasted damage and the low crit weapons will have unimpressive effects (even though the long-run damage will be the same if not in their favor).

A "vorpal" longsword dealing x3 crits just doesn't seem that special, and it's not even close to a +5 modifier.  A "vorpal" scythe dealing x7 crits will result in a lot of overkill.

A better solution, perhaps, is to add a set amount (say, +4) to the critical multiplier, but only when the natural attack roll is 20.  This balances across all weapon types and allows for impressive effects even from swords and the like.  I'm not sure what amount is fair for a +5 modifier, though; frankly it would take a lot.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Should _Keen_* stack with Improved Critical, should _Razor_ stack with Superior Critical (Divine), should _Mono_ stack with Perfect Critical (Cosmic)...?




As I'm sure you know, Sean Reynolds would argue that they should.  I have no particular opinion, and nothing to add except:
* The situation you mention above with Thor is more easily avoided with strict limits
* Sean's argument is sementically compelling and mathematically correct.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Or its bludgeoning peer.




Just in the same friendly spirit of reminder as before, I'll note that not everyone uses Impact, the Forgotten Realms' extention of _keen_ to bludgeoning.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Yes Improved Critical and Keen are supposed to stack, I've seen the numbers, I've done the numbers, it just isn't very worthwhile otherwise.  They were designed to stack, and so they should.




I know that, but I am wondering about the implications when you create divine and cosmic extensions of improved critical and epic extensions of the keen weapon ability.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I'm not sure for some reason what Razor and Mono are btw...




Well those are placeholder names for epic extensions of the keen weapon ability.

Razor would give a Scimitar a threat range of 12-20, Mono, a threat range of 9-20 (none of these include the modifier for having the Improved Critical feat).



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Anyway while vorpal is very expensive, a high level fighter with an increase to his multiplier is crazy deadly.  With Improved Crit and Keen stacking from an 18-20 perspective becomes 12-20 which means 45% of rolls threaten.  Not all of them will of course, but you need to consider the worst case scenario.  For a high strength fighter every multiplier is worth a +2 to a +3 at a minimum.  For the opposite end of the spectrum when crits are rare, the multiplier is almost valueless.  Because of all that I equate vorpal to +2 to the multiplier.  However, it has yet to see use be an insanely strong opponent.  When that happens I may revise my number.  This ability seems to be one that vastly improves for stronger (higher base damage) opponents.




If Improved Critical modifies a roll by +1, +2, +3; depending on the weapons initial threat range. Should not a feat which increases the critical multiplier (or the magical weapon equivalent - such as Vorpal), increase the multiplier by the inverted amount I wonder?

eg. Warhammer: Threat Range Modifier +1, Critical Multiplier +3
eg. Longsword: Threat Range Modifier +2, Critical Multiplier +2
eg. Scimitar: Threat Range Modifier +3, Critical Multiplier +1

So if you have Improved Critical, Overwhelming Critical*, Keen and Vorpal Longsword: You would Threaten on a 15-20 and deal x6 damage on a critical hit.

Assuming Overwhelming Critical is changed to increase the Critical Multiplier.

The same feats with a Warhammer (Impact and Crushing instead of Keen and Vorpal) would threaten on an 18-20 and deal x9 damage on a critical hit.

On a scimitar you would threaten on a 12-20 but only deal x4 damage.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> The solution of course is to have more items that reduce crits rather than negate them, but I haven't gone that far as yet.




Don't worry, I have this covered. 

...although I need to finalise how the crit multiplier should scale first.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CRGreatouse dude! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Yep, it's just different approaches for different tastes.  Your method is good, too.








			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> In almost all cases, yes.  I think they should usually be twice as powerful, and sometimes even more.  Of course, in some cases (spell penetration and initiative) I think that the numerical increase should be about the same.




How can it be one rule for some feats but a different rule for others?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> You don't need any special abilities to smite more than once in a give round.  A fifth-level paladin can smite twice in a round if she has that many attacks (two-weapon fighting, attacks of opportunity, etc.).




Thats the weirdest thing, I could have sworn I read that they can only smite once per round!   



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> So much for a "one-upmanship that is detrimental to the game".




Yes, but the ability isn't an 'all or nothing' immunity. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I'm not sure this will help much.  A straightforward damage analysis will tell you that "doubling" the critical multipliers (x2 --> x3, x3 --> x5, x4 --> x7; or x2 --> x4, x3 --> x7, x4--> x10) gives the same damage on average.  The trouble is that the high crit weapons will tend to have wasted damage and the low crit weapons will have unimpressive effects (even though the long-run damage will be the same if not in their favor).
> 
> A "vorpal" longsword dealing x3 crits just doesn't seem that special, and it's not even close to a +5 modifier.  A "vorpal" scythe dealing x7 crits will result in a lot of overkill.
> 
> A better solution, perhaps, is to add a set amount (say, +4) to the critical multiplier, but only when the natural attack roll is 20.  This balances across all weapon types and allows for impressive effects even from swords and the like.  I'm not sure what amount is fair for a +5 modifier, though; frankly it would take a lot.




If we set the epic feat at +3 to the Critical Multiplier for weapons that threaten on a '20', then my guess is thats worth a +2 weapon ability. Double the extension would have to be an epic weapon ability (probably+7?). So if we retain Vorpal at +5 it would technically average a bonus of +4.5 to the critical multiplier.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> As I'm sure you know, Sean Reynolds would argue that they should.  I have no particular opinion, and nothing to add except:
> * The situation you mention above with Thor is more easily avoided with strict limits
> * Sean's argument is sementically compelling and mathematically correct.




I agree Sean is correct in this instance, but he didn't have to consider Thor using Cosmic extensions to certain feats and weapon abilities. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Just in the same friendly spirit of reminder as before, I'll note that not everyone uses Impact, the Forgotten Realms' extention of _keen_ to bludgeoning.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> How can it be one rule for some feats but a different rule for others?




Because some abilities scale differently than others.  Attacks rolls and saves increase with level and have many potential modifiers, while initiative stays relatively constant.  That's why I don't think Supreme Initiative is underpowered despite being "only" as strong as a nonepic feat.

As a rule of thumb, I think the epic feats should be (and largely are!) 2-3 times as strong as the base versions.  Automatic Metamagic Capacity is more than 3 times better than whatever feat a third-level wizard takes to buff up his casting. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Thats the weirdest thing, I could have sworn I read that they can only smite once per round!




I went over the rules very carefully before posting, even though I was pretty sure you could smite more than once per round.  You can.  Perhaps you're thinking of the monk's Stunning Fist?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If we set the epic feat at +3 to the Critical Multiplier for weapons that threaten on a '20', then my guess is thats worth a +2 weapon ability. Double the extension would have to be an epic weapon ability (probably+7?). So if we retain Vorpal at +5 it would technically average a bonus of +4.5 to the critical multiplier.




Let's make it a +5 ability that gives +5 to the crtical multiplier, but only when the natural attack roll was 20.


----------



## Sledge

I think I personally would avoid giving super keen abilities.  Otherwise we will essentially have a situation where every single hit is a crit.  The only way this is even viable is if you have a set up where by the crit reducers actual shrink the threat range, but again you get stuck with a case of one upmanship.

BTW for the critical multiplier it should not vary.  This is because the results are the same no matter what the initial multiplier is.  +2 to the multiplier, is rolling 2 more times for damage no matter how many times you roll normally.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Sledge said:
			
		

> BTW for the critical multiplier it should not vary.  This is because the results are the same no matter what the initial multiplier is.  +2 to the multiplier, is rolling 2 more times for damage no matter how many times you roll normally.




Yes, +2 is +2, but if you have 18-20 you're getting it 3 times as often as someone who crits only on a 20.


----------



## Sledge

For which you (with the 20) already get +2 for free.  These balances are already in place.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Sledge said:
			
		

> For which you (with the 20) already get +2 for free.  These balances are already in place.




I'm not quite sure what you're saying, so I'll write some examples to see where we stand.  I'm going to calculate average damage, which means (for these purposes) I'm assuming that the monster's AC is such tht we hit on a natural 18 or lower and its hit points are at least as high as the damage we do with the largest crit possible (say, x4 + 2 = x6).

Average damage without crit: X

Base Case
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.15X (3 chances of double damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.15X damage (1 chance of quadruple damage)

Case A: +2 to crits with natural 20
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.25X (1 chance of x4 damage, 2 chances of x2 damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.25X  (1 chance of x6 damage)

Case B: +2 to crits
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.45X (3 chances of x4 damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.25X (1 chance of x6 damage)

Case C: "Double" crit multiplier
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.30X (3 chances of x3 damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.30X (1 chance of x7 damage)

Case A and case C are balanced, although case C has a better chance of "wasted" damage and unexceptional results, so I argue that it's not as good of a choice even though it's mathematically 'balanced' under certain assumptions.  Case B isn't balanced.

If you're arguing for case A, I have no disagreement; if you're arguing for B, it's pretty badly flawed in my view.  If you're arguing for something else, I'm lost; please explain.


----------



## Sledge

Okay I'm running your numbers.  You're forgetting however that 18-20 isn't the standard, 19-20 is.  All of the 18-20 weapons have a slightly lower base damage.  Look at your numbers with regards to 19-20 for B.
19-20/x2 with "vorpal B": 1/10 hits will do 3 extra rolls. So 1.3
20/x4 with "vorpal B": 1/20 hits will do 5 extra rolls. So 1.25

Checking C we get:
19-20/x2 with "vorpal C": 1/10 hits will do 2 extra rolls.  So 1.2
20/x4 with "vorpal C": 1/20 hits will do 6 extra rolls. So 1.3

And finally A:
19-20/x2 with "vorpal A": 1/20 hits will do 1 extra roll, and 1/20 will do 3 extra rolls. So 1.2
20/x4 with "vorpal A": 1/20 hits will do 5 extra rolls. So 1.25

So where do we go from here?


----------



## Sledge

I'd really like to go ahead with this whole becoming immortal and divine bit.  Anything else you can tell me UK?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Because some abilities scale differently than others.  Attacks rolls and saves increase with level and have many potential modifiers, while initiative stays relatively constant.  That's why I don't think Supreme Initiative is underpowered despite being "only" as strong as a nonepic feat.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, I think the epic feats should be (and largely are!) 2-3 times as strong as the base versions.  Automatic Metamagic Capacity is more than 3 times better than whatever feat a third-level wizard takes to buff up his casting.




I was thinking perhaps that all static abilities (those that do not increase generically* with level) would remain constant whereas those that increase with level should have their net effect doubled at epic levels. 

*Not abilities unique to a class.

Static scores:

Armour Class (Armor Skin, Dodge, Two-weapon Defense)
Criticals (Improved Critical)
Damage (Weapon Specialisation)
Initiative (Improved Initiative)
Spell Focus 

Fluid scores:

_Ability Scores_...not sure about this one.
Attack Bonus (including Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Sunder and Trip) 
Saving Throws
Skills
Spell Penetration

What do you think?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I went over the rules very carefully before posting, even though I was pretty sure you could smite more than once per round.  You can.  Perhaps you're thinking of the monk's Stunning Fist?




Possibly, I'm not sure how I got that confused.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Let's make it a +5 ability that gives +5 to the crtical multiplier, but only when the natural attack roll was 20.




Thats probably the best balanced solution.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I think I personally would avoid giving super keen abilities.




*Nothing* is impossible, its only a matter of how powerful you need to be to gain the ability.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Otherwise we will essentially have a situation where every single hit is a crit.




Which is why the balance between threat range and damage multplier are critical...no pun intended.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> The only way this is even viable is if you have a set up where by the crit reducers actual shrink the threat range, but again you get stuck with a case of one upmanship.




I have thought about this, I don't think you need to be able to reduce threat range, but I do think you need to be able to reduce the multiplier.

The way I plan to do this is by breaking down Immunity to Critical Hits into sub-types.

1. Fragile (Crystalline object with bludgeoning weapon, two dimensional object with piercing/slashing weapon)
2. Mechanism (Such as the human body, something with intricate working parts)
3. Solid (Corporeal Undead, Plants, Golems, Animated Object, Earth Elemental)
4. Liquid (Oozes, Water Elemental)
5. Gaseous/Incandescent/Incorporeal etc. (Certain Undead, Air and Fire Elementals)

At the moment I am just try to find the sweet spot for each sub-types critical divider.

I think this idea brings up a lot of possibilities.

Of course things like Fortitude Armour would also be subject to change.

What do the rest of you think?

At the moment I am considering having the Solid Sub-type have a -2 critical divider modifier (this would allow pick-axes and scythes to deal x2 damage on a crit versus a solid object. The Liquid Sub-Type might be -4 and the Gaseous Sub-type might be -6, but I am not sure about those as yet.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> BTW for the critical multiplier it should not vary.




Impossible is not in my vocabulary. 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> This is because the results are the same no matter what the initial multiplier is.  +2 to the multiplier, is rolling 2 more times for damage no matter how many times you roll normally.




There are two modifiers.

1. The chance to increase Threat Range.
2. The chance to increase Critical Multiplier.

Threat Range increase is dependant upon the weapons initial threat range, which is either 1/20, 2/20, 3/20.

Critical Multiplier is not necessarily linked to Threat Range, but for the purposes of balance, increasing it must be linked to the Threat Range. As I mentioned before I think the most balanced solution is to invert the modifier.

So that...

Base 18-20 threat range gives +1 damage multiplier
Base 19-20 threat range gives +2
Base 20 threat range give +3

*Epic Fighter w. Scimitar*

Improved Critical, Keen weapon, Overwhelming Critical, Vorpal Weapon

Threat Range 12-20, Critical Multiplier x3 (x8 on a '20')

*Demigod w. Longsword*

Improved Critical, Keen Weapon, Overwhelming Critical, Vorpal Weapon, _Divine_ Improved Critical, _Divine_ Keen Weapon, _Divine_ Overwhelming Critical, _Divine_ Vorpal Weapon.

Threat Range 11-20, Critical Multiplier x8 (x18 on a '20')

*Intermediate God w. Warhammer (a.k.a. you know who)* 

Improved Critical, Impact Weapon, Overwhelming Critical, Bonecrushing Weapon, _Divine_ Improved Critical, _Divine_ Impact Weapon, _Divine_ Overwhelming Critical, _Divine_ Bonecrushing Weapon, _Cosmic_ Improved Critical, _Cosmic_ Impact Weapon, _Cosmic_ Overwhelming Critical, _Cosmic_ Bonecrushing Weapon.

Threat Range 14-20, Critical Multiplier x12 (x27 on a '20')

I'm just using the Divine and Cosmic prefixes in this example for convenience.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Sledge! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I'd really like to go ahead with this whole becoming immortal and divine bit.  Anything else you can tell me UK?




Let me think about it. I can't tell you the Test of Faith (for immortality), but that is retroactive anyway.*

* 

I'll post those portfolio adventure ideas over the next day or so, I am concentrating on solving this critical hits thing at the moment.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Of course things like Fortitude Armour would also be subject to change.
> 
> What do the rest of you think?
> 
> At the moment I am considering having the Solid Sub-type have a -2 critical divider modifier (this would allow pick-axes and scythes to deal x2 damage on a crit versus a solid object. The Liquid Sub-Type might be -4 and the Gaseous Sub-type might be -6, but I am not sure about those as yet.




I think this is a great idea.

Fortitude armor _could_ reduce a critical's multiplier by the one-half the amount of enchantment dedicated to it... so, armor of fortitude [+5] could reduce a scythe's critical hit x2 (x4 - 2 [5/2 rounded down]). Against a zombie wearing that armor, the scythe does nothing on a crit.

Would fragile creatures then suffer a +2 to the critical multiplier when hit by certain weapons?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Sledge said:
			
		

> Okay I'm running your numbers.  You're forgetting however that 18-20 isn't the standard, 19-20 is.  All of the 18-20 weapons have a slightly lower base damage.  Look at your numbers with regards to 19-20 for B.
> 19-20/x2 with "vorpal B": 1/10 hits will do 3 extra rolls. So 1.3
> 20/x4 with "vorpal B": 1/20 hits will do 5 extra rolls. So 1.25
> 
> Checking C we get:
> 19-20/x2 with "vorpal C": 1/10 hits will do 2 extra rolls.  So 1.2
> 20/x4 with "vorpal C": 1/20 hits will do 6 extra rolls. So 1.3
> 
> And finally A:
> 19-20/x2 with "vorpal A": 1/20 hits will do 1 extra roll, and 1/20 will do 3 extra rolls. So 1.2
> 20/x4 with "vorpal A": 1/20 hits will do 5 extra rolls. So 1.25




Don't compare 19-20/x2 weapons with 20/x4 weapons; we're assuming base damage is equal, and with base damage equal x4 is just flat out better.  Compare them to 20/x3 weapons:

Case A: +2 to crits with natural 20
19-20/x2 weapon: 1.20X (1 chance of x4 damage, 1 chance of x2 damage)
20/x3 weapon: 1.20X (1 chance of x4 damage)

Case B: +2 to crits
19-20/x2 weapon: 1.30X (2 chances of x4 damage)
20/x3 weapon: 1.20X (1 chance of x4 damage)

Case C: "Double" crit multiplier
19-20/x2 weapon: 1.20X (2 chances of x3 damage)
20/x3 weapon: 1.20X (1 chance of x5 damage)


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I have thought about this, I don't think you need to be able to reduce threat range, but I do think you need to be able to reduce the multiplier.
> 
> The way I plan to do this is by breaking down Immunity to Critical Hits into sub-types.
> 
> 1. Fragile (Crystalline object with bludgeoning weapon, two dimensional object with piercing/slashing weapon)
> 2. Mechanism (Such as the human body, something with intricate working parts)
> 3. Solid (Corporeal Undead, Plants, Golems, Animated Object, Earth Elemental)
> 4. Liquid (Oozes, Water Elemental)
> 5. Gaseous/Incandescent/Incorporeal etc. (Certain Undead, Air and Fire Elementals)
> 
> At the moment I am just try to find the sweet spot for each sub-types critical divider.
> 
> I think this idea brings up a lot of possibilities.
> 
> Of course things like Fortitude Armour would also be subject to change.
> 
> What do the rest of you think?
> 
> At the moment I am considering having the Solid Sub-type have a -2 critical divider modifier (this would allow pick-axes and scythes to deal x2 damage on a crit versus a solid object. The Liquid Sub-Type might be -4 and the Gaseous Sub-type might be -6, but I am not sure about those as yet.




Again, this isn't balanced across weapons -- unless this is intended, you might want to rethink it.  Picks defeat this easily (just one "multiplier"-type ability away even for the powerful ones), while swords will never really get strong enough to break it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Critical Multiplier is not necessarily linked to Threat Range, but for the purposes of balance, increasing it must be linked to the Threat Range. As I mentioned before I think the most balanced solution is to invert the modifier.
> 
> So that...
> 
> Base 18-20 threat range gives +1 damage multiplier
> Base 19-20 threat range gives +2
> Base 20 threat range give +3




In terms of average damage:
18-20/x3 = 19-20/x4 = 20/x7

A longsword gets a better deal out of this transformation than a rapier; both have the same average "critical utility", but the rapier was better before.  The longsword had better damage before to counterbalance, and the rapier's gained nothing in this respect.

Still, the ease of this solution may make it the best for you.  It's certainly much better than an across-the-board increase.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Pssthpok mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> I think this is a great idea.




Thanks! 

Still needs some fine tuning, but I quite like it myself. 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Fortitude armor _could_ reduce a critical's multiplier by the one-half the amount of enchantment dedicated to it... so, armor of fortitude [+5] could reduce a scythe's critical hit x2 (x4 - 2 [5/2 rounded down]). Against a zombie wearing that armor, the scythe does nothing on a crit.




I'm not yet sure if Fortitude Armour should subtract or divide the critical multiplier.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Would fragile creatures then suffer a +2 to the critical multiplier when hit by certain weapons?




Yes.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Again, this isn't balanced across weapons -- unless this is intended, you might want to rethink it.




All weapons are not equal to begin with, so it would be impossible to balance every weapon equally. What I am trying to do is balance both threat range and critical multiplier *progression*. Thats the important thing as far as I can see.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Picks defeat this easily (just one "multiplier"-type ability away even for the powerful ones), while swords will never really get strong enough to break it.
> 
> In terms of average damage:
> 18-20/x3 = 19-20/x4 = 20/x7
> 
> A longsword gets a better deal out of this transformation than a rapier; both have the same average "critical utility", but the rapier was better before.  The longsword had better damage before to counterbalance, and the rapier's gained nothing in this respect.
> 
> Still, the ease of this solution may make it the best for you.  It's certainly much better than an across-the-board increase.




I think it keeps the progressions in check, which is my main concern, not whether an individual weapon is balanced with all other weapons.

I'm just not sure how much each sub-type should reduce the critical multiplier, and whether it should be a set figure or represent a fraction.


----------



## Sledge

okay doing some numbers here for my own thinking as CRGreathouse has raised a few flaws and UK has some proposed solutions....  feel free to make of it what you want.

20/x4 deals 1.15 damage  b
19-20/x4 deals 1.3 damage  k
20/x7 deals 1.3 damage  v
18-20/x4 deals 1.45 damage ki
19-20/x4.5 deals 1.45 damage kv

19-20/x2 deals 1.1 damage b
17-20/x2 deals 1.2 damage k
19-20/x3 deals 1.2 damage v
15-20/x2 deals 1.3 damage ki
17-20/x2.5 deals 1.3 damage kv

18-20/x2 deals 1.15 damage b
15-20/x2 deals 1.3 damage k
18-20/x3 deals 1.3 damage v
12-20/x2 deals 1.45 damage ki
15-20/x2.5 deals 1.45 damage kv

see any patterns beyond 19-20 being less useful?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Sledge said:
			
		

> see any patterns beyond 19-20 being less useful?




19-20/x2 should come out weaker -- you're comparing it to 18-20/x2 and 20/x4.


----------



## Sledge

Is that a no CRGreathouse?


----------



## Wavestone

Hi.. I've followed this thread on and off.. but haven't posted before. 

Just wanted to throw in an idea regarding the fortification versus crits,, you have been talking about reducing the critical multiplier.. What about giving a penalty to the threat confirmation roll/ or bonus to the AC for the confirmation roll (depending on whose point of view)?

Like: undead - +5 AC vs threat confirmation, construct - +10 AC vs confirmation roll. This would make it possible to crit them, but a lot harder..

I've also read an interesting post at sean Reynolds, http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html 

that deals a lot with removing absolutes in D&D.. I thought it would be interesting to this thread, if you haven't already read it of course.. 

Thanks for an interesting thread, even if it isn't really useful for me right now, the actual campaign is low-level.. lvl 1 even


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey there Wavestone! 



			
				Wavestone said:
			
		

> Hi.. I've followed this thread on and off.. but haven't posted before.




Well better late than never...as I always say. 



			
				Wavestone said:
			
		

> Just wanted to throw in an idea regarding the fortification versus crits,, you have been talking about reducing the critical multiplier.. What about giving a penalty to the threat confirmation roll/ or bonus to the AC for the confirmation roll (depending on whose point of view)?
> 
> Like: undead - +5 AC vs threat confirmation, construct - +10 AC vs confirmation roll. This would make it possible to crit them, but a lot harder..




I don't think an AC modifier would work to this end. What you could do is reduce the threat range, however 'threat range' always seemed like more of a skill thing to me.

Provided, threat range and critical multiplier progression are balanced, we only have to reduce one (almost certainly as a fraction) to keep both evened out.

Incidently, I'm wondering if Fragile and Solid would cancel each other out, so a glass golem could suffer normal critical hits?



			
				Wavestone said:
			
		

> I've also read an interesting post at sean Reynolds, http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html
> 
> that deals a lot with removing absolutes in D&D.. I thought it would be interesting to this thread, if you haven't already read it of course..




I have (in fact I think I posted a link to it in this thread about a week ago), but not to worry, I appreciate the support nonetheless. 

Sean's article paralleled a few ideas I had been working on (with regards critical hits and anti-magic), but his thoughts on the matter definately spurred me on to sort those ideas out, because he really showed me that absolutes can choke epic/immortal gaming in particular.



			
				Wavestone said:
			
		

> Thanks for an interesting thread, even if it isn't really useful for me right now, the actual campaign is low-level.. lvl 1 even




Glad you enjoyed the thread! 

Before you know it I am sure you will be staring at Level 20.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Before you know it I am sure you will be staring at Level 20.




And by then, the second book might just be almost out!


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Incidently, I'm wondering if Fragile and Solid would cancel each other out, so a glass golem could suffer normal critical hits?




Sounds reasonable to me. BTW, where would a 'swarm' lie on this table?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Oi I heard that Anabstercorian!  

Hiya mate!  



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Sounds reasonable to me. BTW, where would a 'swarm' lie on this table?




I'm thinking:

Tiny swarm = Solid
Diminutive = Liquid
Fine = Nebulous


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Oi I heard that Anabstercorian!
> 
> Hiya mate!




Hiya Krusty! 

I'm trying to hold myself to a higher standard of sharp comical jabs at your production schedule.  I'll give you until the end of October to release your next book - after that, the gloves come off again!


----------



## Sledge

Any updates UK?


----------



## Anabstercorian

Sledge said:
			
		

> Any updates UK?




Let the man work.  He's gotten enough attention from milking the hype from his unfinished symphony.  Let him wallow in quiet anonymity until once more he offers a meaningful offering to the fickle public.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Okay, I've been busy working on both the IH and the website for the past few days. I just dropped by to let you know I updated the website with an artcle on Absolutes. I'd be interested to hear what you think. There are some parts of it I am not totally happy with yet so feedback is welcomed - but I definately think its a step in the right direction. Also part two of the article in question is virtually finished so I should have that within a day or so.

...okay I know, I know, get back to work.


----------



## Sledge

Cold dealing strength and dex damage. NO!  Ability damaging things are already dangerously easy to abuse.  I'm not sure I really agree with how you even worked out the heat information at all.  At the very least balance heat and cold with the understanding that 0 degrees kelvin would be an incredible level of damage.


----------



## Anabstercorian

First off, that is a _gorgeous_ chart.  Mmm, lovely.

I'm iffy on the cold damage tweak.  Cold damage certainly shouldn't be so easy to utterly ignore...  At least, I'd think not.  I'll talk to some of the chemistry professors around town, and run this by some of my technical friends.  It's an interesting re-envisioning of temperature effects - I'm confident in your ability to make it balanced, but less so on whether or not it's a good idea to do at all.  Upper Krust once described the Cold Fire, which gave physics the finger and plunged well below absolute zero.  I propose you take that route here - it's more appropriate to fantastical magic and involves less revising.

*whipcrack* Back to work!


----------



## Fieari

In the D&D world, Cold is elemental as far as I can tell.  It's an energy type, opposed to Fire.  That suggests to me that it isn't lack of heat, with an absolute zero, but actually negative heat... less than absolute zero.  All of the Cold spells and cold dealing weapons and such would thus be below absolute zero, but the weaker cold effects would take place in a much shorter duration, like you describe with lightning and fireball and such.  Frost weapons likewise... during a hit, there isn't much contact, or perhaps it does damage and freezes moisture in such a way as to insulate against further contact until another hit is made.  That sort of thing.


----------



## Sledge

Well 0 degrees is theoretically where everything stops moving.  It is a complete lack of energy.  As you get closer and closer to zero I could see exponential damage increases.  This level of damage is the kind that could destroy quite a lot.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Guys! 

Thanks for the replies. I wasn't planning on working on temperature (other than removing energy immunity itself), but I just got carried away with myself and before I knew it I was knee deep in physics websites checking a lot of this stuff out.

I know ability score damaging effects can be exploited, but this is me remember, you know I have the balance thing nailed. What I don't think I included (it will be in one of the later articles) is the revision for ability damage/drain immunity, which is now Ability Drain Resistance.

Personally I think this revision to cold is far more interesting. Partly inspired by a scene in the new Dungeons & Dragons movie: Wrath of the Dragon God, and I am sure we have all seen Terminator 2. Its incredible that in D&D, no amount of cold damage will actually freeze a target. However, I am not trying to push this through, so consider this merely an optional idea - although the removal of absolutes is going to be something intrinsic to the IH.

But do the rest of you not like the idea that cold is actually more than simply hit points damage? I remember watching the D&D cartoons of the 80's and seeing Warduke's Icesword freeze the Dungeon Master - that was cool (no pun intended). The idea that cold can induce hypothermia, frostbite, freeze a target or even crystallise them, to me is very interesting, far more so than simply dealing another 'x'd6 damage.

Also we cannot exponentially increase cold damage the further down in temperature we go. If Absolute Zero was 1000d6 damage (or whatever) then that would mean that to survive in space you would need a humongous amount of cold resistance, which isn't practical.

Obviously we can continue to use the hit point damage, and keep escalating the temperature beyond absolute zero. But in doing that you remove, in my opinion, what makes cold interesting, and relegate it to just another type of damage.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Nice article, absolutes have long vexed me to be honest.  I'm glad to see you taking the bull by the horns.

I also love this line (citing from your article):



> Okay, a few things about the above table. Planck Temperature is the postulated temperature that occured a split second after the big bang, so consider that your unofficial upper limit.




 

It is the "unofficial" limit w/in the base dimensions that is.


----------



## Verequus

A very interesting take on the absolutes. Regarding the freezing with cold damage I can say, that at least EoMR has an option to use a side effect of the Ice element, which encases the victim in ice. But that doesn't do more damage or is dependent from damage, so it could be changed to your variant.

Anyways, I've found in your articles two errors. The first one is in the epic feats article, where you haven't linked the vorpal revision correctly. The second one is in your absolutes article, where you haven't explained, why ability scores are italicized.

Edit: I've overlooked in your DSA article, that your solution to Extra Energy Immunity is to replace with itself.


----------



## Kerrick

I think Cold should still deal damage, but also apply an enhancement penalty to Strength/Dex (not damage). The reason for this: if you're cold, you start shivering and get weak. If you warm up, though, the effects go away and you're fine. Also, this doesn't make cold weapons/creatures overly powerful. Don't forget, ability damage only heals at the rate of 1 point/day unless otherwise stated, or you use spells. And, some wiseass will simply throw down a lesser restoration on a frozen character, healing all the abliity damage and magicall unfreezing him. If you make it an enhancement penalty, it's harder to get rid of without using the rules below.

Supernatural cold effects, though, could deal ability damage. I'm talking things like epic spells, the depths of space, or things like that, not just a dragon's breath weapon (unless it's special somehow).

Also, I don't know _where_ you got Wis as the determining stat - it should be Con. 

I don't agree with your frostbite rules, though I can see where you're coming from. Not everyone who suffers frostbite loses extremities, though - if you're lucky, you get away with losing some skin, which eventually heals. Let's say that any time you suffer damage that reduces the ability score below half, you have to make a Con check (DC 15). Each time you fail the check, you take one point of Con damage. If one score is reduced to 0, the DC increases to 20 and any further failed checks become Con drain. 

I think what you need are stacking effects, like they do with fear, panic, frightened, et al. - let's say some unlucky PCs are out in severe cold long enough to get really chilled (new effect; occurs when Str/Dex exceed half Con). They manages to make it to shelter in an old abandoned hut, start a fire, and get some warmth (but not enough to reverse all the penalties). Then, say, a frost giant attacks them, tearing the roof of their hut and exposing them to the cold. The defeat the giant (and his winter wolves), but have suffered more cold damage, bringing them down to the hypothermia level (or, in the unfortunate fighter's case, frostbite).

Now, the problem is, we have no rules for any of these effects. How much heat does it take to negate the penalties incurred from hypothermia? How do you go about uncrystallizing someone without melting them into a puddle of bloody slush? Freezing, BTW, is not just paralyzation, IMO - if you go by that definition, a simple remove paralysis will reverse the effect. 

My suggestion: One hour at safe temperature negates 2 points of penalties. One hour at very hot negates 4 points. Anything above that would simply deal fire damage as before, because going from one extreme to the other is a bad thing in general. Additional effects, like a fire, blankets, warm water, etc. can serve to negate additional points (a small fire in a cold room/cave would be considered safe temp - 2 points/hour, while a larger fire in a warm room would likely push the temp up to very hot - 4 points/hour). The problem with crystallization is that ability scores don't go to negatives - 0 is the limit. This is easily fixed, though... the frozen condition occurs when either Str or Dex is reduced to 0. Crystallization occurs when both are reduced to 0. Someone who's been frozen or crystallized and is brought back by nonmagical means (i.e., building a fire nearby) must either a) receive a _heal_ spell after the first hour, or b) make a Con check (DC 15 for frozen, or DC 20 for crystallization) after the first hour or die from massive system shock. Being frozen and brought back is hard on the system, and if someone doesn't do it right (too much heat too fast, e.g.) it could easily kill the person. 

Now, someone will inevitably try to drop a fireball or burning hands on the person to melt him; this could work, to a point - say, the person takes half/quarter damage (for chiling/hypothermia) or quarter/no damage (for freezing), but is reduced by one level of freezing. it's a crude method, but it would work, I guess. Someone who's been crystallized, however, has serious problems - he has the Vulnerablity to Fire ability. Additionally, if he's reduced to 0 hp through application of fire, he melts into a puddle of bloody slush, and cannot be brought back by anything short of a true res.

And of course, you could create new spells: warming hands, for instance - the caster's touch reduces the victim's freezing state by one (from hypothermia to chilling, e.g., reducing the penalties). Crystallize - flash-freezes the target (this one would likely be epic, or at least 8th-9th level). Hypothermia - an area of effect that chills the air, affecting all within it. Hmm... I might steal these for myself.


----------



## Borlon

Hi UK!

I like your replacement of immunities with (progressively higher) resistances.  I think that should be standard.  What do you think of SKR's idea that (say) a paladin's immunity to fear is replaced with a +10 to saves vs fear?  Can this be generalized for immunity to mental effects, etc?  Maybe add divine rank to the +10 bonus?

I don't care for the temperature chart, though.  

First of all, I don't think that, when it comes to forms of energy, that DnD physics is the same as real life physics.  Almost all forms of energy IRL is reducible to  molecular motion or its lack.  But AFAIK DnD doesn't even have molecules; its physics is more or less Aristotelian, and there are at least half a dozen distinct and irreducible forms of energy.  Mixing up the two kinds of physics will produce a muddle.

Second, I think the listed damage for a persistent fireball or lightning bolt is far too high. I recall that in the old manual of the planes, fireballs and the like would persist in Limbo, and would do their base damage each round.  Not 2000 times their base damage.

Third, I don't like the substitution or association of ability damage with cold damage.  If you try to match up DnD physics too closely with real life physics, you'll get a muddle.  (See objection number 1).  You could make a "critical effects" table for when people roll a 1 or something on their save, or they take cold damage on a critical hit, but please don't do it for regular damage.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Excrcise:
Craig has lightning dealing 500d6 damage/round.  Now the typical energy released by a bolt of lightning is 10^10 joules, the equivilent of about 2 tons of TNT.  Based on the damage he has for TNT, how muich weaker is a 5d6 _lightning bolt_ than a natural lightning bolt?


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate!  



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Nice article, absolutes have long vexed me to be honest.  I'm glad to see you taking the bull by the horns.




If someone doesn't I think the problem could be the death knell for epic/immortal gaming. Its that serious a problem.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I also love this line (citing from your article):




Always happy to please. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> It is the "unofficial" limit w/in the base dimensions that is.




Exactly. I suspect colliding universes would create a bigger bang.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Rulemaster dude! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> A very interesting take on the absolutes. Regarding the freezing with cold damage I can say, that at least EoMR has an option to use a side effect of the Ice element, which encases the victim in ice. But that doesn't do more damage or is dependent from damage, so it could be changed to your variant.




Like I say, I am only considering the cold stuff as an optional idea, so people can do with it as they wish.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Anyways, I've found in your articles two errors. The first one is in the epic feats article, where you haven't linked the vorpal revision correctly.




Thats covered in Part Two of the article which deals with critical hits. Apologies if I have created the link already but not uploaded the page in question.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> The second one is in your absolutes article, where you haven't explained, why ability scores are italicized.




Examples and spell names are italicized, as far as I can tell nothing else.   



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Edit: I've overlooked in your DSA article, that your solution to Extra Energy Immunity is to replace with itself.




DOH! Thats meant to be Extra Energy Resistance.

I should probably give the epic feats and salient divine abilities articles another going over just to be on the safe side - I am sure there are a number of mistakes in there that I have missed.


----------



## Zoatebix

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If Absolute Zero was 1000d6 damage (or whatever) then that would mean that to survive in space you would need a humongous amount of cold resistance, which isn't practical.



Just a note on this - the only way to lose heat in space (a vacuum) is through radiation.  There's nothing there to carry your heat away through convection or conduction.  In other words - you're very well insulated in space.  The universe is one enormous dewar bottle (thermos) - only without the bottle part - helping you keep your heat in.  Radition is a MUCH bigger problem then cold.  I mean, it has to be by definition because the cold isn't a problem.

I'm almost done catching up on this thread, I just had to stop and comment.
-George


----------



## Alzrius

Hey U_K!

I wanted to bring up a few things about that new article.

First, a link on the front of the website would be great. I had to go hunting through the various sections to find it.

Also, a few things on the heat table seem somewhat...off to me. I don't think lava should be hotter than the Plane of Fire. And it seems suspect that a lightning bolt and the sun's corona are hotter than the sun's surface...of course, those last two may just be that I need to look up the science more.

I also don't think that the absolute immunities are quite the dire threat to epic/immortal gaming SKR (and you) seem to be saying they are, or the problem would have come up a while ago. Epic/immortal gaming can get along fine (I think) while still having absolutes there...especially since characters will like to have some weaknesses that they don't have to worry about anymore. It worked fine for undead creatures, after all.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Kerrick mate! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I think Cold should still deal damage, but also apply an enhancement penalty to Strength/Dex (not damage).




Interesting idea. Very interesting...the penalty rather than damage idea that is.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> The reason for this: if you're cold, you start shivering and get weak. If you warm up, though, the effects go away and you're fine.




Thats true, up to a given point.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Also, this doesn't make cold weapons/creatures overly powerful.




I thought I had my optional idea fairly well balanced. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Don't forget, ability damage only heals at the rate of 1 point/day unless otherwise stated, or you use spells. And, some wiseass will simply throw down a lesser restoration on a frozen character, healing all the abliity damage and magicall unfreezing him. If you make it an enhancement penalty, it's harder to get rid of without using the rules below.




Thats true.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Supernatural cold effects, though, could deal ability damage. I'm talking things like epic spells, the depths of space, or things like that, not just a dragon's breath weapon (unless it's special somehow).




I like the idea that a dragons breath weapon 'could' freeze someone.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Also, I don't know _where_ you got Wis as the determining stat - it should be Con.




I was addressing the mental effects of hypothermia, as such surely wisdom is appropriate.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I don't agree with your frostbite rules, though I can see where you're coming from. Not everyone who suffers frostbite loses extremities, though - if you're lucky, you get away with losing some skin, which eventually heals. Let's say that any time you suffer damage that reduces the ability score below half, you have to make a Con check (DC 15). Each time you fail the check, you take one point of Con damage. If one score is reduced to 0, the DC increases to 20 and any further failed checks become Con drain.




I like the idea of some sort of a check.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I think what you need are stacking effects, like they do with fear, panic, frightened, et al.




I am working on this as part of the saving throw solution. Consider the cold idea work in progress in this regard - although you can see the seeds of it already - each effect has four stages as it were, with the 3rd removing you from the game and the 4th proving fatal.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> - let's say some unlucky PCs are out in severe cold long enough to get really chilled (new effect; occurs when Str/Dex exceed half Con). They manages to make it to shelter in an old abandoned hut, start a fire, and get some warmth (but not enough to reverse all the penalties). Then, say, a frost giant attacks them, tearing the roof of their hut and exposing them to the cold. The defeat the giant (and his winter wolves), but have suffered more cold damage, bringing them down to the hypothermia level (or, in the unfortunate fighter's case, frostbite).




I like it. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Now, the problem is, we have no rules for any of these effects.




We will have by the time I get Part 4 of the Absolutes series finished.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> How much heat does it take to negate the penalties incurred from hypothermia? How do you go about uncrystallizing someone without melting them into a puddle of bloody slush?




I would say Crystallisation spells death for any being without regeneration most likely.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Freezing, BTW, is not just paralyzation, IMO - if you go by that definition, a simple remove paralysis will reverse the effect.




Exactly its 'freezing' not paralysis, but I needed to give people an idea of what I meant by freezing.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> My suggestion: One hour at safe temperature negates 2 points of penalties. One hour at very hot negates 4 points. Anything above that would simply deal fire damage as before, because going from one extreme to the other is a bad thing in general.




According to my studies of frostbite, you should never treat it with anything more than lukewarm water, never 'hot' water. So my guess is anything over the safe temperature will cause 50% extra damage to those with hypothermia, frostbite, freezing. Crystallisation also applies the *Fragile* Sub-type.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Additional effects, like a fire, blankets, warm water, etc. can serve to negate additional points (a small fire in a cold room/cave would be considered safe temp - 2 points/hour, while a larger fire in a warm room would likely push the temp up to very hot - 4 points/hour). The problem with crystallization is that ability scores don't go to negatives - 0 is the limit. This is easily fixed, though... the frozen condition occurs when either Str or Dex is reduced to 0. Crystallization occurs when both are reduced to 0. Someone who's been frozen or crystallized and is brought back by nonmagical means (i.e., building a fire nearby) must either a) receive a _heal_ spell after the first hour, or b) make a Con check (DC 15 for frozen, or DC 20 for crystallization) after the first hour or die from massive system shock. Being frozen and brought back is hard on the system, and if someone doesn't do it right (too much heat too fast, e.g.) it could easily kill the person.




What about, the target is crystallised if a single attack drops them to 0 Strength *or* Dexterity. After all, continual cold won't crystallise someone, only truly severe cold would do that.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Now, someone will inevitably try to drop a fireball or burning hands on the person to melt him; this could work, to a point - say, the person takes half/quarter damage (for chiling/hypothermia) or quarter/no damage (for freezing), but is reduced by one level of freezing. it's a crude method, but it would work, I guess. Someone who's been crystallized, however, has serious problems - he has the Vulnerablity to Fire ability. Additionally, if he's reduced to 0 hp through application of fire, he melts into a puddle of bloody slush, and cannot be brought back by anything short of a true res.




I think you could treat the cold damaged victim as if having the cold subtype for the purposes of fire/heat damaging them.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> And of course, you could create new spells: warming hands, for instance - the caster's touch reduces the victim's freezing state by one (from hypothermia to chilling, e.g., reducing the penalties). Crystallize - flash-freezes the target (this one would likely be epic, or at least 8th-9th level). Hypothermia - an area of effect that chills the air, affecting all within it. Hmm... I might steal these for myself.




Oi! 

I'm curious, does the Frostburn supplement have nothing like this in it? (I don't own that supplement myself)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Borlon said:
			
		

> Hi UK!




Hey there Borlon! 



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> I like your replacement of immunities with (progressively higher) resistances.




Thanks.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> I think that should be standard.  What do you think of SKR's idea that (say) a paladin's immunity to fear is replaced with a +10 to saves vs fear?  Can this be generalized for immunity to mental effects, etc?




I think a +10 bonus is probably the simplest solution, although at the back of my head theres a voice telling me it should be +20. But I am not sure which is best yet.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Maybe add divine rank to the +10 bonus?




Deities already gain a 'divine bonus' to every roll. Only those with portfolios or the appropriate divine abilities should 'freely' get more than that.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> I don't care for the temperature chart, though.
> 
> First of all, I don't think that, when it comes to forms of energy, that DnD physics is the same as real life physics.




True, but that doesn''t mean we can't try to apply them.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Almost all forms of energy IRL is reducible to  molecular motion or its lack.  But AFAIK DnD doesn't even have molecules; its physics is more or less Aristotelian, and there are at least half a dozen distinct and irreducible forms of energy.  Mixing up the two kinds of physics will produce a muddle.




I agree, which is why I only presented the cold idea as optional.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Second, I think the listed damage for a persistent fireball or lightning bolt is far too high. I recall that in the old manual of the planes, fireballs and the like would persist in Limbo, and would do their base damage each round.  Not 2000 times their base damage.




You could be right. There are a lot of variables swimming around that I may have either miscalculated or simply not addressed (like molecule density - lightning is more dense than fire for instance).



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Third, I don't like the substitution or association of ability damage with cold damage.  If you try to match up DnD physics too closely with real life physics, you'll get a muddle.  (See objection number 1).  You could make a "critical effects" table for when people roll a 1 or something on their save, or they take cold damage on a critical hit, but please don't do it for regular damage.




Well I like the idea Kerrick suggested whereby it would be a penalty rather than actual damage.

However, remember again, this revision to cold damage is optional.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Excrcise:
> Craig has lightning dealing 500d6 damage/round.  Now the typical energy released by a bolt of lightning is 10^10 joules, the equivilent of about 2 tons of TNT.  Based on the damage he has for TNT, how muich weaker is a 5d6 _lightning bolt_ than a natural lightning bolt?




Given that people survive being struck by lightning bolts but not 2 tons of TNT theres a definite discrepancy somewhere.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Zoatebix matey! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Just a note on this - the only way to lose heat in space (a vacuum) is through radiation.  There's nothing there to carry your heat away through convection or conduction.  In other words - you're very well insulated in space.  The universe is one enormous dewar bottle (thermos) - only without the bottle part - helping you keep your heat in.  Radition is a MUCH bigger problem then cold.  I mean, it has to be by definition because the cold isn't a problem.




I read that too during my research - however I just wasn't sure how to implement it in the short term.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I'm almost done catching up on this thread, I just had to stop and comment.




Appreciate the help mate!


----------



## CRGreathouse

> *Frost:* Now deals either 1 point of Str Damage or 1 point of Dex damage (50% chance of either) upon scoring a critical hit. Market Price still +1 bonus.
> *Icy Burst:* Now deals 1 point of Str and Dex damage upon scoring a successful critical hit. Market Price now +3 bonus.
> *Icy Blast:* Now deals 1 point of Str and Dex damage per hit. This damage is multiplied upon a successful critical hit by the weapons critical damage multiplier. Market Price still +6 bonus.




I trust we can look forward to an article or rant that says that Wounding is overpowered, then?  It may be better rated as a +3, but it's certainly stronger than your Icy Burst.


----------



## Zoatebix

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Given that people survive being struck by lightning bolts but not 2 tons of TNT theres a definite discrepancy somewhere.




Reality check numero dos, this time from the wikipedia: being directly struck by lighting can often be not as bad as being near a ground strike.  


> Lightning injuries
> 
> Nearly 2000 persons per year in the world are injured by lightning strikes, and between 25 to 33 per cent of those struck die. Lightning injuries result from three factors: electrical damage, intense heat, and the mechanical energy which these generate. While sudden death is common due to the huge voltage of a lightning strike, survivors often fare better than victims of other electrical injuries caused by a more prolonged application of lesser voltage.
> 
> People may be hit in several different ways. In a direct hit the electrical charge strikes the victim first. Counterintuitively, if the victim's skin resistance is high enough, much of the current will flash around the skin or clothing to the ground, resulting in a surprisingly benign outcome. Splash hits occur when lightning effectively bounces off a nearby object and strikes the victim en route to ground. Ground strikes, in which the bolt lands near the victim and is conducted through the victim via his or her connection to the ground (such as through the feet), can cause great damage.
> 
> The most critical injuries are to the circulatory system, the lungs, and the central nervous system. Many victims suffer immediate cardiac arrest and will not survive without prompt emergency care, which, it is worth noting, is safe to administer, due to the fact that the victim will not retain any electrical charge after the lightning has struck (of course, the helper could be struck by a separate bolt of lightning in the vicinity). Others incur myocardial infarction and various cardiac arrhythmias, either of which can be rapidly fatal as well. The intense heat generated by a lightning strike can cause lung damage, and the chest can be damaged by the mechanical force of rapidly expanding heated air. Either the electrical or the mechanical force can result in loss of consciousness, which is very common immediately after a strike. Amnesia and confusion of varying duration often result as well. A complete physical examination by paramedics or physicians may reveal ruptured eardrums, and ocular cataracts may develop, sometimes more than a year after an otherwise uneventful recovery.



My physics teacher in high school survived at least one lightning strike (I only heard the story from him about one).  He was far away enough that he mostly had to deal with the explosion - I think it's cause by all ionized air recombining.  He got thrown some distance away from where the strike hit.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I wanted to bring up a few things about that new article.




Fire away.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> First, a link on the front of the website would be great. I had to go hunting through the various sections to find it.




There is a link on the front of the website (the gospel/news page).

***

17th September 2005 Absolution (Part One: Immunities)

Added the first rant, *here*.

***

The 'here' is the link - its in a different colour.

There is also a second link to it on the sermon/rant page.

However, the fact that wasn't aobvious tells me maybe I should have labelled the links better perhaps.   



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Also, a few things on the heat table seem somewhat...off to me. I don't think lava should be hotter than the Plane of Fire.




Immersion in Lava deals 20d6 damage.

Immersion in the Plane of Fire deals 5d6 (3d10) damage.

Therefore I surmised one was hotter than the other.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> And it seems suspect that a lightning bolt and the sun's corona are hotter than the sun's surface...of course, those last two may just be that I need to look up the science more.




I was surprised by that as well...but its a fact.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I also don't think that the absolute immunities are quite the dire threat to epic/immortal gaming SKR (and you) seem to be saying they are, or the problem would have come up a while ago.




I don't think the problem is dire for core D&D. It is more troublesome for epic gaming and as far as I can see its almost lethal for immortal gaming - its leaving DMs with virtually no 'outs'.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Epic/immortal gaming can get along fine (I think) while still having absolutes there...




Could probably survive without having a decent Challenge Rating/Encounter Level system too, but are you saying we shouldn't try to improve the game if we have it in our power?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> especially since characters will like to have some weaknesses that they don't have to worry about anymore.




Complacency is unlikely to improve anyones gaming experience.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> It worked fine for undead creatures, after all.




OD&D works fine, but most people play D&D 3.5.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I trust we can look forward to an article or rant that says that Wounding is overpowered, then?  It may be better rated as a +3, but it's certainly stronger than your Icy Burst.




DOH!

Icy Burst should deal the damage on a hit, not a crit. My mistake.  

Also I've probably reverese engineered the others from Icy Burst too.   

I'm leaning towards:

1. On crit = 25%
2. On hit (not multiplied by crit) = 50%
3. On hit (multiplied by crit) = 100% 

So if something was +4 for option 3 it would be +1 for option 1 etc. But I really need to go over those figures again.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Given that people survive being struck by lightning bolts but not 2 tons of TNT theres a definite discrepancy somewhere.




People are mostly struck by small cloud-to-ground bolts -- that's why they generally survive.  

In any case I don't understand your figures.  You assign a fireball a temp of 2000 degrees -- why that temperature?  You say it deals 32d6/round based on your formula, so why does a flash 1/1986th of that duration deal more than 1/7th the damage?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Reality check numero dos, this time from the wikipedia: being directly struck by lighting can often be not as bad as being near a ground strike.




Absolutely.



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> My physics teacher in high school survived at least one lightning strike (I only heard the story from him about one).  He was far away enough that he mostly had to deal with the explosion - I think it's cause by all ionized air recombining.  He got thrown some distance away from where the strike hit.




Interesting, and thanks for the article. I can already see a treatment of Lightning similar to the Cold article brewing in my head. 

Okay - I am off to bed now, so any more posts from this point on won't be answered by me until tomorrow - although feel free to talk amongst yourselves of course.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> There is a link on the front of the website (the gospel/news page).
> 
> ***
> 
> 17th September 2005 Absolution (Part One: Immunities)
> 
> Added the first rant, *here*.
> 
> ***
> 
> The 'here' is the link - its in a different colour.
> 
> There is also a second link to it on the sermon/rant page.
> 
> However, the fact that wasn't aobvious tells me maybe I should have labelled the links better perhaps.




Hmm...the last update I see is on September 5, 2005.   





> _Immersion in Lava deals 20d6 damage.
> 
> Immersion in the Plane of Fire deals 5d6 (3d10) damage.
> 
> Therefore I surmised one was hotter than the other._




That seems to be a concession that planar PCs are more likely to somehow end up on the Plane of Fire than immersed in lava. If I had to recommend a change there, I'd say that future parts of the IH should mention, when discussing the planes, that the Plane of Fire does more damage than that.



> _I don't think the problem is dire for core D&D. It is more troublesome for epic gaming and as far as I can see its almost lethal for immortal gaming - its leaving DMs with virtually no 'outs'._




I disagree, I see this as more a matter of opinion than any major flaw in the game that can be conclusively said to ruin the experience. I admit I haven't any data or anything to back that up, save to say that prior to SKR's article, no one seemed to think this.



> _Could probably survive without having a decent Challenge Rating/Encounter Level system too, but are you saying we shouldn't try to improve the game if we have it in our power?_




Assuming that this is an improvement. I see the gaining of power as being a process by which you shore up your defenses, which means (IMHO) that at some points you're going to gain immunities to something. Would you say that having a lich PC ruins the game because said PC is now immune to a slew of effects?



> _Complacency is unlikely to improve anyones gaming experience._




Neither will needless changes. It's not complacency to say that what isn't broken doesn't need to be fixed.



> _OD&D works fine, but most people play D&D 3.5._




I have no idea what this means.    I was trying to say that Undead-type creatures have a large number of immunities, and no one is saying they're less fun at epic levels.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> People are mostly struck by small cloud-to-ground bolts -- that's why they generally survive.




According to my Low Physical Factor calculations 2 Tons of TNT would only deal approx. 20d6 damage.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> In any case I don't understand your figures.  You assign a fireball a temp of 2000 degrees -- why that temperature?  You say it deals 32d6/round based on your formula, so why does a flash 1/1986th of that duration deal more than 1/7th the damage?




I think the problem was in me trying to reverse engineer the temperature to get the 5d6 base damage. I should probably have divided the fraction of the round by the suare of its square and then divided the damage by that.

Also I should point out that I chose the upper limit of Lightning, the range should be 20,000-30,000.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hmm...the last update I see is on September 5, 2005.




Try refreshing the page.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> That seems to be a concession that planar PCs are more likely to somehow end up on the Plane of Fire than immersed in lava. If I had to recommend a change there, I'd say that future parts of the IH should mention, when discussing the planes, that the Plane of Fire does more damage than that.




Why? The damage for the plane of fire was listed in Manual of the Planes. The damage for Lava is detailed in the Dungeon Masters Guide.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree, I see this as more a matter of opinion than any major flaw in the game that can be conclusively said to ruin the experience.




If deity characters are immune to everything I list on the website *as standard* then it drammatically reduces the options a DM can bring to bear upon such immortal characters.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I admit I haven't any data or anything to back that up, save to say that prior to SKR's article, no one seemed to think this.




They say ignorance is bliss.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Assuming that this is an improvement.




It makes sense - to me thats an improvement.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I see the gaining of power as being a process by which you shore up your defenses, which means (IMHO) that at some points you're going to gain immunities to something.




So are you saying the god of fire shouldn't be able to burn a fire giant? Or that a fire giant should be able to survive at the suns core?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Would you say that having a lich PC ruins the game because said PC is now immune to a slew of effects?




You use the word ruin like its an on/off switch...as if it were an absolute you could say. 

I certainly don't think the liches immunities are a positive aspect, and they are certainly illogical as well, but it would be melodrammatic for me to say they would ruin someones game.

But if your PCs are all immortals with the immunities I list on the website then yes I would say that will ultimately ruin your game.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Neither will needless changes. It's not complacency to say that what isn't broken doesn't need to be fixed.




The Model T Ford automobile worked but few people drive them today. It wasn't 'broken' but the cars today are 'better', thats progress. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I have no idea what this means.    I was trying to say that Undead-type creatures have a large number of immunities, and no one is saying they're less fun at epic levels.




It means don't be afraid of evolution.


----------



## Verequus

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Examples and spell names are italicized, as far as I can tell nothing else.




You have a table, where you sort things into static or dynamic. The ability scores mentioning is italicized there, but the asterisk leads to an uncompleted text.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Couple of questions:

1.  Have you developed a "Planck-Ball" or "Big Bang" spell yet?

2.  If so, what level would one need to be to cast it?  Time Lord?  High Lord?

Thanks dude.


----------



## Kerrick

> I like the idea that a dragons breath weapon 'could' freeze someone.




Yeah...I'm kinda wishy-washy on that idea. On the one hand, I agree that it would be cool, but on the other hand, I'm wondering about the game balance. White dragons are, after all, one of the weaker species - giving them the ability to freeze someone makes them a lot more powerful, especially since other dragons' breath weapons (besides shadow) don't have special powers.



> I was addressing the mental effects of hypothermia, as such surely wisdom is appropriate.




There are mental effects? I was using a Con check, because the most visibile effects are physical - the metabolism slows way down, systems start shutting down, and eventually, if not curbed, the body stops completely as it loses the energy to keep going. 



> I would say Crystallisation spells death for any being without regeneration most likely.




Sounds about right. What about creatures with the Cold subtype (assuming you could actually do that)? lol



> Exactly its 'freezing' not paralysis, but I needed to give people an idea of what I meant by freezing.




Oh, ok. My bad. 



> According to my studies of frostbite, you should never treat it with anything more than lukewarm water, never 'hot' water. So my guess is anything over the safe temperature will cause 50% extra damage to those with hypothermia, frostbite, freezing.




I know that - that's why I specifically didn't mention water, I said heat. The best way to treat frostbite is skin-to-skin contact with a warm body, preferably insulated in blankets or something to keep the heat in. But, I wasn't sure about adding the "severe heat" thing, thinking along the same lines you were - more than the safe temp deals extra damage. So yeah, I'll agree with you on that.



> What about, the target is crystallised if a single attack drops them to 0 Strength or Dexterity. After all, continual cold won't crystallise someone, only truly severe cold would do that.




The flash-freeze effect? I like that.



> I think you could treat the cold damaged victim as if having the cold subtype for the purposes of fire/heat damaging them.




I mentioned that he should be treated as having the Vulnerability to Fire ability, which is essentially the same thing.



> I'm curious, does the Frostburn supplement have nothing like this in it? (I don't own that supplement myself)




I don't either. I'm sure it has a couple similar ones; I think there's a spell called frostbite in there, but I'm not sure what it does (cold damage or something...).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> You have a table, where you sort things into static or dynamic. The ability scores mentioning is italicized there, but the asterisk leads to an uncompleted text.




Ah yes, thats in the article on epic feats though, you said it was in the article on absolutes - thats where I got confused.

The reason Ability Scores is italicised is that I am not sure exactly which category they should fit into. By the CR/EL rules, a feat should be worth a +2 bonus to an ability score. However we can't allow such a feat at non-epic levels without unbalancing most of the feats as well. We could assume that a non-epic version of Great Charisma (for example) could be +1, and the epic version could be +2, but again thats probably still going to unbalance a lot of existing feats.

So perhaps the epic feat should stay +1 and there should be no non-epic feat?


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya historian matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Couple of questions:




Fire away! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> 1.  Have you developed a "Planck-Ball" or "Big Bang" spell yet?




I did for the 'old system', by that I mean the one that didn't exactly work out, whereby a double double was a quadruple, rather than a triple. It worked out to be something like a 115th-level spell.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> 2.  If so, what level would one need to be to cast it?  Time Lord?  High Lord?




Under the auspices of the new system I am not yet sure if Big Bang spell swill be practical at all. I think we are talking High Lord at the very least now...if even then.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks dude.




Anytime mate.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Try refreshing the page.




And here that never occured to me.    It seems that for some reason the web browser I was using wouldn't update the page even after I refreshed it...which was odd, since it seemed fine with every other page I've looked at. A different browser did the trick though.



> _Why? The damage for the plane of fire was listed in Manual of the Planes. The damage for Lava is detailed in the Dungeon Masters Guide._




I'm aware of where they're listed, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense that Prime material lava is hotter than total exposure to the Plane of Fire.



> _If deity characters are immune to everything I list on the website *as standard* then it drammatically reduces the options a DM can bring to bear upon such immortal characters._




Which makes for a better game, IMHO. Now the DM and the characters have to start thinking of new and creative solutions for overcoming enemies. Changing immunities to high levels of resistances just encourages power creep, which is far more likely to ruin a game (again IMHO). Creativity can be spurred by working within boundaries.



> _They say ignorance is bliss._




They also say not to jump on the bandwagon.



> _It makes sense - to me thats an improvement._




It doesn't make sense - to me that's not an improvement. I see this as just another pitch that seems sexy ("Fixing the problems that you didn't know existed!") but doesn't necessitate anything being better.



> _So are you saying the god of fire shouldn't be able to burn a fire giant? Or that a fire giant should be able to survive at the suns core?_




At the sun's core, no...how would he breathe? In regards to the god of fire not being able to burn a fire giant...I can certainly see the case for that. A creature with the fire subtype is, to me, partially made of fire (perhaps not physically, but it's part of their essence), so it couldn't burn them.

And even if that wasn't the case, I don't see the problem with single, specific cases of being able to overcome an immunity. Suppose there is a feat that lets your character burn Fire creatures with a fire spell...so what? The ridiculous part of his essay is where he assumes that this will spiral into a one-upping circus of feats and powers that then grant immunity to the exception, and exceptions that overcome _that_ immunity, etc. I say, one immunity, and one exception to it...after that, it should stop.



> _You use the word ruin like its an on/off switch...as if it were an absolute you could say. _




Considering I'm using it in the context you laid down, what does that say about you?   



> _I certainly don't think the liches immunities are a positive aspect, and they are certainly illogical as well, but it would be melodrammatic for me to say they would ruin someones game.
> 
> But if your PCs are all immortals with the immunities I list on the website then yes I would say that will ultimately ruin your game._




I disagree. I don't think they will, and neither did a lot of people (yourself included) who had given epic/immortal gaming careful thought prior to SKR's article. A week ago, you knew all those immunities were there, and didn't think they'd ruin an epic/immortal game.



> _The Model T Ford automobile worked but few people drive them today. It wasn't 'broken' but the cars today are 'better', thats progress. _




Tell it to the SUV.   



> _It means don't be afraid of evolution._




The implication being that my arguements are based on fear? They're not. I honestly don't think this change is necessary, nor necessarily an improvement (though I won't say it's necessarily worse either). 

Don't forget that evolution spawns a lot of freakish creatures that die off quickly, also.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Yeah...I'm kinda wishy-washy on that idea. On the one hand, I agree that it would be cool, but on the other hand, I'm wondering about the game balance. White dragons are, after all, one of the weaker species




I don't see a problem with game balance in this regard.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> - giving them the ability to freeze someone makes them a lot more powerful, especially since other dragons' breath weapons (besides shadow) don't have special powers.




You mean not yet they don't. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> There are mental effects? I was using a Con check, because the most visibile effects are physical - the metabolism slows way down, systems start shutting down, and eventually, if not curbed, the body stops completely as it loses the energy to keep going.




According to one website I visited, hypothermia can lead to confusion and disorientation.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Sounds about right. What about creatures with the Cold subtype (assuming you could actually do that)? lol




I'm not totally sure. Going by the fire resistance example, a creature with the cold subtype should be immune to cold altogether - which is an idea I don't really agree with; I mean if you can freeze liquid nitrogen, you can darn well freeze a frost giant or a white dragon. So I'll have to give that some thought. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Oh, ok. My bad.




My mistake really, I just opted for a quick and simple explanation.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I know that - that's why I specifically didn't mention water, I said heat. The best way to treat frostbite is skin-to-skin contact with a warm body, preferably insulated in blankets or something to keep the heat in. But, I wasn't sure about adding the "severe heat" thing, thinking along the same lines you were - more than the safe temp deals extra damage. So yeah, I'll agree with you on that.








			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> The flash-freeze effect? I like that.




I quite like that one myself. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I mentioned that he should be treated as having the Vulnerability to Fire ability, which is essentially the same thing.




Ah, okay.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I don't either. I'm sure it has a couple similar ones; I think there's a spell called frostbite in there, but I'm not sure what it does (cold damage or something...).




I probably should have bought those things when I had the chance to buy them cheap at the RPG convention here in Belfast in June.


----------



## Zoatebix

This is mainly for Alzrius regarding the elemental plane of fire doing less damage than lava, but I think it's totally interesting and keen.

Lava should do more damage because temperature isn't the only factor when dealing with thermodynamics.  In fact - it isn't the biggest factor by far.  Why do you think one doesn't thaw frozen food in the oven?  Check out the experiment from scenes 5, 6, and 7 form this cooking show: http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season3/Duck/DuckTranscript.htm

To summarize: Alton Brown tries melting several identical ice sculptures shaped like ducks through various means.  One is left in the fridge, one placed in a 200 degree oven, one in boiling water, and one held under cold running water.



> AB: Ah, Paul. Do we have a winner?
> PAUL: [enters with ducks melted in a variety of conditions]
> 
> Just as I suspected. Even after all this time the refrigerator duck is relatively unmarred. What is surprising, however, is that the oven duck faired even better than the submerged-in-cold-water duck. Which just goes to show that temperature can't hold sway over density and conductivity. Of course, when you add heat back into the equation, i.e. the boiling-water duck, well, that basically looks like, I don't know ...
> 
> AB: ... what would you say, Paul, a blue bar of soap? Yeah. Uh, now where's the
> under-cold-running-water duck?
> PAUL: [indicates a bowl of water]
> AB: Oh, well, there you have it.
> 
> In the rock-paper-scissors world of thermodynamics convection, density and conduction win out even over high temperature.




Anywho - the atmosphere of the elemental plane of fire would have to be a ridiculously hot in order to cause the same damage (which I'm guessing is roughly proportional to heat/energy transfer) as very, very dense lava.
-George


----------



## Zoatebix

Scene 9 has good stuff on steam cooking, too.  Yay thermodynamics!


----------



## Alzrius

EDIT: Hm, something seems to have altered the image.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius dude! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> And here that never occured to me.    It seems that for some reason the web browser I was using wouldn't update the page even after I refreshed it...which was odd, since it seemed fine with every other page I've looked at. A different browser did the trick though.




Glad its okay now.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'm aware of where they're listed, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense that Prime material lava is hotter than total exposure to the Plane of Fire.




I think it makes perfect sense. For starters the Plane of Fire isn't a big fireball (or Sun for that matter). If it was, the City of Brass would melt.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Which makes for a better game, IMHO. Now the DM and the characters have to start thinking of new and creative solutions for overcoming enemies.




Gaining a new power/item is not a creative solution, and forcing players to gain power 'x' to overcome enemy 'y' is contrived and tantamount to railroading.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Changing immunities to high levels of resistances just encourages power creep, which is far more likely to ruin a game (again IMHO).




Wrong. 

By removing the absolute nature of an immunity you make its acquisition less important.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Creativity can be spurred by working within boundaries.




But you are not working within any boundaries, you are closing off one section and opening another. Which means you are alienating everything thats come before.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> They also say not to jump on the bandwagon.




You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> It doesn't make sense - to me that's not an improvement. I see this as just another pitch that seems sexy ("Fixing the problems that you didn't know existed!") but doesn't necessitate anything being better.




If we had as many people playing immortal campaigns as non-immortal campaigns I am sure the problem would have been recognised long ago.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> At the sun's core, no...how would he breathe?




You are dodging the obvious here. Lets say for the sake of argument the giant is holding his breath - or if the gets hit by a spell that duplicates the effects of the big bang, according to you the giant is okay...am I correct?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> In regards to the god of fire not being able to burn a fire giant...I can certainly see the case for that. A creature with the fire subtype is, to me, partially made of fire (perhaps not physically, but it's part of their essence), so it couldn't burn them.




A fire would even be destroyed by a much hotter fire.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> And even if that wasn't the case, I don't see the problem with single, specific cases of being able to overcome an immunity. Suppose there is a feat that lets your character burn Fire creatures with a fire spell...so what? The ridiculous part of his essay is where he assumes that this will spiral into a one-upping circus of feats and powers that then grant immunity to the exception, and exceptions that overcome _that_ immunity, etc. I say, one immunity, and one exception to it...after that, it should stop.




So I can have MegaFlames, but not MegaFlame Immunity. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Considering I'm using it in the context you laid down, what does that say about you?




It says that my use of words differing from yours is a sort of microcosm of this argument - in that everything to you is black and white. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree. I don't think they will, and neither did a lot of people (yourself included) who had given epic/immortal gaming careful thought prior to SKR's article. A week ago, you knew all those immunities were there, and didn't think they'd ruin an epic/immortal game.




Well for the record a lot of the immunities in D&Dg were not present in the IH. But I must admit SKRs article was revelatory.

Sometimes its difficult to see the wood for the trees.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Tell it to the SUV.




...and how many 100 year old SUVs do you see being driven on the roads?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The implication being that my arguements are based on fear? They're not.




Well I am thinking more along the lines or reticence and trepidation rather than fear and panic.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> They're not. I honestly don't think this change is necessary, nor necessarily an improvement (though I won't say it's necessarily worse either).




I think its quite clearly an improvement. I thought SKRs article did a great job of pointing out the illogic of absolutes.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Don't forget that evolution spawns a lot of freakish creatures that die off quickly, also.




If they don't adapt that is.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Yeah...I'm kinda wishy-washy on that idea. On the one hand, I agree that it would be cool, but on the other hand, I'm wondering about the game balance. White dragons are, after all, one of the weaker species - giving them the ability to freeze someone makes them a lot more powerful, especially since other dragons' breath weapons (besides shadow) don't have special powers.




Eh, I don't think that's a problem, Kerr.  If you're going so far as to add an effect based on logical conclusion to the white dragon's cold breath (possible freezing), it's a simple matter to add such effects to other breath weapons; a victim of a fire breath will contune to burn until put out (and suffer from burn wounds until healed), a victim of acid breath will continue to..well..  burn (and also suffer burn wounds), etc.  You just have to go that far.  Of course, if one _doesn't_ want to go that far, it doesn't make much sense to Begin the process, granted.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> You are dodging the obvious here. Lets say for the sake of argument the giant is holding his breath - or if the gets hit by a spell that duplicates the effects of the big bang, according to you the giant is okay...am I correct?




I don't really like this setup, as I don't think the fire giant should have the fire subtype in the first place.  In the case of a creature such as a fire elemental, though, I don't think that any level of fire or heat _as such_ should be able to harm it -- although possibly some fire creatures (probably not a fire elemental, though) could be 'extinguished' by having another fire consume all the oxygen in the area.

The big bang would kill just about any reasonable creature; the temperature is the least of its effects.  The pressure from the rapid expansion would deal millions of dice of damage, and the radiation would do dozens if not hundreds of dice of Con damage.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> ...and how many 100 year old SUVs do you see being driven on the roads?




I think that was actually his original point.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya mate!
> According to one website I visited, hypothermia can lead to confusion and disorientation.



Well, keep it in perspective, UK mate...  so does getting hit by a baseball bat, a severe burn, suffocation, and pretty much anything else that causes a significant amount of damage to the body.  
Having suffered a minor case of frostbite in my youth, I can tell you that recovering from the experience was significantly worse than the discomfort that caused it.  It was in fact many hours later until I realized that anything was wrong, when I couldn't warm my hands up no matter what I did, cold water burned, and the pain started to build.  Until then, it was just like being *really* cold.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I think it makes perfect sense. For starters the Plane of Fire isn't a big fireball (or Sun for that matter). If it was, the City of Brass would melt.




I disagree. I think the Plane of Fire should be considered at least as hot as the sun. The City of Brass just has fire immunity.   



> _Gaining a new power/item is not a creative solution, and forcing players to gain power 'x' to overcome enemy 'y' is contrived and tantamount to railroading._




I disagree with this also. The idea of going on an epic quest to retrieve a legendary item (or spell, or power, or find a proper location) is much older than D&D. The One Ring had immunity to damage, not just a large amount of hardness, otherwise tossing it into any volcano (or otherwise inflicting any large amount of damage) would have done the job, and the book would have been much shorter. Laying down the basis or an adventure isn't railroading.

Much worse, IMHO, is that by reducing immunities to resistances, you encourage players to powergame to try and get massive amounts of damage. They start thinking in terms of [feat X + (spell Y * magic item Z)] = 700 points of fire damage, 200 of which will beat the creature's resistance!



> _Wrong.
> 
> By removing the absolute nature of an immunity you make its acquisition less important._



Player's won't seek to gain resistances any less than they will immunities if you remove immunities totally. All that does is take away a large degree of power from higher-level PCs and NPCs. Things are much less epic when even a sentient sun can be burned.



> _But you are not working within any boundaries, you are closing off one section and opening another. Which means you are alienating everything thats come before._




Closing off a section tends to mean that that's a boundary, which is what an immunity is. I'm not sure what you mean by "opening another" and I certainly don't see how retaining immunities alienates what came before.



> _You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink._




But fools rush in where angels fear to tread.



> _If we had as many people playing immortal campaigns as non-immortal campaigns I am sure the problem would have been recognised long ago._




Supposition, there's nothing to support that...the same way there's nothing to support that this is even a problem at all. I don't see how this makes a game break down...some options to DMs will be closed, and to players also, but nowhere near anything bad enough to ruin the game...all the moreso since I think, to a limited degree, immunities should have circumstances where they can be overcome.



> _You are dodging the obvious here. Lets say for the sake of argument the giant is holding his breath - or if the gets hit by a spell that duplicates the effects of the big bang, according to you the giant is okay...am I correct?_




In all honesty, I don't see the problem with fire giants living on the sun. I can see all sorts of fire creatures living there. They had that in _Spelljammer_, and it seemed fine then, as now. CRGreathouse made a good point about the Big Bang though.



> _A fire would even be destroyed by a much hotter fire._




Hey, if you want MegaFlames, you're welcome to them.   



> _So I can have MegaFlames, but not MegaFlame Immunity. _




Yes. To put it otherwise, use common sense regarding immunities and immunity-breakers. Even a novice DM should be able to stop it before it gets to the level of nonsense that SKR is saying will destroy a game.



> _It says that my use of words differing from yours is a sort of microcosm of this argument - in that everything to you is black and white. _




Everything to me is not black and white, and you have no basis for ascribing that to me. Don't try and portray yourself as having the more "colorful" option just because I disagree with you.



> _Well for the record a lot of the immunities in D&Dg were not present in the IH. But I must admit SKRs article was revelatory.
> 
> Sometimes its difficult to see the wood for the trees._




SKR's big problem wasn't even immunities, IMHO. It was that there are effects that grant something, counter-effects that negate it, counter-counter-effects that negate the negation, etc.

If you have Manyshot, but an enemy has a magic item that negates your Manyshot against him, but you have a spell that negates that magic item's power, but he has a class ability that negates that spell (ad naseum), the answer is not to change the whole ranged combat system.



> _...and how many 100 year old SUVs do you see being driven on the roads?_



As CRGreathouse said, this is my point.



> _Well I am thinking more along the lines or reticence and trepidation rather than fear and panic._




Again, please don't tell me what my motives are. I'm not the one fearing that existing immunities will break an epic/immortal game.



> _I think its quite clearly an improvement. I thought SKRs article did a great job of pointing out the illogic of absolutes._




I don't think he had any real point at all...just that he didn't like the way people would find a way to overcome an absolute. Removing absolutes for them to overcome is not the answer, IMHO.



> _If they don't adapt that is. _




The point being that they died off quickly because they didn't adapt...hence why they're freakish creatures.


----------



## Kavon

Hey U_K, got a little observation to share (might be interesting, dunno )

I was thinking about the temperature table and such, and I thought of something nice (at least I think so).
What if you don't put the base at 0-30 ish degrees Celcius, but at 0 Kelvin?

It would be more logical to start at the bare minimum, I think (non-movement increasing to ever more movement).

Also, wouldn't it be more logical to give creaturs 'comfort zones' of temperature?

i.e. the Fire Giant might be quite alright at, say, 400-450 Kelvin, but at 370 Kelvin, he'd be 'freezing' his butt off, since it would be below his 'comfort zone', and he'd be burning up at more than 450-460 ish Kelvin.

This.. seems to make sense to me, at least, since what is 'hot' and 'cold' is relative to the subject, right?

Interesting? Ridiculous? Something else? :B



Oh, and about the immunities.. I'd say that in an ever increasing power level, immunities don't really work that well, since after a while you'd be practically immune to everything.. What would the point be after that? o_o

In a non-epic game, immunities are fine, though (^OO)>

Edit: This reminds me of the stats/no-stats for deity debate, btw.. it's basically the same thing, I'd say.


----------



## Kerrick

> According to one website I visited, hypothermia can lead to confusion and disorientation.




Wolvy's right. Hypothermia does lead to confusion and disorientation, but that's what happens when your body starts to shut down and you aren't getting enough blood to the brain. That falls under Con, not Wis. 



> I disagree, I see this as more a matter of opinion than any major flaw in the game that can be conclusively said to ruin the experience. I admit I haven't any data or anything to back that up, save to say that prior to SKR's article, no one seemed to think this.




I don't know how long or how often you've been checking epic boards, but I've seen the complaints. Not often, granted, but I have seen them, and epic players do consider it a problem. I'll bet if you posted a poll here or over at the Wizards boards, you'd get a lot of people who agree.



> In regards to the god of fire not being able to burn a fire giant...I can certainly see the case for that. A creature with the fire subtype is, to me, partially made of fire (perhaps not physically, but it's part of their essence), so it couldn't burn them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fire would even be destroyed by a much hotter fire.
Click to expand...



Or to put it another way... you can melt obsidian or basalt, which are volcanic rocks, in lava. Yes, it'll take a while, but it can be done. That is the point UK is trying to illustrate - no matter how "immune" something is to energy, it can still be worn down by the application of enough (either in quantity or quality) of that type of energy. You talk about logic - ask a random D&D player, if you threw a fire giant into the sun, would it die? and he would likely say yes, simply because it's not logically feasible for that giant to survive several million degrees, immunity to fire notwithstanding. As for the god thing, you could easily assume that he has a feat/ability that enables him to overcome any kind of fire immunity - there's a feat in Sandstorm called Searing Spell that enables the caster to overcome fire resistance, or deal half damage to a creature with fire immunity. It's a _non-epic_ feat. From what I've heard, there's one like it in Frostburn, too. 



> SKR's big problem wasn't even immunities, IMHO. It was that there are effects that grant something, counter-effects that negate it, counter-counter-effects that negate the negation, etc.




Like inventing feats to get around energy immunity?



> Yes. To put it otherwise, use common sense regarding immunities and immunity-breakers. Even a novice DM should be able to stop it before it gets to the level of nonsense that SKR is saying will destroy a game.




That's the problem, Alzrius. Take a look around the boards sometime (and don't mean just these ones). I hate to say it, but there are some damn stupid DMs out there, or DMs who are unwilling (or unable) to say "no" to their players, and then complain when the game gets out of hand and they don't know what to do because the PCs are too powerful. Or novice DMs who don't know any better until it's too late. Just because you know how to play the game doesn't mean you have a decent grasp of game balance (as the sadly large number of crappy products attests to).



> I disagree. I think the Plane of Fire should be considered at least as hot as the sun. The City of Brass just has fire immunity.




If that were the case, humans wouldn't be able to go there at all, unless they had rings of elemental immunity (epic items, BTW). 



> Gaining a new power/item is not a creative solution, and forcing players to gain power 'x' to overcome enemy 'y' is contrived and tantamount to railroading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this also. The idea of going on an epic quest to retrieve a legendary item (or spell, or power, or find a proper location) is much older than D&D.
Click to expand...



I have to say that I agree with Alzrius on this count. Going on a great quest to secure the Magic Thingamabob to kill the Great Whoozits has been a staple of fantasy for centuries. BUT, these quests should be special - the Great Whoozits is a unique creature, probably the end battle in a grand campaign arc. BUT (again) a DM shouldn't be throwing creatures like this against the party every other adventure, or it would be "contrived and tantamount to railroading".



> Much worse, IMHO, is that by reducing immunities to resistances, you encourage players to powergame to try and get massive amounts of damage. They start thinking in terms of [feat X + (spell Y * magic item Z)] = 700 points of fire damage, 200 of which will beat the creature's resistance!




But 







> Even a novice DM should be able to stop it before it gets to the level of nonsense



 that you're talking about. But you still use immunity? Okay... the party mage took Searing Spell - he's still dealing 700 points of fire damage, 350 of which will beat the creature's resistance on a failed save. Players will find a way around any solution you can come up with; UK's looks to be the most tenable for game balance and enjoyment as a whole.



> Also, wouldn't it be more logical to give creaturs 'comfort zones' of temperature?




I like this idea - go with Kelvin, then assign "comfort zones" based on types and/or subtypes (a fire elemental, or some being that lives on the Plane of Fire, would have a higher zone than a creature with the Fire subtype, e.g.).



> Eh, I don't think that's a problem, Kerr. ... Of course, if one doesn't want to go that far, it doesn't make much sense to Begin the process, granted.




Yeah, I'm of the latter school. Course, since UK is doing all the work here, I'll just sit back and wait to see what he comes up with.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm of the latter school. Course, since UK is doing all the work here, I'll just sit back and wait to see what he comes up with.




If you just sit back and wait, he'll never come up with anything.  You must strike him daily with this bamboo switch or he will wander without end from subject to subject, never completing any, endlessly seizing on new cognitive fads and forever at the mercy of his flightful mind.  For his own good, out of love, strike him.  If you meet the Buddha on the road, you must kill him.


----------



## Alzrius

Kerrick said:
			
		

> I don't know how long or how often you've been checking epic boards, but I've seen the complaints. Not often, granted, but I have seen them, and epic players do consider it a problem.




If you're referring to some of the stuff over on the WotC board, all the ones I can remember were about players bemoaning that their PC came up against a monster with an immunity to something they had. Not quite what I'd call a game-breaker.   



> _Or to put it another way... you can melt obsidian or basalt, which are volcanic rocks, in lava. Yes, it'll take a while, but it can be done. That is the point UK is trying to illustrate - no matter how "immune" something is to energy, it can still be worn down by the application of enough (either in quantity or quality) of that type of energy._




That's the real-world physics explanation, but I don't feel that means it should apply to D&D. It seems silly, to me, to say that the Plane of Fire isn't as hot as the sun; and by extension, it seems silly that a fire giant could walk around on the Plane of Fire just fine, but be scorched by the sun.

D&D laws don't work by wearing down resistance. Something with fire resistance 10 will never be scorched by 5 points of fire damage every round, no matter the "quality" of the energy, nor how long it lasts (the "quantity"). Now, increase that resistance to infinity (e.g. immunity), and it doesn't matter if he's in the sun.



> _You talk about logic - ask a random D&D player, if you threw a fire giant into the sun, would it die? and he would likely say yes, simply because it's not logically feasible for that giant to survive several million degrees, immunity to fire notwithstanding._




I wish that GIF I'd tried to post had come through. "Everytime you drag real physics into a discussion about a fantasy comic, God kills a catgirl. Please, think of the catgirls." This isn't a comic, but the same sentiment applies. The immunity to fire is withstanding...immunity shouldn't have a natural breaking point.



> _there's a feat in Sandstorm called Searing Spell that enables the caster to overcome fire resistance, or deal half damage to a creature with fire immunity. It's a non-epic feat. From what I've heard, there's one like it in Frostburn, too. _




Which I have no problem with. I admit that I may have been unclear on why though.

Having a specialty feat (or spell, or item, etc.) isn't something I see as a problem, because it's inherently restrictive. If one PC takes Searing Spell, that PC alone is overcoming fire immunity (at which point, since he's only doing half damage to fire creatures with fire spells, the creature basically already has fire resistance of [1/2 total damage]). Contrast this to having a creature just have a resistance...now every PC can potentially deal fire damage to a fiery creature, and without having to give up a feat to do so. The creature is that much less challenging now.



> _That's the problem, Alzrius. Take a look around the boards sometime (and don't mean just these ones). I hate to say it, but there are some damn stupid DMs out there, or DMs who are unwilling (or unable) to say "no" to their players, and then complain when the game gets out of hand and they don't know what to do because the PCs are too powerful. Or novice DMs who don't know any better until it's too late. Just because you know how to play the game doesn't mean you have a decent grasp of game balance (as the sadly large number of crappy products attests to)._




Which is no reason to change an aspect of the system.



> _If that were the case, humans wouldn't be able to go there at all, unless they had rings of elemental immunity (epic items, BTW). _




Assuming you mean the City of Brass, the city is an enclosed space (IIRC), so the outside fire doesn't get it, since the immunity of the city's borders keep it at bay.



> _But  that you're talking about. But you still use immunity? Okay... the party mage took Searing Spell - he's still dealing 700 points of fire damage, 350 of which will beat the creature's resistance on a failed save. Players will find a way around any solution you can come up with; UK's looks to be the most tenable for game balance and enjoyment as a whole._




Well, first of all, it's really SKR's solution. That said, I see it as less tenable than the existing method for reasons described above. The loss of power for the creatures is more than just the totality of changing an immunity to a resistance. If a creature is supposed to be composed of fire, which reflects its nature better...a single PC only getting around that by expending a feat slot to do half fire damage, or letting all PCs do fire damage for no costs, so long as its enough to beat the resistance?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Wolv0rine dude! 



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Eh, I don't think that's a problem, Kerr.  If you're going so far as to add an effect based on logical conclusion to the white dragon's cold breath (possible freezing), it's a simple matter to add such effects to other breath weapons; a victim of a fire breath will contune to burn until put out (and suffer from burn wounds until healed), a victim of acid breath will continue to..well..  burn (and also suffer burn wounds), etc.  You just have to go that far.  Of course, if one _doesn't_ want to go that far, it doesn't make much sense to Begin the process, granted.




I don't think fire damage would continue to burn you, flesh would melt rather than burn, hair might burn, some clothes perhaps. Acid and Fire damage may heal much slower than normal wounds...?

I think creating optional damage structures for each of the energy types might be interesting, although its not my priority at the moment.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CRGreathous mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't really like this setup, as I don't think the fire giant should have the fire subtype in the first place.  In the case of a creature such as a fire elemental, though, I don't think that any level of fire or heat _as such_ should be able to harm it -- although possibly some fire creatures (probably not a fire elemental, though) could be 'extinguished' by having another fire consume all the oxygen in the area.




Thats good enough for me, if thats the way you want to colour it.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> The big bang would kill just about any reasonable creature; the temperature is the least of its effects.  The pressure from the rapid expansion would deal millions of dice of damage, and the radiation would do dozens if not hundreds of dice of Con damage.




Yes but what if I am a Shape of Fire? Am I okay or am I extinguished? 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I think that was actually his original point.




Give me a break - I don't understand every Americanism. I even had to look SUV up.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Well, keep it in perspective, UK mate...  so does getting hit by a baseball bat, a severe burn, suffocation, and pretty much anything else that causes a significant amount of damage to the body.




Heres a different site from the one I initially went to, 

http://www.searoom.com/cold1.htm

it also mentions:

34-35 degree body temp:  judgment capability impaired, but is still alert

31-33 degree body temp: + speech is slow, vague, slurred + mental confusion and apathy is present + drowsiness and strange behaviour occurs + breathing is slower and more shallow

Less than 31 degree body temp: + marked lack of coordination + may show signs of clouded consciousness or may become unconscious.



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Having suffered a minor case of frostbite in my youth, I can tell you that recovering from the experience was significantly worse than the discomfort that caused it.  It was in fact many hours later until I realized that anything was wrong, when I couldn't warm my hands up no matter what I did, cold water burned, and the pain started to build.  Until then, it was just like being *really* cold.




Frostbite is different from Hypothermia though.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree. I think the Plane of Fire should be considered at least as hot as the sun. The City of Brass just has fire immunity.




All your equipment would melt/burn within the 1st round. So would any treasure the efreeti captured.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree with this also. The idea of going on an epic quest to retrieve a legendary item (or spell, or power, or find a proper location) is much older than D&D. The One Ring had immunity to damage, not just a large amount of hardness, otherwise tossing it into any volcano (or otherwise inflicting any large amount of damage) would have done the job, and the book would have been much shorter. Laying down the basis or an adventure isn't railroading.




I think that Warlock (the movie with Julian Sands) has a good example of trying to destroy an artifact (some pages from a grimoire) wherein they just kept regenerating. Personally I like the idea of being able to sunder an artifact into pieces without it being totally destroyed, although you still need to be able to damage the thing in the first place. The one ring may have had DR 40, Regeneration 40 for instance.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Much worse, IMHO, is that by reducing immunities to resistances, you encourage players to powergame to try and get massive amounts of damage.




So you are saying at the moment players are trying to get low amounts of damage are you? LOL 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> They start thinking in terms of [feat X + (spell Y * magic item Z)] = 700 points of fire damage, 200 of which will beat the creature's resistance!




Players are always looking for an advantage, but when you allow that advantage to totally negate a percentage of the game you set a dangerous precedent wherein the challenges you set can be overcome with little or no risk whatsoever.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Player's won't seek to gain resistances any less than they will immunities if you remove immunities totally. All that does is take away a large degree of power from higher-level PCs and NPCs.




It means that such attacks are still poignant at high levels. Zeus thunderbolts still have a purpose. It means that epic level diviners, enchanters, illusionists, necromancers and transmuters are not totally hamstrung. It means sneak attack still has a point.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Things are much less epic when even a sentient sun can be burned.




Surely things are more epic (and dangerous) because of it!



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Closing off a section tends to mean that that's a boundary, which is what an immunity is.




Exactly and in closing off a boundary you close off the threat of all associations with it - spells, monsters, items. Therefore immunities remove options from the hands of the DM. At immortal level you have so many immunities that the game will either reach a bottleneck or becomes an endless spiral of trumping.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by "opening another" and I certainly don't see how retaining immunities alienates what came before.




It is the steady accruement of immunities that will inevitably paint you into a corner.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> But fools rush in where angels fear to tread.




A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Supposition, there's nothing to support that...the same way there's nothing to support that this is even a problem at all. I don't see how this makes a game break down...some options to DMs will be closed, and to players also, but nowhere near anything bad enough to ruin the game...all the moreso since I think, to a limited degree, immunities should have circumstances where they can be overcome.




Virtually every epic monster has its special abilities negated - becoming little more than a combat monkey.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> In all honesty, I don't see the problem with fire giants living on the sun. I can see all sorts of fire creatures living there. They had that in _Spelljammer_, and it seemed fine then, as now. CRGreathouse made a good point about the Big Bang though.








			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hey, if you want MegaFlames, you're welcome to them.




What about MegaMegaFlames though? 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Yes. To put it otherwise, use common sense regarding immunities and immunity-breakers. Even a novice DM should be able to stop it before it gets to the level of nonsense that SKR is saying will destroy a game.




I don't see a point to having the temptation in the first place.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Everything to me is not black and white, and you have no basis for ascribing that to me. Don't try and portray yourself as having the more "colorful" option just because I disagree with you.




I find it incredible that my initial light-hearted comment has lead to such an acerbic avenue of discourse.   



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> SKR's big problem wasn't even immunities, IMHO.




His problem was with absolutes in general, 'not just' immunities.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> It was that there are effects that grant something, counter-effects that negate it, counter-counter-effects that negate the negation, etc.




If you have Manyshot, but an enemy has a magic item that negates your Manyshot against him, but you have a spell that negates that magic item's power, but he has a class ability that negates that spell (ad naseum), the answer is not to change the whole ranged combat system.[/QUOTE]

Is your solution to present an infinitely long list of reversals that, in and of themselves, add nothing?

Instead of MegaFlames, Mega Flames Immunity, MegaMegaFlames, MegaMegaFlames Immunity (none of which add anything and are all self-referential) its better to simply increase fire damage and fire resistance.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> As CRGreathouse said, this is my point.




Too coloquial an example, the gist of what you were trying to say was clearly lost upon me it seems.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Again, please don't tell me what my motives are. I'm not the one fearing that existing immunities will break an epic/immortal game.




Courage is acting in the face of fear.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I don't think he had any real point at all...just that he didn't like the way people would find a way to overcome an absolute. Removing absolutes for them to overcome is not the answer, IMHO.




Surely thats exactly the answer!



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The point being that they died off quickly because they didn't adapt...hence why they're freakish creatures.




...and how have you adapted to the fact that absolutes are illogical?


----------



## Pssthpok

Some absolutes here and there make a game more challenging. Too many and it becomes a problem, I can see that.

UK, why do you put Epic Dodge at a meager +4 to AC when it originally negated a hit? I know you're removing the absolute "infinite AC" aspect of the feat, but does +4 really make an epic feat when compared to the original's intent? Furthermore, does a 1/round "no hit" move really threaten to undermine a game given its prerequisites? It's only 1/round, afterall.


----------



## Zoatebix

> I wish that GIF I'd tried to post had come through. "Everytime you drag real physics into a discussion about a fantasy comic, God kills a catgirl. Please, think of the catgirls." This isn't a comic, but the same sentiment applies. The immunity to fire is withstanding...immunity shouldn't have a natural breaking point.



Make fun of my physics, fine, but at least admit that Alton Brown's is the best cooking show on all of television!  SUBMIT TO THE POWER OF GOOD EATS!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Pssthpok mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Some absolutes here and there make a game more challenging. Too many and it becomes a problem, I can see that.
> 
> UK, why do you put Epic Dodge at a meager +4 to AC when it originally negated a hit? I know you're removing the absolute "infinite AC" aspect of the feat, but does +4 really make an epic feat when compared to the original's intent? Furthermore, does a 1/round "no hit" move really threaten to undermine a game given its prerequisites? It's only 1/round, afterall.




My mistake. That +4 was for all attacks. If I was making it only applicable to one attack per round then I would suggest a +20 Dodge bonus.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Speaking of Absolutes...*

Hi all! 

The following link was posted over in a thread in the General Discussion Forum in the thread about the 1000th-level character.

Its very relevant to our discourse on Absolutes.

A lot of it is eerily familiar to my 1st Edition experiences with Thrin (although not the levelling up aspect I must add) and I can see S'mon likewise having a feeling of _deja vu_...The similarities between Thrin and "SickSword" are bizarre (only one level between them too)...though even I never thought of taking the game to the lofty heights of "Unbelievable Sword"...who is 82 billionth level, fortunately his 3.5 conversion only comes to 411,062nd-level.

http://pw2.netcom.com/~rogermw/ADnD/


----------



## CRGreathouse

*Recap, for those who are lost*

Alz: "Neither will needless changes. It's not complacency to say that what isn't broken doesn't need to be fixed."

U_K: "The Model T Ford automobile worked but few people drive them today. It wasn't 'broken' but the cars today are 'better', thats progress."

Alz: "Tell it to the SUV. "

U_K: "...and how many 100 year old SUVs do you see being driven on the roads?"

Alzrius and U_K were arguing about the absolutes and immunities.  Alzrius felt that changes weren't needed, and would possibly even "break" a facet of the game that wasn't a problem before.

U_K brought up the analogy of car: old cars were good, but new cars are better (the old Model T being the existing system of immunities, the new cars being his system).  Alzrius countered with the example of the SUV, implicitly stating that the new cars (like the fuel-inefficient Sports Utility Vehicles) in U_K's analogy might in fact be worse than the original.  At this point U_K lost track of the argument and agrees that SUVs are inferior vehicles, even though he doesn't accept that the new cars in his analogy are like SUVs in that respect.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Yes but what if I am a Shape of Fire? Am I okay or am I extinguished?




I'm not in the greatest position to answer this as I don't use the shape of fire.  In general, if the creature could continue to burn/breathe/whatever it does without air (in vacuum/underwater/etc.) then it would be unharmed, otherwise it would begin to "suffocate".

A human with fire resistance 100 couldn't survive in a superhot environment (damage per round = 15d6) if there was enough fuel that the oxygen was consumed.  Such a human would suffocate.  A creature of fire that actually burned by conventional means---let's call it a fire spirit---would similarly be extinguished under those conditions.

Traditionally, elementals don't need fuel/air/etc. to burn, they just "do" -- as a result, they couldn't be extinguished in that way.


----------



## historian

> though even I never thought of taking the game to the lofty heights of "Unbelievable Sword"...who is 82 billionth level, fortunately his 3.5 conversion only comes to 411,062nd-level.




So I'm guessing he is a Time Lord/High Lord?  

Thanks, that's a cool link.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> All your equipment would melt/burn within the 1st round. So would any treasure the efreeti captured.




Which doesn't seem to prove anything, as it should already be a similar effect for the Plane of Fire. If fire damage deals 1/2 damage to objects (before being subjected to hardness), then the Plane of Fire, which deals 3d10 points of damage, would eventually melt any magic weapon with less than a +5 enhancement bonus. And yet, we see efreet from the Plane of Fire with equipment of that caliber.



> _I think that Warlock (the movie with Julian Sands) has a good example of trying to destroy an artifact (some pages from a grimoire) wherein they just kept regenerating. Personally I like the idea of being able to sunder an artifact into pieces without it being totally destroyed, although you still need to be able to damage the thing in the first place. The one ring may have had DR 40, Regeneration 40 for instance._




I don't think the One Ring would have been quite as impressive if it had been pulling itself back together T-1000-style, but that's just me.



> _So you are saying at the moment players are trying to get low amounts of damage are you?_




I'm saying they don't need more encouragement, which is what the proposed changes would do.



> _Players are always looking for an advantage, but when you allow that advantage to totally negate a percentage of the game you set a dangerous precedent wherein the challenges you set can be overcome with little or no risk whatsoever._




Any DM who makes it so that PC immunities destroy risk in the game isn't doing their job right. Likewise, having the monsters have immunities increases the risk.



> _It means that such attacks are still poignant at high levels. Zeus thunderbolts still have a purpose._




Such attacks can still be poignant at higher levels, it just requires creativity. A PC with electricity immunity from a magic item can just have that item _disjoined_, and there you go. Likewise, Zeus throwing lightning shouldn't be the end-all of his powers and abilities. And if you really feel that strongly about it, give him an immunity-breaker. That's why a lot of divine powers have a clause that they don't protect against deities with a higher DvR.



> _It means that epic level diviners, enchanters, illusionists, necromancers and transmuters are not totally hamstrung. It means sneak attack still has a point._




You seem to be working off the assumption that these characters will be fighting nothing but gods. Even the epic-level monsters in your own Bestiary (to say nothing of the ELH and _Legends of Avadnu_) are in the category of being powerful without being divine, and so are still vulnerable to some or all of those effects.

The point here is that all enemies aren't immune to everything all the time; the challenges are still there, just more challenging, which is the point of the game.



> _Surely things are more epic (and dangerous) because of it!_




You're saying things are more epic, and more dangerous, when you can use fire damage against a living, evil sun? I disagree.



> _Exactly and in closing off a boundary you close off the threat of all associations with it - spells, monsters, items. Therefore immunities remove options from the hands of the DM. At immortal level you have so many immunities that the game will either reach a bottleneck or becomes an endless spiral of trumping._




Hence why D&D is a game about heroes, not gods. But that aside, you can still threaten deities that have all those immunities (to say nothing of why there are also effects that penetrate immunities...a villain with one of those will be surprising and memorable for the players, which is great fun).



> _It is the steady accruement of immunities that will inevitably paint you into a corner._




Again, I disagree.



> _A chain is no stronger than its weakest link._




But there is a lesson in that which endures.



> _Virtually every epic monster has its special abilities negated - becoming little more than a combat monkey._




This is a gross overstatement. One character overcoming (partially) an immunity hardly strips an epic monster of all of its special abilities.



> _What about MegaMegaFlames though? _




Like I said, common sense.



> _I don't see a point to having the temptation in the first place._




So you're saying that good role-players can't resist templation? LOL   



> _I find it incredible that my initial light-hearted comment has lead to such an acerbic avenue of discourse.   _




I'd hardly characterize the discourse as acerbic. My putting you in your place was done with the utmost respect.   



> _His problem was with absolutes in general, 'not just' immunities._




Regarding immunities specifically, my above statement stands.



> _Is your solution to present an infinitely long list of reversals that, in and of themselves, add nothing?_




If you think I'm presenting it, you need to re-read my above statements. I'm saying that the real problem of SKR's discourse on immunities (within the larger context of absolutes) isn't that immunities ruin gameplay so much as it is a rant against said "infinitely long list of reversals." A good DM can put a stop to that easily enough.



> _Instead of MegaFlames, Mega Flames Immunity, MegaMegaFlames, MegaMegaFlames Immunity (none of which add anything and are all self-referential) its better to simply increase fire damage and fire resistance._




Which leads to the problems I outlined above, when all of that (the changes, the problems, etc.) could be avoided by the DM exercising a small measure of authority...or even the player realizing that engaging in that ultimately hurts his character more than any monster (as the wasted feat slots will not be worth the expenditure).



> _Too coloquial an example, the gist of what you were trying to say was clearly lost upon me it seems._




Hey, if you live somewhere without an overpopulation of SUVs, be happy.   



> _Courage is acting in the face of fear._




So is foolishness.



> _Surely thats exactly the answer!_




I say, surely it is not.



> _...and how have you adapted to the fact that absolutes are illogical? _



By pointing out that it's not a fact.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya CRGreathouse mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> At this point U_K lost track of the argument and agrees that SUVs are inferior vehicles, even though he doesn't accept that the new cars in his analogy are like SUVs in that respect.




U_K has never seen an SUV (that he can remember) and doesn't even know what they are (I had to look up what SUV meant).

Neither am I sure exactly how an SUV is meant to be inferior to something like the Model T Ford?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I'm not in the greatest position to answer this as I don't use the shape of fire. In general, if the creature could continue to burn/breathe/whatever it does without air (in vacuum/underwater/etc.) then it would be unharmed, otherwise it would begin to "suffocate".
> 
> A human with fire resistance 100 couldn't survive in a superhot environment (damage per round = 15d6) if there was enough fuel that the oxygen was consumed. Such a human would suffocate. A creature of fire that actually burned by conventional means---let's call it a fire spirit---would similarly be extinguished under those conditions.
> 
> Traditionally, elementals don't need fuel/air/etc. to burn, they just "do" -- as a result, they couldn't be extinguished in that way.




As far as I know, a fire would be destroyed if attacked by a much hotter fire source. I'll try and find some websites on this.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> So I'm guessing he is a Time Lord/High Lord?




In terms of raw statistics he is probably even better, but his build is so weak that I'd still fancy the High Lord. That said I am curious how he could afford those '+infinity' magic items, they seem to be breaking the game somewhat.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks, that's a cool link.




His review of the Dungeons & Dragons movie is very funny too.


----------



## Anabstercorian

*whipcrack* Happiness is forbidden!  Back to work or more puppies go in the furnace!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius matey! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Which doesn't seem to prove anything, as it should already be a similar effect for the Plane of Fire. If fire damage deals 1/2 damage to objects (before being subjected to hardness), then the Plane of Fire, which deals 3d10 points of damage, would eventually melt any magic weapon with less than a +5 enhancement bonus. And yet, we see efreet from the Plane of Fire with equipment of that caliber.




Iron doesn't even melt in lava! So its clear that the official rules in this matter are a bit mad.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I don't think the One Ring would have been quite as impressive if it had been pulling itself back together T-1000-style, but that's just me.




Well they didn't penetrate its damage reduction/hardness to find out whether it had regeneration or not.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'm saying they don't need more encouragement, which is what the proposed changes would do.




But thats simply not true at all.

Immunities are more valuable, therefore they are going to be sought and prized above and beyond 'mere' resistances. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Any DM who makes it so that PC immunities destroy risk in the game isn't doing their job right.




Feel free to start listing off the 'outs' for DMs who run immortals using the immunities in D&Dg?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Likewise, having the monsters have immunities increases the risk.




Theres equality for you. Now you can hamstring both the monsters and the PCs. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Such attacks can still be poignant at higher levels, it just requires creativity.
> 
> A PC with electricity immunity from a magic item can just have that item _disjoined_, and there you go.




Hardly a creative solution. 

Not to mention that an immortal has no need of a magic item to be immune to electricity.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Likewise, Zeus throwing lightning shouldn't be the end-all of his powers and abilities.




Its his signature power. The idea that its pointless versus every immortal and practically every epic character is laughable.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> And if you really feel that strongly about it, give him an immunity-breaker.




Or, heres an idea, how about Zeus electrical attacks are just so powerful that they'll overcome the electricity resistance of most characters.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> That's why a lot of divine powers have a clause that they don't protect against deities with a higher DvR.




Indeed - they have an absolute built into the core of the system to begin with! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> You seem to be working off the assumption that these characters will be fighting nothing but gods.




If you abide by the D&Dg immunities thats going to be virtually the only remaing effective threat you will be able to use.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Even the epic-level monsters in your own Bestiary (to say nothing of the ELH and _Legends of Avadnu_) are in the category of being powerful without being divine, and so are still vulnerable to some or all of those effects.




Virtually all the monsters in the ELH are going to be totally neutered by D&Dg immortal PCs. Near all their special abilities will be rendered useless which basically takes away anything unique or cool about the monster in the first place.

I can't speak for Legends of Avadnu, but I would be amazed if there are more than 2 or 3 special abilities in the whole book that will bypass the basic immortals immunities.

As for my own Bestiary, one saving grace for it is that a lot of the monsters are essentially deities, the other is that I have a list of over 300 divine powers to draw upon, so I was able to instigate some new effects. But even then most of the monsters suffer.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The point here is that all enemies aren't immune to everything all the time; the challenges are still there, just more challenging, which is the point of the game.




Its the PCs who are going to be immune to (next to) everything, which means that not even epic monsters will constitute a challenge.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> You're saying things are more epic, and more dangerous, when you can use fire damage against a living, evil sun? I disagree.




Obviously the campaign world is a FAR more dangerous place when the PCs are not immune to 95% of special abilities.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hence why D&D is a game about heroes, not gods. But that aside, you can still threaten deities that have all those immunities (to say nothing of why there are also effects that penetrate immunities...a villain with one of those will be surprising and memorable for the players, which is great fun).




Its self-defeating to have something penetrate an immunity in a system that purports infinite scope.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Again, I disagree.




We will see when you list the 'outs' above.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> But there is a lesson in that which endures.




I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> This is a gross overstatement. One character overcoming (partially) an immunity hardly strips an epic monster of all of its special abilities.




I'm talking about D&Dg immortal PCs having so many immunities that virtually the entire roster of monsters are bringing no valid special abilities to bear.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Like I said, common sense.




If we use common sense we don't use fire immunity and we don't need MegaFlames then we don't need MegaFlames immunity, continue _ad infinitum_.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> So you're saying that good role-players can't resist templation? LOL




I think designers have to pandour to all roleplayers, not just the good ones.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'd hardly characterize the discourse as acerbic. My putting you in your place was done with the utmost respect.




You've _ruined_ this whole thread you know. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Regarding immunities specifically, my above statement stands.




Immunities are one part of Absolutes. He addressed the whole rather than the specific. You can't say, "Well he only spoke about Immunities for 25% of his article so they must be 75% okay by him!" 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> If you think I'm presenting it, you need to re-read my above statements. I'm saying that the real problem of SKR's discourse on immunities (within the larger context of absolutes) isn't that immunities ruin gameplay so much as it is a rant against said "infinitely long list of reversals." A good DM can put a stop to that easily enough.




He was also directly against the illogic of immunities *at all*, not simply endless reversals.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Which leads to the problems I outlined above, when all of that (the changes, the problems, etc.) could be avoided by the DM exercising a small measure of authority...or even the player realizing that engaging in that ultimately hurts his character more than any monster (as the wasted feat slots will not be worth the expenditure).




Gaming supplements are DM aides. The designer does the donkey work so the DM won't have to. Same thing here. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hey, if you live somewhere without an overpopulation of SUVs, be happy.




Super Underwater Vorlons?   



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> So is foolishness.




Time will tell.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I say, surely it is not.




You're certainly entitled to be wrong if you so wish. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> By pointing out that it's not a fact.




Can you think of any real world immunities?


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Can you think of any real world immunities?




Upper Krust is immune to schedules, completing a project, and good time management.


----------



## Borlon

On the subject of killing fire elementals with fire damage-

Human beings are powered by positive energy, and instead of being harmed by it, are actually healed.  If the core books were written from the perspective of an intelligent undead, this would definitely be a special quality.  But too much positive energy (e.g. exposure to the Positive Energy Plane) makes us blow up.

Although the mechanics are different, I could see an analogous principle at work with fire elementals and very intense fire damage.  They are made of fire and powered by fire, but a very intense fire will overwhelm their internal equilibrium and cause them to disperse.

That would be my rationale, anyway.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> U_K has never seen an SUV (that he can remember) and doesn't even know what they are (I had to look up what SUV meant).




That's why I gave a definition and quick description.  



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> As far as I know, a fire would be destroyed if attacked by a much hotter fire source. I'll try and find some websites on this.




I can't imagine that, aside from consuming its fuel or oxygen.  When dealing with magical creatures needing neither, I can't see it working.  When it does, I want Con damage instead of overcoming 50/100/150 points of resistance to deal normal damage.


----------



## Kerrick

> If you're referring to some of the stuff over on the WotC board, all the ones I can remember were about players bemoaning that their PC came up against a monster with an immunity to something they had. Not quite what I'd call a game-breaker.




No, I was referring to DMs bemoaning that they couldn't challenge their PCs because said PCs were immune to everything (see, eliminating energy immunity cuts both ways). 



> I say, one immunity, and one exception to it...after that, it should stop.




Well, see, that's the problem, again - despite the fact that it's common sense to most of us, some of us are either too dense or too naive to realize it, and thus perpetuate the never-ending cycle. 



> Any DM who makes it so that PC immunities destroy risk in the game isn't doing their job right. Likewise, having the monsters have immunities increases the risk.




Increase the risk of what? The PCs being frustrated because they can't kill/defeat the monster and giving up and going home?



> If you just sit back and wait, he'll never come up with anything. You must strike him daily with this bamboo switch or he will wander without end from subject to subject, never completing any, endlessly seizing on new cognitive fads and forever at the mercy of his flightful mind. For his own good, out of love, strike him. If you meet the Buddha on the road, you must kill him.




But if we kill him, he won't get _anything_ done. I prefer the idea of chasing him down the road, striking him with the bamboo switch.



> Assuming you mean the City of Brass, the city is an enclosed space (IIRC), so the outside fire doesn't get it, since the immunity of the city's borders keep it at bay.



No, the Plane of Fire in general. Besides, the sun's surface is several thousand degrees (30k?). That's the result of nuclear reactions (fission and fusion). How, exactly, does the Plane of Fire, being only fire, compare to that?



> But there is a lesson in that which endures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here.
Click to expand...



Oh, will you two stop swapping aphorisms? It's making my head hurt.

I was going to post more, but this discussion is starting to look like a tennis match, and frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Obviously, Alzrius, you think that we shouldn't tinker with things that "aren't broken," despite the fact that D&D is ever-evolving (and things that don't evolve, unless they have reached the perfect form, die out. D&D is nowhere near perfect, and thus is it still evolving. Why shouldn't we help it along? Isn't that human nature, to ask "why," to take things apart to see how they work and attempt to put them back together so they work better? Isn't it human nature to strive ever upwards, to seek perfection in all things? If we don't tinker with the underlying system of d20, we will never reach perfection. Who's to say how changing energy immunity will end up? Maybe it'll be thing that epic play needed. Maybe it won't. But we won't know for sure until we see how the whole works together. We won't know at all if UK decides "Screw this, I'm tired of hearing everyone arguing about it" and ditches the idea altogether. Everyone insisted that the world was flat, and yet Columbus sailed off to the New World and proved them wrong. 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Alzrius, but I think you're defending it a bit vociferously. You've stated your case and made your points - let it lie.

And finally...


> Although the mechanics are different, I could see an analogous principle at work with fire elementals and very intense fire damage. They are made of fire and powered by fire, but a very intense fire will overwhelm their internal equilibrium and cause them to disperse.




Yeah, I like that line of thought. Any fire hot enough to destroy a fire being in this manner is supernatural or magical in nature, thus it could overcome the magical resistance/immunity the creature has in the first place.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Iron doesn't even melt in lava! So its clear that the official rules in this matter are a bit mad.




Hence why I said that it'd be a good idea to increase the damage taken from being exposed to the Plane of Fire.



> _Well they didn't penetrate its damage reduction/hardness to find out whether it had regeneration or not._




Assuming that it wasn't just immune to damage. Major artifacts would lose a lot of their potency if epic/immortal PCs could just whack them into nothing.





> _But thats simply not true at all.
> 
> Immunities are more valuable, therefore they are going to be sought and prized above and beyond 'mere' resistances. _




If you remove immunities and replace them with high-level resistances, PCs will seek and prize them just as much as immunities, so we can say that your postulation there definately isn't true.

On the other hand, replacing monsters' immunities with resistances inarguably decreases their threat-potential.



> _Feel free to start listing off the 'outs' for DMs who run immortals using the immunities in D&Dg?_




Gods of higher rank, beings with immunity-breakers, major artifacts ("major artifact" is Latin for "plot device"), and the big one...damage of a type that they AREN'T immune to! Yes, there are still some of those...and all of those outs are just off the top of my head.



> _Theres equality for you. Now you can hamstring both the monsters and the PCs. _



You say it hamstrings the side that opposes creatures with immunities...I say, it makes it more challenging for them. And D&D is about escalating challenge. Heroes are made more heroic when winning is that much harder.



> _Hardly a creative solution.
> 
> Not to mention that an immortal has no need of a magic item to be immune to electricity._



Creativity comes from developing new ideas to overcome challenges, not from tearing down things that are slightly difficult to deal with. Likewise, immortals are immune to electricity, but epic mortals aren't, and that's half of epic/immortal gaming right there.

Likewise, if a DM has a big problem with immortal PCs being too powerful due to so many immunities, there's a simple answer...don't let them become gods! A 1000th-level character can put the smack down on most deities just fine.



> _Its his signature power. The idea that its pointless versus every immortal and practically every epic character is laughable._




Given that epic characters would most likely be relying on magic, which allows the _disjunction_ possibility I outlined before, that hardly seems laughable. As for it being useless versus immortals...have you forgotten that it works on deities of lesser divine ranks? Unless your entire party is DvR 19+, they're not inherently immune anyway. And if they are that strong, it seems to make sense that they'd shrug off his power.



> _Or, heres an idea, how about Zeus electrical attacks are just so powerful that they'll overcome the electricity resistance of most characters._




How about that makes his electrical attacks hideously unbalanced, then? A party of mixed characters (some have electricity resistance, some do not) will quickly divide up into those who only take some of the damage, and those who take all of it. E.g., if Zeus's lightning bolts deal 800 points of damage, the characters with electricity resistance 700 are facing a moderate threat...and those without any are facing a major threat. Being a god, Zeus quickly realizes who is more hurt, and focuses on the characters who take more damage. Said PCs are now facing a disproportionally deadlier encounter.



> _Indeed - they have an absolute built into the core of the system to begin with! _



Well yeah, hence why SKR wrote the article.   



> _If you abide by the D&Dg immunities thats going to be virtually the only remaing effective threat you will be able to use._




I disagree, see the outs listed above. Likewise, there can be epic monsters that have god-like abilities (by this, I mean virtual divine ranks) and so can overcome divine immunities of deities with lesser ranks. See the incredible work _Beyond the Gates of Hell_ over at DICEFREAKS for more on this.



> _Virtually all the monsters in the ELH are going to be totally neutered by D&Dg immortal PCs. Near all their special abilities will be rendered useless which basically takes away anything unique or cool about the monster in the first place.
> 
> I can't speak for Legends of Avadnu, but I would be amazed if there are more than 2 or 3 special abilities in the whole book that will bypass the basic immortals immunities.
> 
> As for my own Bestiary, one saving grace for it is that a lot of the monsters are essentially deities, the other is that I have a list of over 300 divine powers to draw upon, so I was able to instigate some new effects. But even then most of the monsters suffer._




Almost none of those monsters are meant to be facing immortal PCs, just epic ones. Don't tout their being meant for something different as a flaw of the system, because it isn't.



> _Its the PCs who are going to be immune to (next to) everything, which means that not even epic monsters will constitute a challenge._




Considering that you've said immortal PCs are above epic ones, it doesn't seem odd that monsters that are merely "epic" won't threaten immortal PCs. This isn't anything immortal monsters (or epic monsters of a much higher caliber) couldn't solve.



> _Obviously the campaign world is a FAR more dangerous place when the PCs are not immune to 95% of special abilities._




And just as obviously, a *much* less dangerous place when you can say the same thing about the monsters.



> _Its self-defeating to have something penetrate an immunity in a system that purports infinite scope._




Only if someone lets it get to the point of being infinite. DMs are not hamstrung in regards to their game being just that..._their_ game.



> _We will see when you list the 'outs' above._




Enjoy!  



> _I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here._




If you take yourself too seriously, no one will.



> _I'm talking about D&Dg immortal PCs having so many immunities that virtually the entire roster of monsters are bringing no valid special abilities to bear._




And I'm talking about all monsters, across the board, having no immunities, and their resistances not being nearly enough to stop them from thusly becoming much too easy to kill.



> _If we use common sense we don't use fire immunity and we don't need MegaFlames then we don't need MegaFlames immunity, continue ad infinitum._



If we use common sense, we use immunity, we use immunity breakers, and we chose to stop at a point before it gets ridiculous, instead of having to revise the entire system.



> _I think designers have to pandour to all roleplayers, not just the good ones._



You seem to be suggesting that game designers are intentionally creating bad products to appeal to the bad gamers...which sounds rather crazy.



> _You've ruined this whole thread you know. _




Wow, even the first 20+ pages? Longest thread I've ever ruined!   



> _Immunities are one part of Absolutes. He addressed the whole rather than the specific. You can't say, "Well he only spoke about Immunities for 25% of his article so they must be 75% okay by him!" _




And the only thing we've been discussing is the part of his article specific to the question of immunities in the system. Hence why I said that.



> _He was also directly against the illogic of immunities *at all*, not simply endless reversals._




A large part of his impetus for that stance was as a reaction against infinite reversals...which seems to be lacking as true necessity to institute such a large change.



> _Gaming supplements are DM aides. The designer does the donkey work so the DM won't have to. Same thing here. _




It's not donkey work for the DM to approve or disapprove something a player brings to his table.



> _Super Underwater Vorlons?   _




I love that show.   



> _Time will tell._




Indeed.



> _You're certainly entitled to be wrong if you so wish. _




I've chosen to waive that entitlement...hence why I'm right.   



> _Can you think of any real world immunities?_




No, but please do point out some real world gods who only have high resistances and not immunities. And we all know that if it doesn't happen in the real world, it can NEVER happen in D&D.


----------



## Alzrius

Kerrick said:
			
		

> No, I was referring to DMs bemoaning that they couldn't challenge their PCs because said PCs were immune to everything (see, eliminating energy immunity cuts both ways).




No PC is ever immune to everything. Sorry, but those sound like bad DMs to me.



> _Well, see, that's the problem, again - despite the fact that it's common sense to most of us, some of us are either too dense or too naive to realize it, and thus perpetuate the never-ending cycle. _




That's not a problem as far as the system is concerned. Revamping part of the game because some people don't know how to play is madness.



> _Increase the risk of what? The PCs being frustrated because they can't kill/defeat the monster and giving up and going home?_




If a player is having a hard time killing the monster, and finds that to be enough reason to leave the gaming table, then IMHO, they're not very good players.



> _No, the Plane of Fire in general. Besides, the sun's surface is several thousand degrees (30k?). That's the result of nuclear reactions (fission and fusion). How, exactly, does the Plane of Fire, being only fire, compare to that?_




I'll tell you exactly how the physics of the Plane of Fire top that...as soon as one is discovered.

Comparing the science of our sun to a fantasy realm is always doomed to be a foolish comparison. It can only be done as an art, not a science. And the art of it is that the Plane of Fire is the primal source of all fire, all heat, in existence. As such, there shouldn't be a naturally-occuring body of fire that is hotter than it.



> _Oh, will you two stop swapping aphorisms? It's making my head hurt._




But I've never gotten such use out of my copy of Bartlett's.



> _I was going to post more, but this discussion is starting to look like a tennis match
> 
> [...]
> 
> Everyone insisted that the world was flat, and yet Columbus sailed off to the New World and proved them wrong._




Everyone also insisted that the gods moved the heavens, and yet Aristotle explained how the skies were the result of the celestial spheres...and he was dead wrong.



> _You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Alzrius, but I think you're defending it a bit vociferously. You've stated your case and made your points - let it lie._




I'm giving as good as I'm getting, and I'm enjoying having such a lively debate, especially since we've kept it to the realm of "nice". I don't see the problem.

Besides...it's U_K's serve.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Pssthpok mate!
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake. That +4 was for all attacks. If I was making it only applicable to one attack per round then I would suggest a +20 Dodge bonus.





Hey hey, UK.

+20 to one... that should handle most things within CR-reach and implement a pretty much no-hit policy on a single bad guy once per round, yet still leave room for someone to come in from 'on high' and layeth the smack down. Nice. I'll have to consider it for our games, tho.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Borlon dude! 



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> On the subject of killing fire elementals with fire damage-
> 
> Human beings are powered by positive energy, and instead of being harmed by it, are actually healed.  If the core books were written from the perspective of an intelligent undead, this would definitely be a special quality.  But too much positive energy (e.g. exposure to the Positive Energy Plane) makes us blow up.
> 
> Although the mechanics are different, I could see an analogous principle at work with fire elementals and very intense fire damage.  They are made of fire and powered by fire, but a very intense fire will overwhelm their internal equilibrium and cause them to disperse.
> 
> That would be my rationale, anyway.




Thats pretty much it in a nutshell. The more you heat something the more you disperse its molecules...even fire itself.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Alzrius matey! 

Not that it hasn't been fun but we are going to have to start boiling this discussion down to the key elements. 

I think part of the problem is that I am trying to entertain the idea that power doesn't really have limits. But once you invite the idea of Absolutes into your game you impose limits.

By the way have you had a chance to read the "Intercontinental Union of Disgusting Characters" yet?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hence why I said that it'd be a good idea to increase the damage taken from being exposed to the Plane of Fire.




Two wrongs don't make a right. Why the heck would you increase the fire damage to the point where it would logically melt metal when we know that metal is not supposed to melt on the Plane of Fire in the first place (certain very hot locations being the exception). Its called the City of Brass, not the City of Fire Immune Brass.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Assuming that it wasn't just immune to damage. Major artifacts would lose a lot of their potency if epic/immortal PCs could just whack them into nothing.




Exactly, which is why I never suggested that. What I suggested was the possibility that artifacts could be broken into pieces but that the pieces would reform unless taken and hidden away. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> If you remove immunities and replace them with high-level resistances, PCs will seek and prize them just as much as immunities, so we can say that your postulation there definately isn't true.




How is resistance as powerful as an immunity?

Isn't having resistances more likely to favour players being forced into making tactical decisions, since they don't add the complacency that immunities bring to the game.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> On the other hand, replacing monsters' immunities with resistances inarguably decreases their threat-potential.




I'm not suggesting remove the monsters immunities and leave the PCs immunities intact! The changes would affect both sides and if anything its likely to be the PCs who feel the brunt of the changes.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Gods of higher rank, beings with immunity-breakers, major artifacts ("major artifact" is Latin for "plot device"), and the big one...damage of a type that they AREN'T immune to! Yes, there are still some of those...and all of those outs are just off the top of my head.




So we can go ahead and disregard every monster book, including the Epic Level Handbook, (and Legends of Avadnu?), and all the non-deities from the IH:Bestiary then?

Heres an idea - why don't we just assume that every epic character, monster, item (etc.) has the immunity breaker, but that immunity breakers don't work on resistances - fair enough? 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> You say it hamstrings the side that opposes creatures with immunities...I say, it makes it more challenging for them. And D&D is about escalating challenge. Heroes are made more heroic when winning is that much harder.




So its somehow harder for heroes when they are immune to virtually everything the monsters can throw at them? I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Creativity comes from developing new ideas to overcome challenges, not from tearing down things that are slightly difficult to deal with.




An immunity is not a challenge, its the removal of a potential challenge.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Likewise, immortals are immune to electricity, but epic mortals aren't, and that's half of epic/immortal gaming right there.




Rings of Universal Elemental Immunity will be considered standard equipment by the time you can afford one.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Likewise, if a DM has a big problem with immortal PCs being too powerful due to so many immunities, there's a simple answer...don't let them become gods!




Sort of takes the sting out of Immortal Gaming when you disallow PCs from becoming deities - don't you think? 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> A 1000th-level character can put the smack down on most deities just fine.




I'm sorry, all the 1000th-level characters were killed by a deity using its Life or Death Salient Divine Ability. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Given that epic characters would most likely be relying on magic, which allows the _disjunction_ possibility I outlined before, that hardly seems laughable. As for it being useless versus immortals...




Why would the deity even bother with disjunction when it can just cast Anti-magic Field (to which it is immune) and then just laugh at that epic PC thats much higher level than it.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> have you forgotten that it works on deities of lesser divine ranks? Unless your entire party is DvR 19+, they're not inherently immune anyway. And if they are that strong, it seems to make sense that they'd shrug off his power.




Isn't that option a bit limiting? I mean if the only option is to challenge the PCs with higher ranked deities (wherein the PCs immunities are removed) how is this any different from removing the immunities in the first place (except that doing the latter allows you to utilise all potential adversaries, not just higher ranked deities)!?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> How about that makes his electrical attacks hideously unbalanced, then? A party of mixed characters (some have electricity resistance, some do not) will quickly divide up into those who only take some of the damage, and those who take all of it. E.g., if Zeus's lightning bolts deal 800 points of damage, the characters with electricity resistance 700 are facing a moderate threat...and those without any are facing a major threat. Being a god, Zeus quickly realizes who is more hurt, and focuses on the characters who take more damage. Said PCs are now facing a disproportionally deadlier encounter.




As opposed to what? Zeus realising his lightning is useless, switches to melee, attacks each character and then concentrates upon the character he was able to hit the easiest. Is the character with the lowest AC now facing a disproportionally deadlier encounter?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree, see the outs listed above. Likewise, there can be epic monsters that have god-like abilities (by this, I mean virtual divine ranks) and so can overcome divine immunities of deities with lesser ranks. See the incredible work _Beyond the Gates of Hell_ over at DICEFREAKS for more on this.




See two points up about why using progressively higher divine ranks (virtual or otherwise) is not the solution.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Almost none of those monsters are meant to be facing immortal PCs, just epic ones. Don't tout their being meant for something different as a flaw of the system, because it isn't.




We are talking about using monsters within the PCs CR bracket. However with so many immunities in play it lopsides the whole process.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Considering that you've said immortal PCs are above epic ones,




They are above epic PCs of the same level certainly. I never said it was a black and white situation...although I am sure you would never jump to that conclusion. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> it doesn't seem odd that monsters that are merely "epic" won't threaten immortal PCs.




Epic is just an adjective. The problem is going to be with the situational modifiers for having so many immunities totally messing with your challenge ratings.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> This isn't anything immortal monsters (or epic monsters of a much higher caliber) couldn't solve.




See above for why this solution doesn't work.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> If you take yourself too seriously, no one will.




He who laughs last...



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> And I'm talking about all monsters, across the board, having no immunities, and their resistances not being nearly enough to stop them from thusly becoming much too easy to kill.




Its not really a poignant concern for monsters. A Fire Giant having Fire Resistance 100 instead of Fire Immunity is not going to make any real difference to how challenging it is. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> If we use common sense, we use immunity, we use immunity breakers, and we chose to stop at a point before it gets ridiculous, instead of having to revise the entire system.




If we use common sense we remove immunities altogether. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> You seem to be suggesting that game designers are intentionally creating bad products to appeal to the bad gamers...which sounds rather crazy.




No, I'm suggesting that once 4th Edition comes along the bulk of game designers will design for that.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Wow, even the first 20+ pages? Longest thread I've ever ruined!




I find that difficult to believe. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> No, but please do point out some real world gods who only have high resistances and not immunities. And we all know that if it doesn't happen in the real world, it can NEVER happen in D&D.




So do you get the luxury of answering a question with a question and I don't?


----------



## Anabstercorian

This whole line of inquiry is foolish.  Upper Krust, you win the argument!  Alzrius, you lose!  Upper Krust, finish the book or I'll break your knees.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> This whole line of inquiry is foolish.  Upper Krust, you win the argument!  Alzrius, you lose!




I know that, but Alzrius still hasn't realised it.   



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Upper Krust, finish the book or I'll break your knees.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Kerrick said:
			
		

> No, the Plane of Fire in general. Besides, the sun's surface is several thousand degrees (30k?). That's the result of nuclear reactions (fission and fusion). How, exactly, does the Plane of Fire, being only fire, compare to that?




There's no fission in the sun -- and why would there be?  It's endothermic for all elements as light or lighter than iron.  It's all fusion in the sun.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hence why I said that it'd be a good idea to increase the damage taken from being exposed to the Plane of Fire[...] Well yeah, hence why SKR wrote the article.   [...] Hence why I said that[...] I've chosen to waive that entitlement...hence why I'm right.




Please note "hence why" is redundant.  "Hence I said it'd be a good idea" (_et al._) suffices.   



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> If you remove immunities and replace them with high-level resistances, PCs will seek and prize them just as much as immunities, so we can say that your postulation there definately isn't true.




I don't think they'll prize them as much as immunities, although they'll try to get them nontheless.  The problem with immunities here is that with any fixed price, PCs of a sufficiently high level are almost guarenteed to have the immunity, which changes the landscape of challenges.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> On the other hand, replacing monsters' immunities with resistances inarguably decreases their threat-potential.




Certainly this is true.  Of course, it also gives PCs more options, which can be both good and bad.  In the extreme case, where monsters are immune to too much as a baseline, the game becomes less fun.  In the other extreme, where monsters aren't immune to what they "should" sensibly be immune to, players get a sense of sameness -- everything burns, everything freezes, etc.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> How about that makes his electrical attacks hideously unbalanced, then? A party of mixed characters (some have electricity resistance, some do not) will quickly divide up into those who only take some of the damage, and those who take all of it. E.g., if Zeus's lightning bolts deal 800 points of damage, the characters with electricity resistance 700 are facing a moderate threat...and those without any are facing a major threat. Being a god, Zeus quickly realizes who is more hurt, and focuses on the characters who take more damage. Said PCs are now facing a disproportionally deadlier encounter.




This is a valid point.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I disagree, see the outs listed above. Likewise, there can be epic monsters that have god-like abilities (by this, I mean virtual divine ranks) and so can overcome divine immunities of deities with lesser ranks. See the incredible work _Beyond the Gates of Hell_ over at DICEFREAKS for more on this.




I think this is a terrible, senseless, flavor-destroying system.  You're immune to most everything or nothing; it's like 2E weapon immunity, which was worse than 3.0 damage reduction, which was less flavorful than 3.5 damage reduction.

But that's just my opinion.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> A large part of his impetus for that stance was as a reaction against infinite reversals...which seems to be lacking as true necessity to institute such a large change.




It'd not a large part of his stance -- it's a sidebar presented as an "exaggeration" and a "corner case".



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> If we use common sense, we use immunity, we use immunity breakers, and we chose to stop at a point before it gets ridiculous, instead of having to revise the entire system.




If the idea of infinite reversals was the real problem, then that would be a fair point.  It's not; no one is seriously suggesting that.  How do you react to this more salient quote from Sean's article:

"The dorky thing about the actual feat that Megaflames is based on is that it doesn't increase your fire damage against anything but fire-immune creatures ... so your "super-hot" fire spells don't do any more fire damage to 99% of your targets!"

That seems much more relevant and interesting, and makes a better point against Megaflames IMO.


----------



## Farealmer3

I agree with Upper Krust, i have seen how bad immunities can get. But for me 2 practical reasons exist.

1. Immunities make skill at an ability useless as an immunity basically means no matter how good you are you cannot effect it(it creates the DvR 6 troll god with divine fire mastery problem).

2. This is bigger than D&D the system it uses is D20 which represents many games that now have tons of immunities floating around thanks to the badly designed immunity system.

Now for the One ring, it could handled that by saying that the ring has "unbeatable"(1000) resistance to all damage, except where it was forged. That simple, so if you run an uber game you could destroy it outright, but since most people aren't, they have to do it the hard way. 

But i believe force should always be an option the only matter is how much. It reminds me of the Batman beyond series when this guy had a suit that repelled matter and energy. So Batman captured him using NASA super steel and said that the metal was unbreakable. The suit guy then told him as he slowly broke out that nothing is unbreakable if you apply enough force. That is a good example of how i see immunities, not unbreakable, just needing more force to overcome.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Wolv0rine dude!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think fire damage would continue to burn you, flesh would melt rather than burn, hair might burn, some clothes perhaps. Acid and Fire damage may heal much slower than normal wounds...?
> 
> I think creating optional damage structures for each of the energy types might be interesting, although its not my priority at the moment.



To paraphrase your own catch-phrase, UK, it's all a matter of scale.  Yeah, flesh will melt *if[/b[ it takes enough damage.  But if the flame breath of the red dragon doesn't melt you into goo, it makes sense that having just been bathed in fire you (and your clothes, gear, etc) would continue to be aflame until you were put out (or until the fire just kind of petered out, but That is asking a LOT of the d20 system).  It's not so much adding damage structures as taking the existing damage form to it's logical next step.  If doused with acid, the acid doesn't cease to be acidic after the initial splash, you're going to be burned until it's washed off.
That said, like I added before, if one isn't inclined to go that far, it's kind of silly to begin the process.  I'm just pointing it out. *


----------



## Farealmer3

Another thing about immunity that bothers me is that most are supernatural, yet they are labled extraordinary. For example a dragon(according to the Draconomican) is immune to energy because of a tie with the elemental planes the same reason they have breath weapons. So despite the fact that both powers come from the same source one is magical and the other is not? In a magical world something either is made of a substance that resists fire(fire resistence). Or it is never burned because of a magical reason(immunity), because all mundane flesh burns, if it doesn't magic is involved. And thus the immunity is supernatural, yet for "some reason" it is not. It's like regeneration healing heads and the knowledge in the brain cells, yet not be magical?

It should be noted that i think a fire elemental not only should be immune to fire but healed by it. It seems stupid that a fire rat(MM2) is healed by fire yet a creature made from it isn't.


----------



## Sledge

I've gotta throw my 2 cents in here.  I have in a few sessions removed "immunities and made them resistances, because you either end up in situations where player X is useless against a huge list of opponents and is very frustrated, or you strike those opponents from the list.  It is like taking several wizards up against golems.  One encounter is a challenge.  But 1 encounter out of 10 gets to be a nuisance, and if you have a savvy opponent it SHOULD be 1 encounter out of every 2 wherein the party is annoyed.  Immunities suck and get to just be a nuisance.  No benefit from them.  Plenty from their removal.  This isn't me just talking this is my experiences with currently a 15th level group, and 16th (should be 17 tomorrow) in addition to the epic group which will finally get going again after I get Labyrinth of Madness set up right.


----------



## Farealmer3

Sledge reminded me of something. Doesn't it seem stupid that a mortal mage can make a creature immune to magic, yet a god cannot make it'self immune. After all what better way for a fighter god to overcome it's greatest weakness(or a mage god with peircing, bludgeoning, and slashing immunity)? And that another problem with immunities, they should be easier to acquire with magic, but most creatures don't have them, not because they wouldn't but because designers don't give it to them. Thats another reason why i want most immunities gone, if they aren't there, you don't have to ask why every powerhouse doesn't have them.

You can say a DM has a duty to ref, and i agree to a point, but if you have to balance the black and white, then it isn't balanced. By the rules you can become invincible, so thats all the proof i need to judge immunities unbalanced. The rules need to do one of 3 things.
1. Limit immunities
2. Remove them
3. Give them layers
Personally i use a little of all three, but i'am just complicated like that.


----------



## Alzrius

Blech, I was going to respond point-for-point again, but with everyone calling for an end to this, it wouldn't be fun anymore. In the spirit of keeping things from becoming an actual arguement, I'll let it go...for now.

But I know I'm right.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> It should be noted that i think a fire elemental not only should be immune to fire but healed by it. It seems stupid that a fire rat(MM2) is healed by fire yet a creature made from it isn't.




I agree with you on this point, for an important reason that comic-book minded Upper_Krust isn't likely to give proper due: in my campaign physics is simply fundamentally different from real-world physics (not just 'scaled' differently like U_K's high/low-factor with a patina of magic).  The Stefan-Boltzman Law doesn't work, objects fall (proportional to their weight) because "down" is their natural place instead of gravity mutually attracting them, there are only 4-6 kinds of atoms instead of 110+, there's no Plank temperture/length.etc., the world is flat, the universe is geocentric, the stars are close enough that legendary archers have hit them (they're not nearly as hot as out stars, either), the moons are sentient, et. al.

Fire simply won't harm "fire" creatures; it wouldn't be in its own best interests to do so.  It exists to fight its age-old grudge match and can't be distracted with hurting its own.


----------



## CRGreathouse

--deleted--


----------



## Impeesa

Say, you know what would be great? If someone would write a book covering all aspects of playing and running a deity-level campaign within the _Dungeons & Dragons_ rules. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Anabstercorian

Impeesa said:
			
		

> Say, you know what would be great? If someone would write a book covering all aspects of playing and running a deity-level campaign within the _Dungeons & Dragons_ rules.
> 
> --Impeesa--




What a fantastical idea!  Surely it will never come to pass, though.    If only there was someone out there... who was actually writing this book!  And had been for years!  And planned to finish it within the next couple of months lest his knees be pounded flat!


----------



## Impeesa

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> What a fantastical idea!  Surely it will never come to pass, though.    If only there was someone out there... who was actually writing this book!  And had been for years!  And planned to finish it within the next couple of months lest his knees be pounded flat!




I hear rumors of one, but the more I hear, the more it sounds like not so much D&D any more. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Zoatebix

Yay for UK and AZ stopping!  Yay for CRG being cool!  Boo for no one else mentioning Alton Brown's cooking show!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

I just updated the website with the second part of the rant on absolutes, this time critical hits get the treatment.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi all!
> 
> I just updated the website with the second part of the rant on absolutes, this time critical hits get the treatment.




I like the added flavor of the new rules, but they sure seem to make high-threat range weapons weak compared to high-critical weapons.  I think the rules are fine -- although as a quibble, I'd prefer to call these (fragile/mechanism/solid/etc.) special qualities rather than subtypes.


----------



## Fieari

I'm glad you tackled fortification.  A while back, when the "100th level character" threads were going around, I compared one such character someone made to an appropriate challenge from the Bestiary, and was dismayed to realize that ALL that sneak attack damage your monster had was worthless because of fortification armor, which any character could be expected to possess at that level (they have MORE than enough expected wealth at that point).  That just didn't seem right.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi guys! 

I'm not 100% sure I have the balance for these new rules perfect as yet.

The mechanics between threat and multiplier are balanced, however, when you factor in Damage Reduction they start to favour the high critical multipliers.

Its possible the Sneak Attack damage should be reduced by 3 dice for every 2 points the targets critical multiplier is reduced.

Its possible the Death Attack save bonus should be +3 for every point the targets critical multiplier is reduced.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'm not 100% sure I have the balance for these new rules perfect as yet.
> 
> The mechanics between threat and multiplier are balanced, however, when you factor in Damage Reduction they start to favour the high critical multipliers.




At the moment the mechanics strongly favor high multipliers.  If that's a concern to you, you'll need to do something about the basic system, because everything at the moment favors high multipliers:

High threat ranges are less useful when there are more ways to increase the range;
Low multipliers are hurt more than high multipliers by directly subtracting from the multiplier; and
Low multipliers have trouble penetrating DR.

Note that the situation is reversed if most creatures encountered are fragile (longsword then has 19/x4 vs. 20/x5 for an axe, making the sword half again as good in critical terms), but I suspect this will make up a smaller proportion of encounters than those resisting crits to some degree.

One possible method of handling this would be a raw multiplier of the critical damage, but this may put you back where you were before mechanically.  I don't know.

Conceptually, what is a creature "doing" when it gets a crit for more than x1 damage on a "solid" creature?  Why does the hit do more damage when there are no working parts?  I have some trouble understanding this, and a lot of trouble understanding why sneak attack should work.


Further, while I abstractly agree that Inevitables (along with many/most constructs) should be subject to critical hits, I'll note they aren't balanced for this extra damage since they have no Con modifier.  This may need to be addressed, especially since you have a hardline interpretation on Hit Dice (and as such aren't likely to increase them to compensate).


----------



## Fieari

I think I can answer the conceptual part.  Even though there are no working parts, there will be locations that will cause more structural damage than others.  In a golem, for instance, it would likely be more damaging to strike at one of the joints, where the material is somewhat thinner and more prone to break, simply by nature of there being less material there and that location being important for locomotion.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Fieari said:
			
		

> I think I can answer the conceptual part.  Even though there are no working parts, there will be locations that will cause more structural damage than others.  In a golem, for instance, it would likely be more damaging to strike at one of the joints, where the material is somewhat thinner and more prone to break, simply by nature of there being less material there and that location being important for locomotion.




1. Why would a structural weak point (like a hinge/joint/etc.) be unaffected (x1 damage) by a sword or axe but strongly affected (double damage) by a pick or scythe?  That doesn't make sense to me.
2. What about an ooze, where there are no structural weak points at all?


----------



## Sledge

Okay keen/impact is +1
rending is +2

opening/striking is +6
shredding is +6

shouldn't opening/striking be +3 or so?


----------



## Sledge

the opening and superior crit both say triple.  This is meant to use the "d&d math" right?  Together they give a 5 times right?  If so it might be best to use the actual x3 notation in the write ups or better yet give clarification that critical range multipliers stack like other multipliers.

p.s. it's really hard to navigate around the site still.  The titles of sections don't lend to easy surfing.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi CRGreathouse mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> At the moment the mechanics strongly favor high multipliers.  If that's a concern to you, you'll need to do something about the basic system, because everything at the moment favors high multipliers:
> 
> High threat ranges are less useful when there are more ways to increase the range;






The same could be said for the ability to increase critical multiplier. So I'm not sure I see that as an issue.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> [*]Low multipliers are hurt more than high multipliers by directly subtracting from the multiplier; and




Initially I was contemplating this as a fraction, rather than a penalty.

eg. Solid 1/2, Liquid 1/3, Gaseous 1/4, Incandescent 1/5 etc.

What do you think? 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> [*]Low multipliers have trouble penetrating DR.




This assumes DR is standard, but I think we pretty much have to assume it will be standard, certainly at epic levels.

That said, remember we are talking about critical hits here, not base damage. If someone is having trouble penetrating a given DR, then increasing the critical multiplier is only going to help them rather than hinder them. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Note that the situation is reversed if most creatures encountered are fragile (longsword then has 19/x4 vs. 20/x5 for an axe, making the sword half again as good in critical terms), but I suspect this will make up a smaller proportion of encounters than those resisting crits to some degree.
> 
> One possible method of handling this would be a raw multiplier of the critical damage, but this may put you back where you were before mechanically.  I don't know.




I know. Its a puzzle all right. I don't see how it can be balanced if we make it a flat increase across all weapons though.

Maybe a +1, +3/2, +2 method would be better, but that seems a bit awkward.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Conceptually, what is a creature "doing" when it gets a crit for more than x1 damage on a "solid" creature?  Why does the hit do more damage when there are no working parts?  I have some trouble understanding this, and a lot of trouble understanding why sneak attack should work.




Any solid object certainly has weak points (as Fieari has touched upon).

When I think of a critical hit upon a liquid based monster I think of the grenade hit to the T-1000 in Terminator 2. Although you could also have any blow which manages to seperate, or displace a significant portion of the liquid mass from the main 'whole'.

For gas based monsters, again you want an effect that going to disturb as much of it as possible. 

For incandescent creatures you probably want the blows to smother as much of it as you can.

Remember that with something like a fire or water elemental, we are already assuming they can be hurt by weapons, so its not so great a stretch to assume some people know how to hurt them better than others.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Further, while I abstractly agree that Inevitables (along with many/most constructs) should be subject to critical hits, I'll note they aren't balanced for this extra damage since they have no Con modifier.  This may need to be addressed, especially since you have a hardline interpretation on Hit Dice (and as such aren't likely to increase them to compensate).




Sticking to the letter of the law, Inevitables are clockwork creatures, which means they are not solid, but rather a mechanism, not doubt with certain cogs and springs more important than others.

But I take your point about lacking Constitution. According to my Monster Manual 3, Warforged actually have a Constitution score so this would seem to be the appropriate course of action.

Kolyarut: Con 11
Marut: Con 20
Zelekhut: Con 14
Quarut: Con 14
Varakhut: Con 14


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Okay keen/impact is +1
> rending is +2
> 
> opening/striking is +6
> shredding is +6
> 
> shouldn't opening/striking be +3 or so?




No. Although its possible Rending should be +3. A +1 critical multiplier increase to a base threat of 20 is worth a +1 market modifier.

We are allowing the ability to increase once normally, then once more at divine levels (represented by a +6 bonus), then once more at cosmic levels.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> the opening and superior crit both say triple.  This is meant to use the "d&d math" right?  Together they give a 5 times right?  If so it might be best to use the actual x3 notation in the write ups or better yet give clarification that critical range multipliers stack like other multipliers.




Together? Opening is for slashing/piercing weapons and striking is for crushing weapons...maybe I didn't make that clear enough...?



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> p.s. it's really hard to navigate around the site still.  The titles of sections don't lend to easy surfing.




Do the rollovers not work for you? When you position the mouse over a link you should get the more obvious section name...a bit like the monsters in the bestiary having both esoteric and common names. I thought the idea was kinda neat.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The same could be said for the ability to increase critical multiplier. So I'm not sure I see that as an issue.




There's a natural limit to threat ranges beyond which they have no effect. If you can only hit on a 10, dropping your threat range below that is pointless.  Since as you always say, fights at higher levels involve hitting your opponent more times, the chance of 'wasting' damage by getting a huge crit is slim.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Initially I was contemplating this as a fraction, rather than a penalty.
> 
> eg. Solid 1/2, Liquid 1/3, Gaseous 1/4, Incandescent 1/5 etc.
> 
> What do you think?




That does balance better across weapons.  I don't know how I like it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> This assumes DR is standard, but I think we pretty much have to assume it will be standard, certainly at epic levels.
> 
> That said, remember we are talking about critical hits here, not base damage. If someone is having trouble penetrating a given DR, then increasing the critical multiplier is only going to help them rather than hinder them.




I'm just saying that low-crit weapons will fare poorly under a subtractive system.  Even with increases they'll have trouble doing more than x1 or x2.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Any solid object certainly has weak points (as Fieari has touched upon).
> 
> When I think of a critical hit upon a liquid based monster I think of the grenade hit to the T-1000 in Terminator 2. Although you could also have any blow which manages to seperate, or displace a significant portion of the liquid mass from the main 'whole'.
> 
> For gas based monsters, again you want an effect that going to disturb as much of it as possible.
> 
> For incandescent creatures you probably want the blows to smother as much of it as you can.




So a pick is good at smothering and disturbing plasma/gas creatures?  Why are picks better than swords at these varied functions?  It makes no sense.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But I take your point about lacking Constitution. According to my Monster Manual 3, Warforged actually have a Constitution score so this would seem to be the appropriate course of action.
> 
> Kolyarut: Con 11
> Marut: Con 20
> Zelekhut: Con 14
> Quarut: Con 14
> Varakhut: Con 14




Fair enough.


----------



## Sledge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hello again!
> Together? Opening is for slashing/piercing weapons and striking is for crushing weapons...maybe I didn't make that clear enough...?
> Do the rollovers not work for you? When you position the mouse over a link you should get the more obvious section name...a bit like the monsters in the bestiary having both esoteric and common names. I thought the idea was kinda neat.



Umm nope the rollovers don't work.

Anyway my point wasn't the enhancement titles.  Its just that I've already had to explain to someone that the two items that triple the crit range should have their triples added together using the usually d&d math into a single 5x.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey dude! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> There's a natural limit to threat ranges beyond which they have no effect. If you can only hit on a 10, dropping your threat range below that is pointless.  Since as you always say, fights at higher levels involve hitting your opponent more times, the chance of 'wasting' damage by getting a huge crit is slim.




Doesn't this imply a sort of universal AC or static to hit bonuses?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> That does balance better across weapons.  I don't know how I like it.




I'm not sure on it myself. Percentages are sort of like mini-absolutes in a way.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that low-crit weapons will fare poorly under a subtractive system. Even with increases they'll have trouble doing more than x1 or x2.




Unless we were to make all the increases even.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> So a pick is good at smothering and disturbing plasma/gas creatures?  Why are picks better than swords at these varied functions?  It makes no sense.




Well a pick is certainly good at smashing solid objects. A crushing weapon would certainly be good at displacing liquid.

However I see your point. Being able to critical hit such creatures seems more like a talent in itself than simply a matter of power.

It might be better to have a series of feats that allow characters to be able to hurt solid, liquid, gaseous or incandescent creatures with critical hits. The ability to crit solid creatures/objects could be a non-epic feat, but the rest would be epic.

Then on the side we could still allow characters to increase their critical hit power.

This sort of does seem like an absolute though.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Umm nope the rollovers don't work.




Now I am talking about the list of 10 options at the top of every page, are you saying none of the rollowvers work for you?   

Can no one else see them?



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Anyway my point wasn't the enhancement titles.  Its just that I've already had to explain to someone that the two items that triple the crit range should have their triples added together using the usually d&d math into a single 5x.




This is true if we are adding one of the weapon abilities with the divine ability.

But I originally got the impression you thought both opening and striking stacked with each other - which they don't.


----------



## Sledge

No I meant opening/striking. 

Meanwhile I'm really thinking that any crit reducers should reduce the multiplier OR the the range.  Not just one.


----------



## Sledge

The options on the top do not change for me.  They just list the obscure name.

btw I'm told that your CSS files are both broken links.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Now I am talking about the list of 10 options at the top of every page, are you saying none of the rollowvers work for you?
> 
> Can no one else see them?




I can see them.  Maybe it's just Internet Explorer -- I know it doesn't display the titles for all tags, so maybe that's the problem.  Sledge, what browser are you using?

In any case Sledge's point about CSS is valid, as I noticed just a few days ago.  What do you write you page with?  Maybe I can help you with the CSS/HTML.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Doesn't this imply a sort of universal AC or static to hit bonuses?




No.  Threat ranges are expressed in terms relative to your attack score -- 17-20 means that if you have a +30 attack bonus you threat on 47 to 50.  Against ACs 47 or less you have the same chance to threat, but once you're fighting creatures with higher ACs your range is restricted.  You can fight that just by increasing your attack bonus -- no need for more feats.

Since it scales like that, the maximum threat range is 2-20 no matter what you do.  There's no upper bound on the crit multiplier, and the crit multiplier isn't likely to be wasted like threat range.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Unless we were to make all the increases even.




Huh? 

What does that have to do with the fact that fighting a liquid (-4) creature a longsword won't do anything on a crit?  Without your Overwhelming Critical it can't even crit a solid (-2) creature.  Heck, Obliterating Critical will only let it do double damage. A pick, on the other hand, can crit solid creatures with no feat and liquid creatures with just your Overwhelming Critical epic feat.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> No I meant opening/striking.
> 
> Meanwhile I'm really thinking that any crit reducers should reduce the multiplier OR the the range.  Not just one.




That could be complicated.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> The options on the top do not change for me. They just list the obscure name.
> 
> btw I'm told that your CSS files are both broken links.




 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I can see them. Maybe it's just Internet Explorer -- I know it doesn't display the titles for all tags, so maybe that's the problem. Sledge, what browser are you using?
> 
> In any case Sledge's point about CSS is valid, as I noticed just a few days ago. What do you write you page with? Maybe I can help you with the CSS/HTML.




I'm using dreamweaver mx.

Okay I am confused about this CSS problem - exactly what is wrong?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> No.  Threat ranges are expressed in terms relative to your attack score -- 17-20 means that if you have a +30 attack bonus you threat on 47 to 50.  Against ACs 47 or less you have the same chance to threat, but once you're fighting creatures with higher ACs your range is restricted.  You can fight that just by increasing your attack bonus -- no need for more feats.
> 
> Since it scales like that, the maximum threat range is 2-20 no matter what you do.  There's no upper bound on the crit multiplier, and the crit multiplier isn't likely to be wasted like threat range.




Ah, right, now I see the point you were trying to make.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> What does that have to do with the fact that fighting a liquid (-4) creature a longsword won't do anything on a crit?  Without your Overwhelming Critical it can't even crit a solid (-2) creature.  Heck, Obliterating Critical will only let it do double damage. A pick, on the other hand, can crit solid creatures with no feat and liquid creatures with just your Overwhelming Critical epic feat.




My apologies, I sort of meant in tandem with my last point in the post you had quoted me from.

In that we make the ability to crit a solid a feat in itself...although seemingly this is where it all goes 'pear shaped' and the critical multiplier idea seems to fall apart.

I'm wondering what the relationship is between real damage and critical damage.


----------



## Sledge

basically what I'm saying is that if a weapon is increased 6-20/x4 then you would reduced the crit range before you reduced the multiplier.  In other words this weapon would be 12-20/x4.  Against liquid it would be 15-20/x3 and against gaseous it would be 18-20/x2.  Incandescent would be uncrittable to this weapon.  Make any sense?


----------



## Kerrick

> I just updated the website with the second part of the rant on absolutes, this time critical hits get the treatment.




I like that you're dealing with fortification, but I think the subtypes (solid, fragile, etc.) are needlessly overcomplicating things. Frex, the PCs are fighting a group of zombies (solid), a wraith (incorporeal) and a blood ooze (liquid). Two of the PCs are using longswords (19-20/x2), one is using a hammer (x3), and one is using a longbow (x3). Now imagine the nightmare of bookkeeping the DM has in order to ensure that all the PCs do the proper amounts of damage on their crits. 

There is, IIRC, an epic feat that enables characters to deliver crits (though I can't seem to find it in the SRD) to non-crittable creatures (or was it sneak attacks?). Anyway, even if there weren't one, it wouldn't be hard to MAKE one and avoid all this nonsense. Say, you can deal crits, but the range is halved (a natural 20 always crits, though). This neatly solves the fortification problem without all the subtypes. For sneak attacks, you deal -5d6 damage, frex. Incorporeal creatures should be immune to _all_ crits except for a few specific cases - holy weapons, e.g. (since most incorporeal are undead), or bane weapons. (Speaking of bane weapons, I just thought of something - a bane weapon could deal crits to the creature to which it is attuned, even if it's normally immune - this would bump the market price up a bit, but it's only one enhancement that works).

And what about the Devastating Critical feat? If someone has the opportunity to crit on a 2-20 (say, a deity), chances are pretty good that he'll kill most opponents with one hit.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'm using dreamweaver mx.
> 
> Okay I am confused about this CSS problem - exactly what is wrong?




There are two CSS files referenced in the code, and neither exists in the locations given.  One is somewhere else (I looked its contents over), and the other just isn't there at all.  CSS files give files their styling.  In your case they're only used a little bit, so not too much is lost, but still....

A good rewrite of the code would put more of the styling in the CSS files, and maybe even make alternate CSS files for people who liked slightly different looks for the site.  You could have one that is high-contrast, for example, for people with poor vision or color blindness.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> There are two CSS files referenced in the code, and neither exists in the locations given.  One is somewhere else (I looked its contents over), and the other just isn't there at all.  CSS files give files their styling.  In your case they're only used a little bit, so not too much is lost, but still....
> 
> A good rewrite of the code would put more of the styling in the CSS files, and maybe even make alternate CSS files for people who liked slightly different looks for the site.  You could have one that is high-contrast, for example, for people with poor vision or color blindness.




I remember having a few problems with CSS initially...probably where this stems from.

However I am still not exactly sure what you are saying the problem 'is'? How do these 'dead' CSS styles affect anything? Are some people not able to see the links - which should be the same colour as the page titles. 

I have eleven CSS Styles, of which I have no doubt three or four were test styles and two others have not yet seen use (basically there is one style per colour on the site...for some reason it wouldn't let me make a style that was the same colour as the text, possibly ineptitude on my part).

I fear that making alternate CSS styles for different visitors is at the present beyond my ken. At the moment I doubt that researching how to incorporate the idea would be a frugal use of my time...unless someone can talk an imbecile like me through the procedure.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> basically what I'm saying is that if a weapon is increased 6-20/x4 then you would reduced the crit range before you reduced the multiplier.  In other words this weapon would be 12-20/x4.  Against liquid it would be 15-20/x3 and against gaseous it would be 18-20/x2.  Incandescent would be uncrittable to this weapon.  Make any sense?




A sort of Augmented Criticals in reverse?

Perhaps improving threat range is all that should be allowed (?) and the ability to affect monsters otherwise immune to crits should be the preserve of certain feats.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey dude! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I like that you're dealing with fortification, but I think the subtypes (solid, fragile, etc.) are needlessly overcomplicating things.




Possibly.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> Frex, the PCs are fighting a group of zombies (solid), a wraith (incorporeal) and a blood ooze (liquid). Two of the PCs are using longswords (19-20/x2), one is using a hammer (x3), and one is using a longbow (x3). Now imagine the nightmare of bookkeeping the DM has in order to ensure that all the PCs do the proper amounts of damage on their crits.




Well in the above example none of the PCs could effectively crit any of the creatures with any of the weapons - so their would actually be no book-keeping to remember at all. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> There is, IIRC, an epic feat that enables characters to deliver crits (though I can't seem to find it in the SRD) to non-crittable creatures (or was it sneak attacks?). Anyway, even if there weren't one, it wouldn't be hard to MAKE one and avoid all this nonsense. Say, you can deal crits, but the range is halved (a natural 20 always crits, though). This neatly solves the fortification problem without all the subtypes. For sneak attacks, you deal -5d6 damage, frex. Incorporeal creatures should be immune to _all_ crits except for a few specific cases - holy weapons, e.g. (since most incorporeal are undead), or bane weapons. (Speaking of bane weapons, I just thought of something - a bane weapon could deal crits to the creature to which it is attuned, even if it's normally immune - this would bump the market price up a bit, but it's only one enhancement that works).




Maybe a simpler approach is the way to go, although I sort of liked the idea that liquid was tougher to crit than solid and so forth. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> And what about the Devastating Critical feat? If someone has the opportunity to crit on a 2-20 (say, a deity), chances are pretty good that he'll kill most opponents with one hit.




The Devastating Critical feat has its own balance issues that hopefully I can sort out in part four of the article on absolutes.

Regarding immunities in general, my original idea was that portfolios would allow deities to trump immunities. However I no longer believe that is the proper approach to take. Immunities (in immortals at any rate) leave so much of the game redundant that you pretty much have to compensate by making a creatures abilities trump those immunities. This means that the immunity (and the trumping) become mechanically irrelevant. 

Philosophically the fire immune immortal could stand at the centre of the sun and be unaffected, even though it could still be burnt by the Phaethons fiery touch. But this approach still alienates all non-divine beings (notably epic characters), though perhaps you could argue that it should...albeit such an argument would be an appeal to authority.


----------



## Sledge

Well changing it to feats would be simpler, however it does put us in a situation where fighters continually need more and more feats to be effective.  Need to make sure fighters are still viable at epic levels.

I'd love to see your devestating critical thoughts sooner, rather than later too.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I fear that making alternate CSS styles for different visitors is at the present beyond my ken. At the moment I doubt that researching how to incorporate the idea would be a frugal use of my time...unless someone can talk an imbecile like me through the procedure.




I'll email you on this point.  It's actually not hard to do; I do this on my own site.  Personally I'd love to see a higher-contrast version; the yellow-on-white is hard for me to read on my laptop.


----------



## Pssthpok

Sledge said:
			
		

> I'd love to see your devestating critical thoughts sooner, rather than later too.





Same here. 

Any chance of DevCrit becoming a "vorpal epic feat" for fighters? +5 to Crit modifier on a 20 or after a failed Fort save isn't anything to laugh at and removes the infinite damage aspect.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge and Pssthpok! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Well changing it to feats would be simpler, however it does put us in a situation where fighters continually need more and more feats to be effective.




Exactly. There would be no net gain for such feats (the curse of the absolute you see).



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Need to make sure fighters are still viable at epic levels.




The Metamartial Feats should take care of that, not to mention some of the other stff I have cooked up.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I'd love to see your devestating critical thoughts sooner, rather than later too.






			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Same here.
> 
> Any chance of DevCrit becoming a "vorpal epic feat" for fighters? +5 to Crit modifier on a 20 or after a failed Fort save isn't anything to laugh at and removes the infinite damage aspect.




I wouldn't be averse to such a change, however, the flaw in Dev Crit I want to sort out is intrinsic to the save or die mechanic in general, so thats the part I'll be addressing.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I'll email you on this point.  It's actually not hard to do; I do this on my own site.




Thanks, just remember to word it for someone who knows little on the subject.  



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Personally I'd love to see a higher-contrast version; the yellow-on-white is hard for me to read on my laptop.




...well I did choose the darkest yellow available. How else could I keep that prismatic theme.


----------



## Sledge

So when is it going to be finished?


----------



## Kerrick

> Well in the above example none of the PCs could effectively crit any of the creatures with any of the weapons - so their would actually be no book-keeping to remember at all.




Okay, so I chose undead... and incorporeal creatures... and oozes. I wanted representatives of several different types. Two problems that I can see: the vast majority of incorporeal beings (unless they're PCs using spells) are undead (non-crittable); all liquid monsters are either oozes or elementals (both non-crittable). So this begs the question: If you can't crit them, then why are they listed on your table? As far as I can tell, you have no feat that enables someone to deliver crits to these creatures. 



> The Devastating Critical feat has its own balance issues that hopefully I can sort out in part four of the article on absolutes.




No argument from me there - I think it's absurdly broken.



> Philosophically the fire immune immortal could stand at the centre of the sun and be unaffected, even though it could still be burnt by the Phaethons fiery touch. But this approach still alienates all non-divine beings (notably epic characters), though perhaps you could argue that it should...albeit such an argument would be an appeal to authority.




I'm afraid I'm not following here... 



> Well changing it to feats would be simpler, however it does put us in a situation where fighters continually need more and more feats to be effective. Need to make sure fighters are still viable at epic levels.




It's one feat. I agree that fighters need something extra at epic; I'd recommend making it a fighter-only feat. This makes fighters more useful at higher levels - the party meets up with a big golem, and the party tank is the only one who can crit it, e.g. 



> The Metamartial Feats should take care of that, not to mention some of the other stff I have cooked up.




You leave that stuff on the burner too long, it's going to be overcooked.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Okay, so I chose undead... and incorporeal creatures... and oozes. I wanted representatives of several different types. Two problems that I can see: the vast majority of incorporeal beings (unless they're PCs using spells) are undead (non-crittable); all liquid monsters are either oozes or elementals (both non-crittable). So this begs the question: If you can't crit them, then why are they listed on your table? As far as I can tell, you have no feat that enables someone to deliver crits to these creatures.




These rules were meant to replace the standard "Can't be critted" rules.  The creatures all have -2 or better "crit resistance", though, so the weapons you're using in your example can't get more than x1.


----------



## Alzrius

Sledge said:
			
		

> So when is it going to be finished?




Not for quite a while, since U_K is going to have to recalculate quite a bit with the removal of absolutes from the IH. That's probably going to push things back quite a bit. Yet another reason I don't like them.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Not for quite a while, since U_K is going to have to recalculate quite a bit with the removal of absolutes from the IH. That's probably going to push things back quite a bit. Yet another reason I don't like them.




I don't think the "whole thing" (Apotheosis, Grimoire, Bestiary, and that last book) will be finished this decade, probably not even within a decade.  I hope we see a print version of Apotheosis before 4E; I give that about even odds.  (It will surely end up filling a whole book like the Bestiary, which will let it come out in print before the others.)


----------



## BSF

*sigh*

My angelic campaign is afoot.  It will still be a little while before the PCs are really taking on big opponents, but it is coming.  I have another campaign that has been on hiatus for a year while I hoped I could get apotheosis.  The game I am playing in might benefit from apotheosis as well.  But I can't keep putting all of these off.  

At some point I need to start codifying these things so I can maintain internal consistency to my game worlds.  Especially since a 'short' campaign is usually 2 years long.  Oh well, I will move on so my campaigns can continue to advance and grow.  I will check back once in a while and see if there is anything close to be finished and usable.  I will hope I don't make any design decisions that will be mutually exclusive to UK's work, but I doubt it.  

Good luck with the Immortal's Handbook Upper_Krust.  When you have something that can be used  and is available I will check it out.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys!

I know I have let people down with my ineptitude to finish the book, a combination of over development* and exacting standards I have set myself.

*For instance most of the monsters in the bestiary took me two or even three full illustrations before I got the art to an acceptable standard...even though I know I am not really that good an artist to have the illustrations warrant that much attention anyway.

However, personal (financial shall we say and leave it at that) circumstances are changing for me in the immediate future that are going to require a more expeditious output of these products. So don't expect as much 'dilly-dallying' from now on.


----------



## historian

> Hey guys!
> 
> I know I have let people down with my ineptitude to finish the book, a combination of over development* and exacting standards I have set myself.
> 
> *For instance most of the monsters in the bestiary took me two or even three full illustrations before I got the art to an acceptable standard...even though I know I am not really that good an artist to have the illustrations warrant that much attention anyway.
> 
> However, personal (financial shall we say and leave it at that) circumstances are changing for me in the immediate future that are going to require a more expeditious output of these products. So don't expect as much 'dilly-dallying' from now on.




Glad to hear the news (and hope that it is unambiguously positive for you).

I know this suggestion is a break from previous practice, and it might be difficult to execute due to forthcoming system tweaks, but it would be totally sweet if you could post an apotheosis "sneak peek" on the website.  

Excelsior!


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey guys!
> 
> ...ineptitude...finish the book...financial...immediate future...expeditious output...'dilly-dallying'.




I never thought I would have cause to say this, but hooray for poverty!  I'll snap em' up like popcorn and move money from my wallet in to yours.


----------



## Upper_Krust

I appreciate the support Historian and Anabstercorian! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I know this suggestion is a break from previous practice, and it might be difficult to execute due to forthcoming system tweaks, but it would be totally sweet if you could post an apotheosis "sneak peek" on the website.




I'm not sure what would constitute a worthy peek, some of the stuff, in piecemeal, might seem underwhelming. I suppose one of the sample deities (such as Surtur) might work, although the sample deities are liable to be the last things finished in Apotheosis for obvious reasons. I'll give it some thought though, I am on a bit of a roll at the moment with the art and I may finish off the Apotheosis art directly after the Bestiary stuff is completed.

I can't remember all the sample deities offhand but the list includes: Achilles, Baba Yaga, Lucifer, Shang-Ti, Surtur, Gaia, Metatron, a Time Lord* and a High Lord* among others.

*Yes I know who they are. 

I should also have some iconic immortal PCs (including Thrin) who have different sets of stats depending on what strata of power you wish to play them at.

By the way I have been solidifying my artifact rules (about 75% complete at this point) which basically allow the characters to adopt 0-4 artifacts in place of magic items - mainly to prevent massive laundry lists of items being the standard. Well, to put it bluntly, these are powerful! But just in case you like your epic with a capital 'E' you can choose to just wield a single soul object (and no other items) which are even more powerful. If I told you how powerful the Wand of Orcus or Sword of Surtur both currently are (both Soul Objects) you simply wouldn't believe me....and I haven't even worked out their full power yet!


----------



## Sledge

Good to hear things are moving along.  Keep the effort up and show us all your goods.


----------



## Zoatebix

I'm very, very interested in artifacts and soul objects.  Just the idea of no more than 4 magic items (barring one-use stuff) per character is music to my brain.  This is the kind of mechanic that I'd love to adopt to non-epic play, too.

I'm actually working on a similar idea - all magic items (and just about anything else that could be important to one's character) fall under something just like the Aspect system from the free RPG FATE (http://www.faterpg.com/).  (FATE's FUDGE based mechanics work great on their own - I just have a soft-spot for d20.  A great project.  I think RPGnet has a glowing review or two.  They're OGL, too!)

Anyways, I'm still debating about how much I should quantify in d20 magic-item terms what an item with a certain aspect rating could do.  Seeing how you mess with the magic-item system to make artifacts and soul objects will definately give me some new ideas to play with.  

[thinking out lound]The thing that The Game Mechanics published that also made it into Unearthed Arcana didn't really ring my bell, but I may look over their design parameters again just in case...[/thinking out loud]

I can't wait to see whatever you come up with, UK!
George


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> I appreciate the support Historian and Anabstercorian!




You're very welcome.



> I'm not sure what would constitute a worthy peek, some of the stuff, in piecemeal, might seem underwhelming. I suppose one of the sample deities (such as Surtur) might work, although the sample deities are liable to be the last things finished in Apotheosis for obvious reasons. I'll give it some thought though, I am on a bit of a roll at the moment with the art and I may finish off the Apotheosis art directly after the Bestiary stuff is completed.




All of the above sounds good, it's probably better to finish one volume at a time. 



> I can't remember all the sample deities offhand but the list includes: Achilles, Baba Yaga, Lucifer, Shang-Ti, Surtur, Gaia, Metatron, a Time Lord* and a High Lord* among others.
> 
> *Yes I know who they are.




I'm glad to know that we'll be seeing a High Lord.  

Of course, you have identified one very well known Time Lord and a lesser known High Lord on these here boards (you may or may not remember), so I know "who" I am betting on seeing.  

If the past is any indication, I'm probably wrong.



> I should also have some iconic immortal PCs (including Thrin) who have different sets of stats depending on what strata of power you wish to play them at.




Cool, how high will you go?



> By the way I have been solidifying my artifact rules (about 75% complete at this point) which basically allow the characters to adopt 0-4 artifacts in place of magic items - mainly to prevent massive laundry lists of items being the standard. Well, to put it bluntly, these are powerful! But just in case you like your epic with a capital 'E' you can choose to just wield a single soul object (and no other items) which are even more powerful. If I told you how powerful the Wand of Orcus or Sword of Surtur both currently are (both Soul Objects) you simply wouldn't believe me....and I haven't even worked out their full power yet!




Excellent, I love artifacts.  I particularly enjoyed reading about 'The Wheel of Fortune' (insanely powerful  -- on a scale relative to the Infinity Gems) and the robe that Cicatrix wears.


----------



## Alzrius

A mild hijack, I just wanted to point out some epic-level products I hadn't noticed before.

GMC is a small PDF company, with four PDF's for sale on RPGnow. I just got (for review purposes) a copy of _Quirin Mythology #1: A Handful Epic Creatures_, and although it has some stat errors, it's pretty cool! I especially like the Milmang, which I think it Bestiary-worthy (being a CR 150 construct that drains divinity when it hits). From what I've read, _Quirin Adventure #3: Door to Simit Al_ is epic-level also.


----------



## Sledge

Thanks for posting those Alzrius.  Added to wishlist for the moment.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Yeah, those look good.  I added them to my giant list of high-epic monsters and epic sources.


----------



## Sledge

mmmm just a thought.  When things hit PDF make sure that the stacking of things like rending, overwhelming critical and any other crit multiplier increaser have the stacking spelled out with regards to burst and blast enhancements.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I'm glad to know that we'll be seeing a High Lord.
> 
> Of course, you have identified one very well known Time Lord and a lesser known High Lord on these here boards (you may or may not remember), so I know "who" I am betting on seeing.
> 
> If the past is any indication, I'm probably wrong.




I don't remember revealing too much about those beings and you won't trick me into it either! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Cool, how high will you go?




Quasi, Demi, Lesser, Inter for either 4 or 5 characters.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Excellent, I love artifacts.  I particularly enjoyed reading about 'The Wheel of Fortune' (insanely powerful  -- on a scale relative to the Infinity Gems) and the robe that Cicatrix wears.




Glad you liked them!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> A mild hijack, I just wanted to point out some epic-level products I hadn't noticed before.
> 
> GMC is a small PDF company, with four PDF's for sale on RPGnow. I just got (for review purposes) a copy of _Quirin Mythology #1: A Handful Epic Creatures_, and although it has some stat errors, it's pretty cool! I especially like the Milmang, which I think it Bestiary-worthy (being a CR 150 construct that drains divinity when it hits). From what I've read, _Quirin Adventure #3: Door to Simit Al_ is epic-level also.




I seem to recall pimping that pdf in this very thread when it was first announced - glad to hear its pretty good. The Milmang does indeed sound very interesting - out of curiousity, how many Hit Dice does it have?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge dude! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> mmmm just a thought.  When things hit PDF make sure that the stacking of things like rending, overwhelming critical and any other crit multiplier increaser have the stacking spelled out with regards to burst and blast enhancements.




It would stack with any effect that multiplied on a critical hit.

...and thanks for reposting that updated list CRGreathouse.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I seem to recall pimping that pdf in this very thread when it was first announced - glad to hear its pretty good. The Milmang does indeed sound very interesting - out of curiousity, how many Hit Dice does it have?




225d10, all of which are maximum hit points per die since it's DvR 0. It's also got bonus hit points from two source, one of which are several Epic Toughness feats...the other I'm not sure about.

Note that so far the product has two reviews on RPGnow that seem to differ rather wildly in their opinions. One seems to focus on the negatives (John Cooper-style), the other goes on about the positives. I personally think it's a cool product, but your mileage may vary.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  




> I don't remember revealing too much about those beings and you won't trick me into it either!




 

I'm really not trying to elicit your top secrets, at least not in this case.  

I can't imagine you would remember every reference, suffice it to say that the Time Lord bears the name of a Santana album and the High Lord is more than two-faced (forgive me for being cheesy).


----------



## Sledge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Sledge dude!
> It would stack with any effect that multiplied on a critical hit.
> ...and thanks for reposting that updated list CRGreathouse.




So would you determine the blast/burst critical damage before applying the overwhelming critical?  I.E.  18-20/x2 flaming burst weapon with overwhelming critical feat would have a x3 crit multiplier, but only does 1d10 flaming critical damage.  Seems like the easiest way to do this, but is it your thinking?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> 225d10, all of which are maximum hit points per die since it's DvR 0. It's also got bonus hit points from two source, one of which are several Epic Toughness feats...the other I'm not sure about.
> 
> Note that so far the product has two reviews on RPGnow that seem to differ rather wildly in their opinions. One seems to focus on the negatives (John Cooper-style), the other goes on about the positives. I personally think it's a cool product, but your mileage may vary.




Interesting...I read the reviews. The problems (in the more negative review) seem more philosophical than mechanical. My main reservation would be the lack of monsters (only 5, or 7 counting two modified versions), but I suppose it is fairly inoffensively priced.

You could also make a case that epic monsters really start at CR 29.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hi historian matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I'm really not trying to elicit your top secrets, at least not in this case.
> 
> I can't imagine you would remember every reference, suffice it to say that the Time Lord bears the name of a Santana album and the High Lord is more than two-faced (forgive me for being cheesy).




You are insidious...and there is no Time Lord called Oye Como Va...at least not to my knowledge. 

Just keep things under your hat, you know too much already.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> So would you determine the blast/burst critical damage before applying the overwhelming critical?  I.E.  18-20/x2 flaming burst weapon with overwhelming critical feat would have a x5 crit multiplier, but only does 1d10 flaming critical damage.  Seems like the easiest way to do this, but is it your thinking?




I don't see what the problem is here. If an effect (such as Fiery Blast) multiplies on a crit then it multiplies on a crit. If you have augmented your crit multiplier then the effect is multiplied by the new multiplier.

eg. Fiery Blast on a Longsword is +3d6 would be +15d6 if the crit multiplier was x5.


----------



## Sledge

So in my above example it would do 4d10 instead of 1d10?
Okay my above example turns out to be cobbled together from 2 different thoughts so I reiterate it. 

A rapier (18-20/x2) is held by someone with overwhelming critical.  The rapier is flaming burst (not blast) and so does 1d6 fire damage on every hit and 1d10 additional fire damage on a critical when the multiplier is x2.  This bring the multiplier up to x3 and changes the damage due to critical to be 2d10.

If instead we had a Scythe (x4) held by someone with overwhelming critical we have a crit multiplier of x7.  The damage done by flaming burst would be 1d6 with every hit, but 6d10 with every crit.

Sound correct?


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Interesting...I read the reviews. The problems (in the more negative review) seem more philosophical than mechanical. My main reservation would be the lack of monsters (only 5, or 7 counting two modified versions), but I suppose it is fairly inoffensively priced.




At roughly fifty cents (American) per monster, less if you count the two modified ones, and some magic tidbits at the end, it seemed worthwhile. I also noted the negative review didn't mention two of the monsters, one of which (the Gomthu) is very well-done, IMHO. It really showcases how a creature can be devastating even with little magical ability.



> _You could also make a case that epic monsters really start at CR 29._




How so?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Alzrius said:
			
		

> How so?




Presumably because either (1) the MM has creatures up to 28, or (2) the CR system says +/- 8 should be attemptable, so a 20th-level group could (with great luck and all resources) have some success at ruinous cost against a CR 28.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> So in my above example it would do 4d10 instead of 1d10?
> Okay my above example turns out to be cobbled together from 2 different thoughts so I reiterate it.
> 
> A rapier (18-20/x2) is held by someone with overwhelming critical.  The rapier is flaming burst (not blast) and so does 1d6 fire damage on every hit and 1d10 additional fire damage on a critical when the multiplier is x2.  This bring the multiplier up to x3 and changes the damage due to critical to be 2d10.
> 
> If instead we had a Scythe (x4) held by someone with overwhelming critical we have a crit multiplier of x7.  The damage done by flaming burst would be 1d6 with every hit, but 6d10 with every crit.
> 
> Sound correct?




My suggestion would be to change [energy] burst to a multiple of d6 for criticals.

Every +1d6 energy damage (that *doesn't* multiply on a crit) = +1 Market Mod.

Every +1d6 energy damage (that *does* multiply on a crit) = +2 Market Mod.

eg. Icy Blast = +3d6 (multiplies on a crit) = +6 Market Mod.


----------



## historian

> Hi historian matey!




Hey U_K!  



> Just keep things under your hat, you know too much already.




You got it dude.


----------



## Sledge

UK what value would you put the Holy damage at?  The same?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> UK what value would you put the Holy damage at?  The same?




The same as I have always used in the CR/EL document.

d3 Divine (or d12/4)
d4 Force
d6 Energy
d8 Aligned (ie. Holy)
d12 Bane (which also gives an additional +1 to hit per extra dice of bane damage)

Seemingly this doesn't exactly gel with the various [Aligned] Power epic abilities; which in my book would be +4d8 damage & 1 Level Energy Drain (*None* of which multiplies on a crit).

The version in the book should be +14 if we assume I know what I'm talking about...and half the time even I am am unsure of that.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> ...and thanks for reposting that updated list CRGreathouse.




Hey, how can you go wrong with 354 epic creatures?


----------



## Sledge

Well I don't have the CR/EL document, so I wouldn't know.  So can anyone explain why aligned is less expensive?


----------



## CRGreathouse

Sledge said:
			
		

> Well I don't have the CR/EL document, so I wouldn't know.  So can anyone explain why aligned is less expensive?




The presumption, I assume, is that energy affects everything while aligned effects only hurt a fraction.  (Really it's all a tossup, with resistances and immunities being what they are.)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> The presumption, I assume, is that energy affects everything while aligned effects only hurt a fraction.  (Really it's all a tossup, with resistances and immunities being what they are.)




I think it makes perfect sense. By focusing the magical energy you can achieve greater effects.

Thats why you have divine > force > energy > aligned > bane.

I have a few other ideas, icluding some additions to that line-up, but no point bothering you all with those at this point.


----------



## Sledge

My only concern is with the fact that a party will be much more likely to fight their opposite alignment, so the alignment damage will nearly always be affective.  Still not a big concern.

So any updates coming now?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> My only concern is with the fact that a party will be much more likely to fight their opposite alignment, so the alignment damage will nearly always be affective.  Still not a big concern.




Well it affects 1/3rd of all opponents.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> So any updates coming now?




I should be updating the website this weekend (likely a big art preview before I release the bestiary officially, and hopefully I can get part three of the absolutes stuff sorted).

I can also report that there has been a lot of movement with the powers chapter of the IH, one poignant aspect of this is that a divine ability is now worth 6 feats (epic or otherwise) - which is what I should have had from the start. I have also been going over the abilities to make sure they are sufficiently powerful, the upshoot of which is that there may well be more epic feats and less divine powers than are mentioned on the website (though the overall tally is likely to remain roughly the same).

I am also making sure that each character class has enough interesting feats/divine abilities/cosmic abilities tailored for its needs...and not content with introducing metamartial feats I also the combat equivalent of dimensional magic to spring on you...as well as half dozen (or so) other, minor new rules such as millstones or notches.


----------



## Sledge

does this mean I can stop refreshing www.immortalshandbook.com every 5 minutes?
Seriously I'm really looking forward to the updates.


----------



## Crosshair

Note for immortalshandbook.com. Judgement is spelled Judgment.

I am a grammar and spelling nazi. Thank you.
I don't have paypal, or pounds/euros, is there anyway I can send American $ through a money order for the immortals handbook. If I do get paypal, what happens if I have American $. 
cpusteffl at hotmail dot com


----------



## Sledge

Judgement is a correct way to spell it.  The spelling Judgment is more commonly accepted in the US, but it is not the only way to spell it.  The word in middle english iirc was Jugement.  So the "e" is actually older than the "d".  http://www.margaret-marks.com/Transblawg/archives/000571.html has a little more to say on the subject.

As for buying it.  We hear that "any day now" you'll be able to buy the pdf from RPGNow and other vendors possibly.  Of course any day now could be a long time yet, but we hope for the best.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Crosshair said:
			
		

> Note for immortalshandbook.com. Judgement is spelled Judgment.
> 
> I am a grammar and spelling nazi. Thank you.
> I don't have paypal, or pounds/euros, is there anyway I can send American $ through a money order for the immortals handbook. If I do get paypal, what happens if I have American $.
> cpusteffl at hotmail dot com




There's no difficulty paying with american dollars.  Paypal is like the gnomes of zurich, they have all the monies they need to make the transaction.  Can't help you without Paypal offhand, though.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> does this mean I can stop refreshing www.immortalshandbook.com every 5 minutes?




Well you know, at best I am going to be updating about once a week, so every 5 minutes is probably pushing it a bit.   



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Seriously I'm really looking forward to the updates.




Tiny problem at the moment in that my webspace account has been suspended for failure to pay an invoice...which I have actually paid - the money simply hasn't reached them yet. I get invoiced 5 days before the money is due, with a further 5 day leniency extension. Even though I generally post the money order on the same day or following day I receive the invoice, it still takes at least a week to get it to them. Which means its always close to the end of the extension period that it reaches them. Amazingly it still hasn't reached them at this point even though I posted it on the same day as I received the invoice (this will be the moneys 10th day in transit). I'm slightly worried that the post has been lost this time, although fingers crossed its just the sloth of the postal service.

I wonder if the postal service in the US has been overtly affected by the recent hurricane disasters? I was sending the money to Atlanta, Georgia, which to my knowledge would have been unaffected by the hurricanes anyway, so I suppose I am clutching at straws.

Hopefully it will all sort itself out in a day or two.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi there Crosshair! 



			
				Crosshair said:
			
		

> Note for immortalshandbook.com. Judgement is spelled Judgment.
> 
> I am a grammar and spelling nazi. Thank you.




Well according to both my Oxford Dictionary *and* Cambridge Dictionary it can be spelt either judgement *or* judgment.   

Even though I generally compromise the Queens English for the pdf. (since America is the biggest market), I don't do the same for the website. 

Funny you should mention nazis, I recently saw this fantastic show on the History channel a few days ago called Luftwaffe 46, which was all about the secret planes the german airforce had at the end of the second world war. One thing that shocked me was that the germans actually had a stealth plane (!) and I don't mean on the drawing board - I mean they built it and they flew it. Amazingly the americans actually captured it (its now in an american museum) but it took them 35 years to realise what they had in their hands! 

Some of the stuff was incredible, they had jet powered helicopter gunships as well as vertical take off planes, but I think they only had time to build a few prototypes for these. They also had air to air missiles (some 10 years before the allies had them).

...anyway, I digress.   



			
				Crosshair said:
			
		

> I don't have paypal, or pounds/euros, is there anyway I can send American $ through a money order for the immortals handbook. If I do get paypal, what happens if I have American $.
> 
> cpusteffl at hotmail dot com




Well if you get paypal it can convert the currency into british pounds sterling.

If you don't get paypal I would accept a money order, although you'll have to wait until that clears before I can send you the pdf. If you want to do things this way I can give you the details via email.

However, you may want to wait until next week, as I should be releasing the official bestiary fairly soon(ish) which has all the art, all the errata fixed, some updates and a few surprises (for those who have the unofficial Bestiary) too.

I should have the official Bestiary available at both rpgnow and again via my own website.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> However, you may want to wait until next week, as I should be releasing the official bestiary fairly soon(ish) which has all the art, all the errata fixed, some updates and a few surprises (for those who have the unofficial Bestiary) too.
> 
> I should have the official Bestiary available at both rpgnow and again via my own website.




Let's see it, then!  C'mon, you!  Oi!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian matey! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Let's see it, then!  C'mon, you!  Oi!




Soon(ish)...as in code for about a week...hopefully*...says the man who never misses a deadline.   :\ 

*fingers crossed.

I also have the cover image (for the Bestiary) drawn, but not yet painted. Lets hope I can channel the spirit of Wayne Reynolds, if not the talent, as I haven't painted in 'yonks'.


----------



## Sledge

scan in the B&W first just in case eh?


----------



## Eversius

Hey UK!

Excellent news on the progress! I am excited as to see how everything turns out. I hope everything works out fine with the postal service, as I wish to see the rest of the Absolutes article!


----------



## Zoatebix

Seconded!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> scan in the B&W first just in case eh?




Unfortunately thats not an option with the cover since its on a stretched page which is itself attached to a very large art board. I'll not be able to scan it until I cut it out, and I can't cut it out until after I paint it.

There are approximately six illustrations left to draw, although of those drawn about ten still need inked...or in my case 'markered' I guess. I should be able to get everything drawn over the weekend so that will just leave a lot of colouring in and the painting of the cover.

I should also get the revised text and changes finished over the weekend too...which may or may not include some new creatures.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Eversius said:
			
		

> Hey UK!




Hey there Eversius! 



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> Excellent news on the progress!




I'm not sure about excellent, but at least it represents progress.   



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> I am excited as to see how everything turns out.




I appreciate the interest. 



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> I hope everything works out fine with the postal service,




No word yet, although I am not sure if the billing section is open at the weekends - hopefully I will hear something from them on Monday.



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> as I wish to see the rest of the Absolutes article!




I should just clarify the current position on Absolutes. Although I am in against them I won't be introducing such changes into the IHB* or the Bestiary as standard, its probably too much of a paradigm shift for people. Though I may work on the idea and have it as a set of options in the IHB. 

*IHB = Immortals Handbook in the same way PHB = Players Handbook. Also with Iron Heroes out there, two IH's would only confuse people...or at least, confuse me - I remember being at first elated at seeing a load of 'what do you love about the IH' threads in the General Discussion forum and then being disappointed that they were not talking about the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## Zoatebix

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Seconded!



I meant to second the scanning suggestion, but this can also apply to the sentiments in Eversius's post, too.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *IHB = Immortals Handbook in the same way PHB = Players Handbook. Also with Iron Heroes out there, two IH's would only confuse people...or at least, confuse me - I remember being at first elated at seeing a load of 'what do you love about the IH' threads in the General Discussion forum and then being disappointed that they were not talking about the Immortals Handbook.




What about those of us who only use PH for the Player's Handbook?  To me the PHB is the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, as that was the abbreviation used then.  Should we do like the Arcana Unearthed crowd (who often use MCAU so no one thinks they're referring to Unearthed Arcana) and call it UKIH?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> I meant to second the scanning suggestion, but this can also apply to the sentiments in Eversius's post, too.




Like I said, not really an option with the cover. I sort of prefer the idea of scanning them all in together, rather than as and when they are done anyway.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> What about those of us who only use PH for the Player's Handbook?




I didn't know there were such odd people. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> To me the PHB is the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, as that was the abbreviation used then.  Should we do like the Arcana Unearthed crowd (who often use MCAU so no one thinks they're referring to Unearthed Arcana) and call it UKIH?




The problem with AU is that it could be confused with Astronomical Unit rather than Unearthed Arcana...unless you are dyslexic I suppose.

By the way I think I may have solved the problem inherant in the CR system - as in why some of the monsters CRs were far too high. I think it revolves around the HD modifiers being based on the feat = +0.2 CR mistake, which should be +0.166. The bottom line is that all the monsters should have their CRs multiplied by 0.833 (or divide by 6 and multiply by 5).

This change creates a gap in Class breakdown (+0.8 becomes +0.66 for instance) although I am wondering if perhaps magic items are more integral to PC classes than was first envisioned (making 1/3rd of the characters CR instead of 1/5th).

It would be very interesting to compare the classes in something like Iron Heroes (I do not yet own that book) which do not use any magic items, with the core classes, when we break them down with the CR system. My guess is, to compensate they are gaining a net bonus akin to two feats per level. From the online class preview the seem to have a higher net HD, more class features, traits, higher skills (as well as skill groups), higher ability scores and generally a massive AC bonus. I'm also wondering if all the classes have good saving throws? There is probably a lot of other stuff I cannot glean from the previews.

But at first glance it seems to prove my theory that magic items are responsible for 1/3rd of a characters effective class level.

Also I still have something of a hang-up regarding the possible Neutronium Golem revision, in that, with the new density rules in place it appears the Neutronium Golem should be dealing 30,720d10+243 per slam.   

By the way, for those of you in North America, don't forget that *Dungeons & Dragons 2: Wrath of the Dragon God* is on the Sci-Fi channel tonight at 8:00pm! You'll enjoy it, trust me, its not a great movie, but you'll enjoy it.


----------



## Borlon

9 PM Eastern Time.  

So there will be a revision to the Challenging Challenge Ratings appendix?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> 9 PM Eastern Time.




What did you think? Personally I liked it.   



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> So there will be a revision to the Challenging Challenge Ratings appendix?




Eventually I suppose, but in the meantime just multiply all the golden rule CRs* by x0.833 (5/6ths) and that should keep you okay.

*That gives you the ECL remember. To turn that into (official) CR, multiply the new figure by x0.666 (2/3rds).

eg. Great Wyrm Red Dragon = +65 after Golden Rule = ECL 54 (5/6ths of Golden Rule) = (Official) CR 36 (2/3rds of ECL)

eg. Pit Fiend = +35 after Golden Rule = ECL 29 = (Official) CR 20

eg. Hecatonchieres = +98 after Golden Rule = ECL 81 = (Official) CR 54

eg. Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon = +131 after Golden Rule = ECL 109 = (Official) CR 72


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

> I'm also wondering if all the classes have good saving throws?




You could say that. hey all get +1 to all saves per level, so a 20th lvl PC has +20 in all base saves.

1/3 of all PC power coming from magic items? Hmmm.... I really think this depends on the class in question. IMO, fighters and other melee'ers are much more serious hit by lack of equipment, than fx. a sorcerer is. Just my opinion.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Sorcica said:
			
		

> You could say that. hey all get +1 to all saves per level, so a 20th lvl PC has +20 in all base saves.
> 
> 1/3 of all PC power coming from magic items? Hmmm.... I really think this depends on the class in question. IMO, fighters and other melee'ers are much more serious hit by lack of equipment, than fx. a sorcerer is. Just my opinion.




Sorcerers are more independent from magic items in terms of their mobility and offense, but they depend on magical items for a strong defense that doesn't take them precious combat rounds to activate.  A mage in a burlap robe instead of Bracers of Armor and Amulets of Health is a squishy mage.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sorcica matey! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> You could say that. hey all get +1 to all saves per level, so a 20th lvl PC has +20 in all base saves.




Whoa! Thats a big, big jump.

Two other things I am curious about (I am assuming you have the book). Why do all the characters have such high ability scores - do they still gain +1/4 levels? Also, what is the genereic feat progression like - is it still +1/3 levels?

Thanks.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> 1/3 of all PC power coming from magic items?




I am now virtually certain of it.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... I really think this depends on the class in question. IMO, fighters and other melee'ers are much more serious hit by lack of equipment, than fx. a sorcerer is. Just my opinion.




Well if you remember my CR system breakdown of the classes (?), all the spellcasting classes ended up about 5-10% more powerful. But I totally agree that the martial classes are far more reliant upon magic items.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

> Two other things I am curious about (I am assuming you have the book). Why do all the characters have such high ability scores - do they still gain +1/4 levels? Also, what is the genereic feat progression like - is it still +1/3 levels?
> 
> Thanks.




Ability gain is same as core. But Iron Heroes uses a point buy system, all stats start at 10, it costs 1:1 to 15, then 2:1 to 17 and 4:1 after that. You get 24 points.

Feat progression is two at 1st lvl (I assume one is from being human) and one at lvls 2, 4, 6 ,8 ,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20.
Many of the classes get additional bonus feats.



> Well if you remember my CR system breakdown of the classes (?), all the spellcasting classes ended up about 5-10% more powerful.




True. So you think the classes are more balanced now? I'm in the proces of giving fighters more feats and rogues too, to get their 'value' up to 115, according to the CR system ver. 4.

I might have to reconsider this now?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Ability gain is same as core. But Iron Heroes uses a point buy system, all stats start at 10, it costs 1:1 to 15, then 2:1 to 17 and 4:1 after that. You get 24 points.




So you can have 14 in every stat, which is already more than twice as good as standard point buy.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Feat progression is two at 1st lvl (I assume one is from being human) and one at lvls 2, 4, 6 ,8 ,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20.
> Many of the classes get additional bonus feats.




Thats another substantial leap. I noticed the Hunter Class had something like 15 class features spread over the 20 levels, counting feats that the equivalent of 27 feats over the course of 20 levels...by comparison the core fighter gets 18.

However the Hunter Class has comparable Hit Dice (higher average, lower maximum), far better Skill Points (and Skill Groups), Traits, an AC Bonus which is almost +1/level and Saving Throws of +1/level...my guess is this totes up to the equivalent of about 31 feats.

So I would say a conservative estimate puts the Hunter class about 40 feats* better off than the core Fighter, as well as having a +2 CR bonus (instead of +1) for starting ability scores.

*and for that I was using CRGreathouse idea that a feat could give a +2 AC Bonus.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> True. So you think the classes are more balanced now?




Yes and no. I still think the spellcasting classes have an edge, for two reasons. Firstly, because the feats for the martial classes are relatively weak. Secondly because its more important to min/max magic equipment for martial classes.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> I'm in the proces of giving fighters more feats and rogues too, to get their 'value' up to 115, according to the CR system ver. 4.
> 
> I might have to reconsider this now?




I think the relative difference is still the same, albeit 5/6ths a difference now.

The magic items thing is tricky. With martial classes it would be very easy to have two PCs of the same level, with the same value of equipment and by min/maxing the equipment of one, make it noticeably more powerful. Its unlikely you could say the same about the magical classes.


----------



## Zoatebix

Yeah - I could velieve 1/3 character power is magic items instead of 1/5.  I have to go, but I will post later.


----------



## Anubis

UK talks a good game, but he and I have debated this issue numerous times and I beleive his system has too many holes.  This new system has very nasty holes in that the monster CRs come out LOWER than those in the book.  This is unacceptable.  Part of the problem is that a lot of CRs in the book are already too low!

Did UK mention that, under his new system, Fire Giants work out as CR 8?  This means it should be a moderate encounter for a Level 8 party.  If you look at Level 8 characters, though, you'll notice low AC and low hp.  On top of that, even fighters will need 10 or better to get a hit on their best attack.  Given that and the Fire Giant's 142 hp, it looks a lot like a Fire Giant could full attack a party fighter ONCE and flatten him.  Twice if the Fire Giant rolls bad.  The party will use practically all their resources and a couple are almost guaranteed to die.  This isn't a moderate encounter, this is a VERY DIFFCICULT encounter.  Certainly not CR.

There are other examples, but you can see from the Fire Giant the direction those examples would go.

Anyway, I had proposed a system wherein the Golden Rule would be applied by halving all CR modifiers beyond the flat HD mod for monsters or the flat class mod for anything with a character class.  Under my system, the Fire Giant works out to a nice and neat CR 12.  This is below the ultra-high numbers of UK's old system, but still higher than the ridiculously low numbers of the book and UK's new system.  A nice rate to keep PCs from biting off more than they can chew or be thrown into battles they can't win.

The only (possible) flaw in my system is that some high-ability creatures still seem a bit low, meaning that the right method MIGHT be to halve all CR modifiers beyond the flat HD mod plus ability scores mods for the monsters and maybe flat class mods plus ability score mods for classes.

UK goes on and on about arbitrary this and rate them the same and all this other garbage, but I ask you folks this.  What is the bottom line with CR?  I give you this answer: "Does it work in-game?"  So, does it work in game?  A monster of a CR equal to the party should be a "moderate encounter", and 13-1/3 such encounters should gain a level.  Well, using UK's old system, monsters of a CR equal to the party were easy (very easy).  Meanwhile, using the book or UK's new system results on monsters of a CR equal to the party being tough (sometimes overly tough).  My system, if used with the core rules (with CRs properly modified as detailed in UK's system if you use uber-powerful supplementals such as the Action Points and Defense Bonus systems from Unearthed Arcana or the Hero class from FCTF), works, and isn't that the only bottom line that matters?

UK got almost everything right.  The basic CR mods, the build of the CR models, lots of stuff.  Unfortunately, he could never tune a Golden Rule capable of making all that stuff work in an actual game.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay I received an email from the webspace provider, but they still haven't received the money order as of this post. I can only assume it has somehow become lost, which means it looks like I will have to send it again, so its looking like a week before I will be able to update again.

Although, if thats the case the next update should involve the official release of the Bestiary.

Regarding the next Absolutes article, about Anti-magic, at first glance it appears that using these new rules would actually allow you to introduce the magic system I talked about a while back, whereby you could destroy planets by min/maxing a 100th-level spellcaster. The idea obviously needs further research and testing of course (which I don't really have time for at the moment) but its food for thought.

Oh and the _Neo-_Neutronium Golem

1,330,720 hp
30,720d10+243 dmg


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis matey! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> UK talks a good game,




...why thank you. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> but he and I have debated this issue numerous times




too many times you could say.    



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> and I beleive his system has too many holes.  This new system has very nasty holes in that the monster CRs come out LOWER than those in the book.  This is unacceptable.  Part of the problem is that a lot of CRs in the book are already too low!
> 
> Did UK mention that, under his new system, Fire Giants work out as CR 8?  This means it should be a moderate encounter for a Level 8 party.




Actually it means it would be a tough encounter for CR 8.

ECL = moderate
CR = tough

This is keeping in line with the official rules to a certain extent.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> If you look at Level 8 characters, though, you'll notice low AC and low hp.  On top of that, even fighters will need 10 or better to get a hit on their best attack.  Given that and the Fire Giant's 142 hp, it looks a lot like a Fire Giant could full attack a party fighter ONCE and flatten him.  Twice if the Fire Giant rolls bad.  The party will use practically all their resources and a couple are almost guaranteed to die.  This isn't a moderate encounter, this is a VERY DIFFCICULT encounter.  Certainly not CR.




Its a 'tough' encounter



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> There are other examples, but you can see from the Fire Giant the direction those examples would go.
> 
> Anyway, I had proposed a system wherein the Golden Rule would be applied by halving all CR modifiers beyond the flat HD mod for monsters or the flat class mod for anything with a character class.
> 
> Under my system, the Fire Giant works out to a nice and neat CR 12.




Strangely enough the same as my revised Fire Giant ECL (moderate CR).   



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> This is below the ultra-high numbers of UK's old system, but still higher than the ridiculously low numbers of the book and UK's new system.  A nice rate to keep PCs from biting off more than they can chew or be thrown into battles they can't win.








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> The only (possible) flaw in my system is that some high-ability creatures still seem a bit low, meaning that the right method MIGHT be to halve all CR modifiers beyond the flat HD mod plus ability scores mods for the monsters and maybe flat class mods plus ability score mods for classes.




...well its not quite the only flaw lets be honest...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> UK goes on and on about arbitrary this and rate them the same and all this other garbage, but I ask you folks this.  What is the bottom line with CR?  I give you this answer: "Does it work in-game?"  So, does it work in game?  A monster of a CR equal to the party should be a "moderate encounter", and 13-1/3 such encounters should gain a level.  Well, using UK's old system, monsters of a CR equal to the party were easy (very easy).  Meanwhile, using the book or UK's new system results on monsters of a CR equal to the party being tough (sometimes overly tough).  My system, if used with the core rules (with CRs properly modified as detailed in UK's system if you use uber-powerful supplementals such as the Action Points and Defense Bonus systems from Unearthed Arcana or the Hero class from FCTF), works, and isn't that the only bottom line that matters?




...what my esteemed colleague here fails to point out is that his method uses different rules for PCs and Monsters, which, if you'll remember is one of the problems the CR system tried to solve (essentially how could PC CRs equal ECL and Monster CRs not equal ECL).

In a nutshell, *Anubis system rates class features at double the value of the exact same ability given to a monster.* So its one rule for PCs/NPCs and another rule for monsters...maybe its just me but that doesn't make sense.

eg. A Fighters bonus feats as part of its class features are included within the Fighters HD modifier - so that every class bestows +0.8 CR/level and every bonus feat is +0.2 CR. Whereas if we take a Magical Beast, and give it the exact same number of bonus feats, each such bonus feat only adds +0.1 CR, because since its not part of the Magical Beasts HD mod (unlike the Fighter Class) it gets halved.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> UK got almost everything right.  The basic CR mods, the build of the CR models, lots of stuff.  Unfortunately, he could never tune a Golden Rule capable of making all that stuff work in an actual game.




I appreciate the vote of confidence mate, I especially like like how you arrived at your conclusions, oddly enough a week after I told you there could be a flaw with the Golden Rule.   

However, as it turned out the Golden Rule is still valid, the flaw was in the basic CR mods all along, which I actually knew about, hence the Silver Rule. What I didn't pick up on was that it should be applied wholesale - to both monsters and PC classes, because a level of wealth is really worth 1/3rd of a PCs CR (not 1/5th). Once I sussed that out the rest fell neatly into place.


----------



## Zoatebix

Yay!  Anubis showed up!  Now we need to get Cheiromancer in here and maybe Wulf and we can have a reuinon party.  I'm still a little miffed that your (Anubis's) method for awarding XP didn't make it into the Bad Axe Games Gamemastering PDF. (Various methods detailed here: http://enworld.org/showthread.php?p=1834967#post1834967  Anubis's is method 2b in the linked post.)

I've been using the straight 2/3rds "golden rule" as suggested in Wulf's products for a while and things have been pretty OK - at least much more predictable than core RAW.  Still - I'd definately want to hear any other thoughts and most especially any playtest experience people have had.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Hi Zoatebix!  Hi Anubis!

Thanks Z for posting the link.  It's a nice summary of a lot of work that Anubis and I did.  I've bumped it with a bit of new material.

As for a reunion party- well, I'd rather be celebrating the release of the IHB! Actually, I'd rather be celebrating a series of long updates to Sepulchrave's story hour, but it seems more realistic to await the IHB.  

I haven't been playing or DMing lately, so I don't have much to say about playtesting those CR numbers. I can say that it is tricky trying to get the monster CRs to agree with UK's calculations.  Or to get the class breakdowns to agree with his figures.  If anyone has an itemized breakdown of monsters, (or has calculated the CRs of the monsters not in the SRD) I wish they would make it available!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

One thing I want to throw out to the group prior to its revision in the Bestiary, is the subject of artifacts. As you know, I am tinkering with the idea that in place of having a long list of items deities would instead be able to choose four artifacts (each representing roughly 25% of their wealth). The deities wealth would of course be based upon its ECL, so its liable to be much higher, also there are a few other things regarding artifacts (which I won't go into now) which can boost things even higher.

Now, as far as I can tell, the average difference between PC and NPC wealth at epic levels is something like 10:1.

This x10 represents something like a threefold increase in item power.

eg. A PC deity might have a +30 weapon, whereas the same NPC deity would have a +10 weapon.

Maybe its just me (and this is sort of what I am asking), but I find that too much of a discrepancy.

If PCs ever reach the same heady heights as Thor and Odin, I don't want them to be running around with artifacts that easily eclipse Mjolnir and Gungnir, or indeed equal those legendary weapons while the PCs are still 'mere' Quasi-deities and Demigods.

So the upshoot of all this is that using this artifact ruling (which I sort of had in place in the Bestiary already...why do you think all the angels get four items) that deities gain PC wealth.

Which turns us to the Bestiary.

Suffice to say those magic item carrying divine monsters get a substantial boost.

eg. the Maskim's +8 flaming burst, keen, vorpal doublesword might well become a +26 flaming burst, ghost touch, keen, lawful power, unholy power, vorpal double sword.

In terms of epic monsters however, this isn't really a new precedent. Looking at the current weapon wielders in the ELH.

Gloom CR 25: +10 (human) dread, keen dagger  +18 total = 6.48 million wealth
Hoary Hunter CR 25: +6 keen longsword of binding, value equivalent to almost +10 (epic) = 1.8 million wealth
Leshay CR 28: pair of +10 brilliant energy, keen longswords, +15 each = 9 million wealth

...so the bottom line is, don't be shocked if you see some powerful artifacts in the Bestiary.

Any comments?


----------



## Pssthpok

Make it happen.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> Oh and the Neo-Neutronium Golem
> 
> 1,330,720 hp
> 30,720d10+243 dmg




That's planet damaging, but I'm guessing a far cry from some of the more outlandish Dimensional magic?



> so the bottom line is, don't be shocked if you see some powerful artifacts in the Bestiary.




Fine by me.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *WORDS THAT ARE NOT THE IMMORTALS HANDBOOK*




*goes back to his homework*


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Make it happen.




That sounds like a line from a war movie.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> That's planet damaging,




Indeed, the Neutronium Golem actually does more base damage than the entry level Time Lord believe it or not...unless of course the Time Lord actually spent a few of its many divine ability slots on improving its strength.

The new density rules actually scared me at first, but in retrospect it all makes sense and looking back at the old stats for the Neutronium Golem they were not truly CR 1000+...but the new ones are. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> but I'm guessing a far cry from some of the more outlandish Dimensional magic?




I'm toying with a few ideas that could really blow damage sky high and still make things feasible for players.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *goes back to his homework*




I appreciate the abuse to keep me on the right track mate.


----------



## Eversius

Hello again, UK!

I was showing my friend the Immortals Handbook Bestiary a while back, and we were quite enthralled with the idea of a Neutronium *Leviathan*. This got me to thinking about some of the more "reasonable" golems, including sub-epics such as stone, iron, etc. How could you convert those into guardians, sentinels, gargants, colossi (adamantine and mithral, obviously), or leviathans? I was thinking of the standard CR adjustment based on additional hit dice, but I don't know what adjustment you have in place for the special abilities that each size variant of the golems have.


----------



## Anubis

About wealth . . . Why not just eliminate NPC wealth altogether and apply PC wealth in all situations?  Simple and fair.  There's no reason why PCs should be wealthier just because they're PCs.

As for the CRs, again, I ask you all, what's the bottom line?  _Does it work?_  Applying the Golden Rule and then the second reduction results in a CR thats' far too low.  I don't care if PC classes are rated differently.  Monsters with PC classes get those same different mods.

I just use the basic formula from the PDF: PC classes count as a HD mod of 0.8/level, wealth is counted as 0.2/level.  Even if you change it to 2/3 and 1/3 for HD and wealth, it still works.  So I apply the same final rule to PCs, I just count their HD based on class.  It results in a system that is fair and doesn't burden the PCs too much.  Sorry, UK, but an equal CR encounter isn't supposed to be tough, it's SUPPOSED to be moderate.

My system does that.  Halve past the flat HD mod and you don't have to worry about anything else, it takes care of itself.  Again, UK, if you wanna refute this, show an example of it not working, and in-game example.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Anubis said:
			
		

> A BUNCH OF WORDS ABOUT HOW HE'S RIGHT AND UK IS WRONG.




NO ONE CARES.

We just want the damn book out.


----------



## Eversius

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> NO ONE CARES.
> 
> We just want the damn book out.



 Seconded.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Eversius said:
			
		

> Seconded.




Although I did like your 3.5 DBZ conversion, would have loved to see more of that.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Eversius said:
			
		

> Hello again, UK!




Hey Eversius mate! 



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> I was showing my friend the Immortals Handbook Bestiary a while back, and we were quite enthralled with the idea of a Neutronium *Leviathan*.




...wiat til they get a load of the revised Neutronium Golem!   



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> This got me to thinking about some of the more "reasonable" golems, including sub-epics such as stone, iron, etc. How could you convert those into guardians, sentinels, gargants, colossi (adamantine and mithral, obviously), or leviathans? I was thinking of the standard CR adjustment based on additional hit dice, but I don't know what adjustment you have in place for the special abilities that each size variant of the golems have.




I have been planning to update all those golem varieties (guardians-leviathans) for the website. I'll try and get round to that sooner rather than later...but you know me. 

There are likely to be some slight changes to the golems in the official Bestiary release (major changes to the Neutronium Golem and Orichalcum Golem, minor changes to the rest).

At this point I am not sure how much I like the official Adamantite or Mithril Golem representations - they are very bland and I have a few ideas to spice them up. Suffice to say, golems would be large size - not huge.


Oh and Anabstercorian - be nice to the guests. Anubis, I will reply to you later.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Important Notice*

Hey all,

it appears as though my money order to the webspace provider has still not arrived.   

Unfortunately they do not accept paypal. I am wondering if there is anyone out there with both a credit card and paypal who would be willing to pay the invoice for me whom I could then send the money to via paypal. The bill was $29.70 (U.S. Dollars). As I see it, if I go the postal route again its going to be at least 8-10 days before I can update my website again...and thats assuming the money reaches them this time!

This would be a one time deal, since they have said they are going to invoice me a few weeks in advance in future, so I shouldn't run into this problem again.

Its no big deal if there are no takers - not like I was prone to updating every day, or even every week anyway, but with the official release of the Bestiary not too far off its not an ideal situation to be in.   :\


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all,
> 
> it appears as though my money order to the webspace provider has still not arrived.
> 
> Unfortunately they do not accept paypal. I am wondering if there is anyone out there with both a credit card and paypal who would be willing to pay the invoice for me whom I could then send the money to via paypal. The bill was $29.70 (U.S. Dollars).




I'll pay it!  Send me the info at jim_stenberg at hotmail dot com and I'll do it ASAP.

Don't worry about paying me.  Just send me bits of the IHB as they become available.

-Cheiromancer


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Cheiromancer matey! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'll pay it!  Send me the info at jim_stenberg at hotmail dot com and I'll do it ASAP.




I appreciate the love, I'll contact you later, thanks again!   



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Don't worry about paying me.  Just send me bits of the IHB as they become available.




I'm not sure I like that idea - you guys know what I am like at following through on these release dates.


----------



## Sledge

I think Cheiromancer is on to something.  Call it the "Guilt System" of motivation.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Well, I give money annually for my EN World membership.  And support them on their fundraising drives.  I even gave money to that other d20 site, though I never visit them.  d20reviews?  Something like that. So it is not like sponsoring the Immortals Handbook website is totally out of character.  Especially if I get a comp copy of a product now and then.


----------



## Sledge

Just had a thought regarding critical hit immunity.  This may have been said before, but why not simply make it a penalty to the confirming roll?  No math, nothing confusing to work out.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> Indeed, the Neutronium Golem actually does more base damage than the entry level Time Lord believe it or not...unless of course the Time Lord actually spent a few of its many divine ability slots on improving its strength.






> The new density rules actually scared me at first, but in retrospect it all makes sense and looking back at the old stats for the Neutronium Golem they were not truly CR 1000+...but the new ones are.


----------



## DDM

Wow.
Hello UK, we've been in contact by email (I'm David Destefanis), Italy.
Well, I've just finished reading the 18 pages thread..
Nice, albeit I want you to focus on finishing the books (I'll keep my gloves on too, just to paraphrase another poster here ), I have a question about immunities.

This whole talk about resistance vs immunities look sound and nice, however I have a problem.
The problem is that with resistances, you are never safe from damage. Which is ok, but for weaker characters (in hp terms), it means certain doom.
In my campaign, some epic mages have 40-45 hp (it's second edition, not 3rd), and fear of course damaging spells and effects, so have with them some immuity objects / spells.
This does not make them invulnerable, imho, far from it.
By resistance talk, it would mean that nearly any hit against them would kill them, and this is, imho, unacceptable.

So I've been thinking about it.
My solution, considering your system, would be just for them to have "higher" resistance than the fighter counterparts. Which means that they would be immune normally, but would get hit (and maybe killed) by something very powerful.
Which is, if I think about it, no different than having a fire immunity but facing "white fire" (as I call it) which is the same as mega fire (and very very rare) allowing you to bypass immunities etc.
Or facing a immortal with some fire portofoglio (immunities then, for what I think of it, are decreased to resistance in that case).
So everything seems to work, BUT then I have another problem: what will stop, besides careful DMing and good players, players "not mage" to get the same very high resistance ?
Until now, facts in my campaign were that magic was scarse (playing at rAvenloft didn't help) and also usually every PC worked on particular projects, or took particular items with them, so while some mages were keen on immunities items, fighters or others were more focused on others items. But I'm thinking that in a immortal campaign, power is different, and time too, so maybe (maybe ???) PC will be able to close the gap in everything, UNLESS I make it so that higher resistances are very difficult to obtain, thus letting the mages continue their "leadership" in that subject, while letting the fighters having to focus on some other things.
..
what is your opinion about it ?
Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Cheiromancer I have to wait for a reply from the webspace provider before I can give you the details. Hopefully they will respond today.

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Just had a thought regarding critical hit immunity.  This may have been said before, but why not simply make it a penalty to the confirming roll?  No math, nothing confusing to work out.




I suspect there is certainly more than one way to 'skin this cat'.

As I have mentioned before I won't be addressing absolutes in the Immortals Handbook except perhaps as an optional rule.

As to your solution, it reminds me of Asgardian Heartwire Armour in the Book of Exalted Deeds.


----------



## Upper_Krust

DDM said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> Hello UK, we've been in contact by email (I'm David Destefanis), Italy.




Hiya David mate - welcome to the boards! 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Well, I've just finished reading the 18 pages thread..




...yes but have you read the other 18 (or so) Immortals Handbook threads yet? 

Don't worry, its not copulsory. 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Nice, albeit I want you to focus on finishing the books (I'll keep my gloves on too, just to paraphrase another poster here ), I have a question about immunities.




Fire away!, I am on my lunch break at the moment anyway. 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> This whole talk about resistance vs immunities look sound and nice, however I have a problem.




The problem is that with resistances, you are never safe from damage. Which is ok, but for weaker characters (in hp terms), it means certain doom.

In my campaign, some epic mages have 40-45 hp (it's second edition, not 3rd), and fear of course damaging spells and effects, so have with them some immuity objects / spells.
This does not make them invulnerable, imho, far from it.
By resistance talk, it would mean that nearly any hit against them would kill them, and this is, imho, unacceptable.[/QUOTE]

But aren't they facing a similar problem with physical attacks?

One idea I would suggest is allowing one wish to increase a characters hit points by 1 point per caster level up to the characters maximum possible hit points. 

So a 20th-level Wizard (Con 16) could have a possible 70 hit points. So if the wizard only had 45 hp, they could cast a wish to take them up to 65hp, then another wish would take them up to 70hp (their maximum).



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> So I've been thinking about it.
> My solution, considering your system, would be just for them to have "higher" resistance than the fighter counterparts. Which means that they would be immune normally, but would get hit (and maybe killed) by something very powerful.
> Which is, if I think about it, no different than having a fire immunity but facing "white fire" (as I call it) which is the same as mega fire (and very very rare) allowing you to bypass immunities etc.




Wouldn't the spellcasters simply have some sort of spell cast to protect them against this energy?



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Or facing a immortal with some fire portofoglio (immunities then, for what I think of it, are decreased to resistance in that case).




Thats one way of tackling the issue.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> So everything seems to work, BUT then I have another problem: what will stop, besides careful DMing and good players, players "not mage" to get the same very high resistance ?




Not much. It might give the spellcasters an edge if you make the solution spell based of course.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Until now, facts in my campaign were that magic was scarse (playing at rAvenloft didn't help) and also usually every PC worked on particular projects, or took particular items with them, so while some mages were keen on immunities items, fighters or others were more focused on others items. But I'm thinking that in a immortal campaign, power is different, and time too, so maybe (maybe ???) PC will be able to close the gap in everything, UNLESS I make it so that higher resistances are very difficult to obtain, thus letting the mages continue their "leadership" in that subject, while letting the fighters having to focus on some other things.




I think just make it a spell, or even a spell that stacks with an item. So that if the Fighters and Wizards both have the same resistance from similar items, the Wizard can further increase their resistance via spellcasting.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> what is your opinion about it ?




One idea I have been toying with lately is the idea that as part of their extended class features, Wizards might be allowed better spells that can be permanenced upon themselves.

Another thing that might help you out is the third article on Absolutes which deals with Anti-magic. Suffice to say it might be what you are looking for. I'll try and get that posted as soon as possible. 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Thanks.




Hope I was able to help.


----------



## DDM

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya David mate - welcome to the boards!



Thanks UK mate. 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> ...yes but have you read the other 18 (or so) Immortals Handbook threads yet?
> 
> Don't worry, its not copulsory.




ARfff...  Not yet.  If I have nothing to do I will. 





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But aren't they facing a similar problem with physical attacks?




Sure they are, but usually mages are *never* hit by physical attacks.
Stoneskin in 2ed gives total immunity to X attacks, wherether they hit or not, where X is 1d4 plus 1 for each 2 levels. So a 24th level caster would not fear anything from 13-16 attacks rolls. Enough to run away, to cast more than a couple of spells, to get protection from other PCs, etc.
And since Stoneskin is permanent until dispelled or "used", casters are usually safe.
High-level casters have also a plethora of contingencies.
6th level magic has Contingency, and my group use it with Elayne's Resilient Sphere (basically an improved Otiluke's REsilient Sphere) to prevent any catastrophe from happening to them. There is also Persistence,  which can be used also defensively with magic like Fire Shield, and Chain Contingency (9th lvl magic).
All in all, physical attacks are never a problem for mages, in the short run.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> One idea I would suggest is allowing one wish to increase a characters hit points by 1 point per caster level up to the characters maximum possible hit points.




I'm against it. Well, of course Wish can do that, but then it would mean that for epic/immortal campaigning, a *berk* (as we call them in planescape setting) would have to have a lot of hit points everytime. Which takes away from personalizing your own character, imho. Sure, you *can* do it, and there's nothing wrong with it. I know however that none of my players would want to do that. It is more akin to Power Gaming for them, and min/max, which they despise.

Like I don't like very much some old immortal rules, saying that you need all your characteristics (str, con, etc) to be 13 or more to become immortal. (2ed rules)




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the spellcasters simply have some sort of spell cast to protect them against this energy?




Sure, some would. 
However, the two spellcasters in my campaign are Transmuters, and in 2ed this mean no Abjuration school.
While Fire Shield is also of Alteration school, it is mostly an exception.
Also, I don't know how your "resistance system" works with magic.
In 2ed, there is no resistance like in 3ed (albeit the resistance system is a good new rule, and I'm using it more and more in 2ed too) but some stupid items like Ring of Fire Resistance.
So spells like Fire Shield (mage, 4th lvl) allow the caster to suffer half damage from a failed save, and none with a succesful save, from fire (or cold).
From what I've gathered from your system, this is what you would call "immunity", and immunity is not a good thing right ? Or is it ? 
So are you just telling me that "immunity SPELLS" are ok, since they wear off ?
What if they don't so quickly ?
I mean, no one did that yet, but a 7th/8th level improved fire shield spell could last for days, and not rounds. IT's not permanent, but it's like Immunity for epic spellcasters, since it does not cost them anything to cast it back from time to time.

Then we have priest spells, like Protection From Fire, which gives total immunity to fire up to 12damage per caster level (so a 20th level priest would be protected from 240 damage, which is a lot by 2ed standards), AND give 1/2 damage vs it anyway with a +4 ST bonus, so first the caster would save for half damage, then substract the amount from the protection.
Ok, it is only for the priest (the absorbtion), and it lasts only 1 turn / level, but still, it's only 3rd level.

So what about spells ? is it ok for them to give "full immunities" ?






			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I think just make it a spell, or even a spell that stacks with an item. So that if the Fighters and Wizards both have the same resistance from similar items, the Wizard can further increase their resistance via spellcasting.




So this would mean that some spells, like Fire Shield, would have a resistance cap against epic/immortal magic, meaning that some fire amount could damage the caster anyway.
And that stacking would be allowed. 
So for example if a ring of fire resistance would give a 50 damage reduction, and Fire Shield a 30, I could rule that both together gives 70, or 80, or 100 (who knows, balance is about 2ed, still have to work out that one).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> One idea I have been toying with lately is the idea that as part of their extended class features, Wizards might be allowed better spells that can be permanenced upon themselves.




I've been toying with that too. As for now, the only spell who has been permanenced by a player was Tongues. But I guess that for an Immortal Campaing, this could be done, of course, if limited in number (we don't want each caster with 39863459365 permanency on them ).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Another thing that might help you out is the third article on Absolutes which deals with Anti-magic. Suffice to say it might be what you are looking for. I'll try and get that posted as soon as possible.




I was cursing indeed when I saw that it was not finished yet. 
Get to work, you lazy UK guy.  (j/k)





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hope I was able to help.




You were, thanks a lot, and I gave you some more material to ponder with.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Cheiromancer I have to wait for a reply from the webspace provider before I can give you the details. Hopefully they will respond today.




I hope I hear from you in the next few hours- I'm going out of town till Sunday.  I had thought you had the payment information ready.


----------



## Sledge

DDM In order to get only 45 hp your wizards must have rolled a lot of 1s.   Average HP is around what 55 or so at 20th level?  It's been a while since I played 2e so I might be wrong.  Anyway 2e has a different damage paradigm, and the whole wizards can't be hit by anything ever situation is a whole problem in its own.  What you need to do is look at the damages done by attacks and spells, and then turn immunity into sufficient resistance to block most of this damage.
Remember wizards should feel like they could be taken out quite easily.  Especially so when they have well below average HP.


----------



## Upper_Krust

DDM said:
			
		

> Thanks UK mate.




Hello again David! 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> ARfff...  Not yet.  If I have nothing to do I will.








			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Sure they are, but usually mages are *never* hit by physical attacks.
> Stoneskin in 2ed gives total immunity to X attacks, wherether they hit or not, where X is 1d4 plus 1 for each 2 levels. So a 24th level caster would not fear anything from 13-16 attacks rolls. Enough to run away, to cast more than a couple of spells, to get protection from other PCs, etc. And since Stoneskin is permanent until dispelled or "used", casters are usually safe.




I remember the delights of Stoneskin in 2nd Ed! 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> High-level casters have also a plethora of contingencies.
> 6th level magic has Contingency, and my group use it with Elayne's Resilient Sphere (basically an improved Otiluke's REsilient Sphere) to prevent any catastrophe from happening to them. There is also Persistence,  which can be used also defensively with magic like Fire Shield, and Chain Contingency (9th lvl magic).
> All in all, physical attacks are never a problem for mages, in the short run.




But do you use Elminsters Evasion? 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> I'm against it. Well, of course Wish can do that, but then it would mean that for epic/immortal campaigning, a *berk* (as we call them in planescape setting) would have to have a lot of hit points everytime. Which takes away from personalizing your own character, imho. Sure, you *can* do it, and there's nothing wrong with it. I know however that none of my players would want to do that. It is more akin to Power Gaming for them, and min/max, which they despise.




Another possibility would be to get your spellcasters to 23 Constitution, which means they wouldn't have any '1's, '2's or '3's on their dice rolls, which for wizards would mean maximum hit points.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Like I don't like very much some old immortal rules, saying that you need all your characteristics (str, con, etc) to be 13 or more to become immortal. (2ed rules)




I don't like that either, gods can be stupid too - Baghtru, Gruumsh's son for instance.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Sure, some would.
> However, the two spellcasters in my campaign are Transmuters, and in 2ed this mean no Abjuration school.




That'll teach them to specialise. 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> While Fire Shield is also of Alteration school, it is mostly an exception.
> 
> Also, I don't know how your "resistance system" works with magic.
> 
> In 2ed, there is no resistance like in 3ed (albeit the resistance system is a good new rule, and I'm using it more and more in 2ed too) but some stupid items like Ring of Fire Resistance.
> So spells like Fire Shield (mage, 4th lvl) allow the caster to suffer half damage from a failed save, and none with a succesful save, from fire (or cold).




What you could do is simply convert Fire Resistance (for example) into Fire Protection by making it a set figure. I suggest maybe x5 per day.

eg. Fire Resistance 10 would be Fire Protection 50/day in 2nd Edition. Thats just off the top of my head of course.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> From what I've gathered from your system, this is what you would call "immunity", and immunity is not a good thing right ? Or is it ?




An immunity protects you from something altogether - you don't need to make a save.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> So are you just telling me that "immunity SPELLS" are ok, since they wear off ?
> What if they don't so quickly ?
> 
> I mean, no one did that yet, but a 7th/8th level improved fire shield spell could last for days, and not rounds. IT's not permanent, but it's like Immunity for epic spellcasters, since it does not cost them anything to cast it back from time to time.




Yes but it can be dispelled.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Then we have priest spells, like Protection From Fire, which gives total immunity to fire up to 12 damage per caster level (so a 20th level priest would be protected from 240 damage, which is a lot by 2ed standards), AND give 1/2 damage vs it anyway with a +4 ST bonus, so first the caster would save for half damage, then substract the amount from the protection. Ok, it is only for the priest (the absorbtion), and it lasts only 1 turn / level, but still, it's only 3rd level.




This is the alternative I spoke of above.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> So what about spells ? is it ok for them to give "full immunities" ?




If, by ok you mean ultimately balanced then I would have to say no. But since I am not even going to push for absolutes to be banned within the Immortals Handbook (as anything more than an option) I can't really condemn their use in your campiagn either.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> So this would mean that some spells, like Fire Shield, would have a resistance cap against epic/immortal magic, meaning that some fire amount could damage the caster anyway.




Well most spells cap at 20th-level anyway - although I know you are using 2nd Edition.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> And that stacking would be allowed.
> 
> So for example if a ring of fire resistance would give a 50 damage reduction, and Fire Shield a 30, I could rule that both together gives 70, or 80, or 100 (who knows, balance is about 2ed, still have to work out that one).




Absolutely.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> I've been toying with that too. As for now, the only spell who has been permanenced by a player was Tongues. But I guess that for an Immortal Campaing, this could be done, of course, if limited in number (we don't want each caster with 39863459365 permanency on them ).




Thats what I meant about tying it into clas progression, so that you could have one new permanenced spell every other level - or something like that.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> I was cursing indeed when I saw that it was not finished yet.
> Get to work, you lazy UK guy.  (j/k)




Well I have it finished, I just can't update it to the website yet, until I get this current business resolved.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> You were, thanks a lot, and I gave you some more material to ponder with.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Cheiromancer matey! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I hope I hear from you in the next few hours- I'm going out of town till Sunday.




Thats okay. I don't have a reply from them as I post this. Sunday or Monday is fine. I can have the website updates ready to just be uploaded. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I had thought you had the payment information ready.




I have the details, but I need them to issue a new invoice.


----------



## Anubis

Sledge said:
			
		

> DDM In order to get only 45 hp your wizards must have rolled a lot of 1s.   Average HP is around what 55 or so at 20th level?  It's been a while since I played 2e so I might be wrong.




They had d4 for hit dice, and only rolled up through Level 9.  After that, they get 1/level flat regardless of Con.  2nd Edition sucked.  My best solution would be to switch to 3rd Edition, lol.



Anyway, UK, what about the solution that you and I discussed on MSN?  You know, the one that gave like 5/10/15 resistance per hit die in place of immunity?  The more I look at it, the more I think that's the best way to get rid of the immunities.


----------



## DDM

Anubis said:
			
		

> They had d4 for hit dice, and only rolled up through Level 9.  After that, they get 1/level flat regardless of Con.  2nd Edition sucked.  My best solution would be to switch to 3rd Edition, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, UK, what about the solution that you and I discussed on MSN?  You know, the one that gave like 5/10/15 resistance per hit die in place of immunity?  The more I look at it, the more I think that's the best way to get rid of the immunities.





Well, not totally right. Wizards had 1d4 up to 10th level, not 9th. 
But yes, afterwards they get 1hp per level.
Average hp for a wizard at 20th level is 35. (max hp is then 50, or 70 if with +2 constitution bonus)
a fighter gets usually 87 at 20th level (1st hit dice is full with Complete Fighters Handbook, and they have 1d10 up to 9th level).
But while it *sucks* to gain only 1 hp per level for wizards, 2 for rogues/priest, and 3 for warriors, it is what makes 2ed balanced with spells.
In 3ed, hit points continue to rise, but then spells can be maximised etc.
I've played all editions of D&D. AD&D 2ed proved to be the most balanced so far. The only exception is the Elf Bladesinger... dear, I don't know what they were thinking about that one.
 Still, it's just part of a Elf Handbook... not a main handbook like player's handbook.


----------



## DDM

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I remember the delights of Stoneskin in 2nd Ed!




This is true. Some people say that it's too strong, and in a way it is, like Magic Missile.
We thought for a while that Stoneskin is so fondamental for a mage, that it prevents you from choosing a Abjurer specialist. Then I tried building a NPC Abjurer, who helped during a lot of campaign years the PC.
Conclusion: Abjurers can't become invisible, fly, or use Illusion / Alteration. But trust me, even if you know they're here, you're not taking them down. It reminds me of your immunities talk... geez, it's really incredible. If they had more fighting skills they could kill anyone in close combat too since they won't ever be hit by *anything*. lol




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But do you use Elminsters Evasion?




No, but this does remind me something....
Ok now I've looked with a google search this famous spell. lol, now I remember seeing it before.
No, no one uses this: the campaing was mainly a Ravenloft one, so Elminster's spells were not there. 
Nice spell.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Another possibility would be to get your spellcasters to 23 Constitution, which means they wouldn't have any '1's, '2's or '3's on their dice rolls, which for wizards would mean maximum hit points.




Clever thinking.  Still, again it's max/min.. not very nice. 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> That'll teach them to specialise.




Lol. I do think that specialisation is superior. Sure, you get 1-2 schools barred. But you get more spells to cast, you can create better school spells (in theory a normal mage could create the same spells, but in a roleplaying aspect a player focalise usually more on his school so finds out more useful spells on his school than an usual mage), and you have some more class advantage (complete's mage handbook or some other stuff).
And it's funny. 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> What you could do is simply convert Fire Resistance (for example) into Fire Protection by making it a set figure. I suggest maybe x5 per day.




I don't quite follow you... care to explain ?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> eg. Fire Resistance 10 would be Fire Protection 50/day in 2nd Edition. Thats just off the top of my head of course.




Ok I understand the connection with your previous sentence... but I still don't get it 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> An immunity protects you from something altogether - you don't need to make a save.




Correct. A subtle difference, but still a big one. I guess then than spells immunities like Fire Shield who necessit a ST are ok. Ones like Fire Protection for priest are more like immunities, but don't last that much, and are for the caster only, so ok too.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well most spells cap at 20th-level anyway - although I know you are using 2nd Edition.




I think you're referring to High-Level handbook 2ed, which introduces caps for spells (like 20d4+20 for Cone of Cold).
I did introduce some of those caps already, but not all of them (if the spell is balanced imho no need to weaken it more, but this varies from campaign to campaign).
Without this book, most spells are not capped, but by the spell description (fireball at 10th level, per example).

Thank you for your time.


----------



## Sledge

So if you have a fairly high con (and hey you're a wizard with wish right?  if you don't then why?) you'll have a +2 there.   That works out to an average of 55 (25 for first ten levels, 10 for second 10 levels, and 20 for con) and a minimum of 40.

For the record did anyone actually fully adopt the 2e High Level campaigns book?  I have a hard time imagining it as the book's author specifically didn't like the idea of such campaigns.
Of course I also have a very hard time seeing 2e as "balanced", so I could be missing the picture here.


----------



## DDM

Sledge said:
			
		

> So if you have a fairly high con (and hey you're a wizard with wish right?  if you don't then why?) you'll have a +2 there.   That works out to an average of 55 (25 for first ten levels, 10 for second 10 levels, and 20 for con) and a minimum of 40.
> 
> For the record did anyone actually fully adopt the 2e High Level campaigns book?  I have a hard time imagining it as the book's author specifically didn't like the idea of such campaigns.
> Of course I also have a very hard time seeing 2e as "balanced", so I could be missing the picture here.




Wish cost you 5 years. In balanced campaigns, trust me, no wizard would cast it to gain some constitution points. In my campaign a wizard would have done it to be back at Con 16 (he lost a point, so he lost 10hp), but being at Ravenloft, Wishes don't really work you know. 
The other wizard plays a character with average-low physical stats, so he's not even thinking of boosting his Constitution.

As for the High-Level Campaign, when I looked at it the first time, I thought that they were crazy. Some skills seem totally unbalanced, but when you put them into play from 21st level on (and not before) they are very nice.
I've tested them. 
They are nice since:
a) wizards get few skills. Well, at least they do not get powerful ones, while other classes do. Since wizards are more powerful at higher level, it helps recreating some balance between classes.
b) all of the most powerful skills, like Invicibility (you make a skill check ? good, you survive any killing/hampering magic or fight until -30hp etc), Challenge, etc are not automatic.
You need a skill check (usually starts at 4 on 1d20). Wherever you make it or miss, you lose 2 points of skill for the day (or week depending on the skill). Usually you lose points also on the Bravery Skill (or Eminence skill for priest). This last skill is a prerequisite for those "broken" skills and is not that great. So basically, to be able to use those skills a lot, you need a lot of points, and considering you gain 3 cp each level (in my campaign, being ravenloft, I make it 4 and it works), it's totally balanced.
So warriors and priests get good skills, but can't use them all right from the start. Since xp progression is hard at high levels (well, it depends on DMing, but in my campaign people go uo a level maybe once each 5 FULL adventures), it is ok.
Thieves get some new skill, some which I think are a little anti-Roleplay, but whatever, and especially Evasion (which allow thieves to dodge fireballs, meteor swarms, etc). This is surely the most powerful thieves' skill, but then, it is not automatic (you need to roll a save) and it's not like Thieves have a lot of hp (fewest besides Mage) or magic (like wizards) to protect them from this kind of evocation magic. Also, it goes alongside well with the rogue class.

All in all, in 2ed, where power do not really increase for characters after 20th level, the High-Level Campaign Handbook is a welcome add-on and very well balanced.
We're at 25th level right now, and I know that my group is always looking upon that next level (even mages, with some skills like Signature Item or Spell Sculpting) to gain some more power.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> Anyway, UK, what about the solution that you and I discussed on MSN?  You know, the one that gave like 5/10/15 resistance per hit die in place of immunity?  The more I look at it, the more I think that's the best way to get rid of the immunities.




I think its probably the fairest solution I have seen to date. Lets see what its like in practice.

Dretch - Fire Resistance 10
Marilith - Fire Resistance 80
Fire Giant - Fire Resistance 120
Great Wyrm Red Dragon - Fire Resistance 400
Small Fire Elemental - Fire Resistance 30
Elder Fire Elemental - 360

Its possible it should be 5/10/20?

What do the rest of you think?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey DDM matey! 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> This is true. Some people say that it's too strong, and in a way it is, like Magic Missile.
> We thought for a while that Stoneskin is so fondamental for a mage, that it prevents you from choosing a Abjurer specialist. Then I tried building a NPC Abjurer, who helped during a lot of campaign years the PC.
> Conclusion: Abjurers can't become invisible, fly, or use Illusion / Alteration. But trust me, even if you know they're here, you're not taking them down. It reminds me of your immunities talk... geez, it's really incredible. If they had more fighting skills they could kill anyone in close combat too since they won't ever be hit by *anything*. lol




The thing about Stoneskin in them days was that it became such a necessity that everyone had it - so if everyone had it, it became somewhat redundant.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> No, but this does remind me something....
> Ok now I've looked with a google search this famous spell. lol, now I remember seeing it before. No, no one uses this: the campaing was mainly a Ravenloft one, so Elminster's spells were not there.
> 
> Nice spell.




It was the 'get out of jail free card' that no mage left home without.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Clever thinking.  Still, again it's max/min.. not very nice.




I'd probably put my faith in min/maing before I would absolutes. 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Lol. I do think that specialisation is superior. Sure, you get 1-2 schools barred. But you get more spells to cast, you can create better school spells (in theory a normal mage could create the same spells, but in a roleplaying aspect a player focalise usually more on his school so finds out more useful spells on his school than an usual mage), and you have some more class advantage (complete's mage handbook or some other stuff).
> And it's funny.




Well there can be no advantage without penalties to balance it out - otherwise everyone would specialise.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> I don't quite follow you... care to explain ?
> 
> Ok I understand the connection with your previous sentence... but I still don't get it




I mean, convert Fire Resistance spells and magic items into Fire Protection spells and magic items.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Correct. A subtle difference, but still a big one. I guess then than spells immunities like Fire Shield who necessit a ST are ok. Ones like Fire Protection for priest are more like immunities, but don't last that much, and are for the caster only, so ok too.




Absolutely.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> I think you're referring to High-Level handbook 2ed, which introduces caps for spells (like 20d4+20 for Cone of Cold). I did introduce some of those caps already, but not all of them (if the spell is balanced imho no need to weaken it more, but this varies from campaign to campaign). Without this book, most spells are not capped, but by the spell description (fireball at 10th level, per example).




We never capped spells during our 1st/2nd Ed. days - Thats why even the gods called Doomstar sir. 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Thank you for your time.




Thats what I am here for, happy to help.


----------



## CRGreathouse

DDM said:
			
		

> I've played all editions of D&D. AD&D 2ed proved to be the most balanced so far. The only exception is the Elf Bladesinger... dear, I don't know what they were thinking about that one.
> Still, it's just part of a Elf Handbook... not a main handbook like player's handbook.




*incredulous stare*

You can't be serious, can you?


----------



## Sledge

So you don't have any elven wizards obviously.... to them 5years is a joke as well.


----------



## Verequus

Regarding the problem, that +2 ability score increases count one time as two feats and one time only as one feat, I've decided to calculate the true costs of a +2 based on the individual benefits. Hopefully I haven't forgotten a benefit, because I like the end result:

Increased Strength gives a bonus to Strength checks and heightens both the maximum load and attack and damage rolls.
Increased Dexterity gives a bonus to Dexterity checks and to Reflex save and heightens both the AC and attack rolls with ranged weapons.
Increased Constitution gives a bonus to Constitution checks and to Fortitude save and increases the hit points.
Increased Intelligence gives a bonus to Intelligence checks, more languages and more skill points.
Increased Wisdom gives a bonus to Wisdom checks and to Will save.
Increased Charisma gives a bonus to Charisma checks.

Mental ability scores may increase also the save DC of spells. Add thus a feat to the total from above (only a third of a feat is applied to each mental stat, as the increase is only potential).


Strength costs for a +2 score increase:

2/5 feat for increased carrying capacity (doubling is one feat)
1/2 feat for attack bonus
1/2 feat for damage bonus
3/5 feat for skill bonus (averaged over 36 skills over all 6 attributes)

=2 feats worth

Dexterity costs for a +2 score increase:

1/2 feat for Reflex save
1/2 feat for attack bonus
1/2 feat for AC bonus
3/5 feat for skill bonus (averaged over 36 skills over all 6 attributes)

=2.1 feats worth

Constitution costs for a +2 score increase:

1/2 feat for Fortitude save
1   feat for hit points (Improved Toughness)
3/5 feat for skill bonus (averaged over 36 skills over all 6 attributes)

=2.1 feats worth

Intelligence costs for a +2 score increase:

0 feats for languages (no CR modifier for knowing languages)
1/10 feat for extra skill point
3/5 feat for skill bonus (averaged over 36 skills over all 6 attributes)

=0.7 feats worth

Wisdom costs for a +2 score increase:

1/2 feat for Will save
3/5 feat for skill bonus (averaged over 36 skills over all 6 attributes)

=1.1 feats worth

Charisma costs for a +2 score increase:

3/5 feat for skill bonus (averaged over 36 skills over all 6 attributes)

=0.6 feats worth

Thus an increase of +2 for every ability score increases the CR by: 9.6 feats (Includes save DC). Averaged: 1.6 feats

What do you think?


----------



## DDM

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> *incredulous stare*
> 
> You can't be serious, can you?




About what ? AD&D 2ed being balanced, or the Elf Bladesinger being the only class I've seen totally out of balance ? 
I guess the former.
Well, I think it all boils down to what we call "balance".
a) balance in classes: all versions of D&D never had a perfect balance between classes. Wizards, in all editions, start weak and become the strongest. Usually what I've seen is that with newer and newer versions of D&D, the non-magic classes became more and more stronger in the beginning (I remember the old D&D with the warrior having 1d8 hit points with the mage 1d4... now things are different but mages still have 1d4 for hp).
b) spell balance... on all official manuals of AD&D 2ed (not including specific campaign/world spells, like Elminster's for example...), there are only a few spells that I forbid/weaken on my campaign. Choke and Throbbing Bones (Compl. Wiz Hand), Improved Blink, Seven Eyes and Mordenkainen's Force Missile(Spells & Magic). Period.
All magic can be dispelled, but a couple.
Overall, the magic system is balanced.
I can't say the same for 3ed spells. In 3.0 there was Haste, totally crazy, as an example.
c) Fights/Melee. The parrying rule seems useless, but gets interesting as long as you take out the -10 AC limit. PArrying with shield needed a house rule to make it more logical and interesting, but after that, all is working.

All in all, at expert level (not of character, but of players), fights with and without magic are very well balanced, and don't end up with combos/min+max.
Indeed, the import point about combat is not, in 2ed, *how much damage you can inflict*, but, like in real life, who can choose his ground.
Min/max in AD&D 2ed means nothing if it's the ennemy who strikes you first, and heavily.

Anyway, like I said, 2ed is well balanced. Even Wisdom, considered useless, is really Intuition and Willpower, so you can use it like "observation" skill in 3ed.
Now, this does not mean that some rules in 3ed are not plainly better.
But given any D&D system, 2ed is the one who needs less house rules/Errata to be balanced at any level of play. Well, it's my opinion, at least.

This is why, while we are 2 DM in our campaign, and that one of us is DMing in 3ed with another group, that we continue to play in 2ed (with a couple of house rules) for the main campaign, that is, the one that I'm preparing for Immortals.

So, UK, get to work. We're waiting.


----------



## CRGreathouse

DDM said:
			
		

> Well, I think it all boils down to what we call "balance".
> a) balance in classes: all versions of D&D never had a perfect balance between classes. Wizards, in all editions, start weak and become the strongest. Usually what I've seen is that with newer and newer versions of D&D, the non-magic classes became more and more stronger in the beginning (I remember the old D&D with the warrior having 1d8 hit points with the mage 1d4... now things are different but mages still have 1d4 for hp).




My first wizard was in 2nd edition and has 2 hp at level 1, and just 1 1st-level spell.  I remember the effect pretty well.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> b) spell balance... on all official manuals of AD&D 2ed (not including specific campaign/world spells, like Elminster's for example...), there are only a few spells that I forbid/weaken on my campaign. Choke and Throbbing Bones (Compl. Wiz Hand), Improved Blink, Seven Eyes and Mordenkainen's Force Missile(Spells & Magic). Period.
> All magic can be dispelled, but a couple.
> Overall, the magic system is balanced.
> I can't say the same for 3ed spells. In 3.0 there was Haste, totally crazy, as an example.




It's been a while since I last played second edition (I stopped playing for a few years 'cause I didn't like the system), but 2E haste was quite a lot more powerful than 3E haste, and incomparable to 3.5 haste.  Sure, it aged you, but if you were an elf (as most wizards were, in my experience) it wasn't as bad.

Hit points were lower across-the-board then, and _fireball_ did the same or more damage -- it certainly seemed too strong to me.

I wish I could remember some of the bad abuses of spells were back then, because I'd seen plenty.

I haven't seen anything comparable in 3.x.  I don't ban any of the core spells for balance reasons (I ban two out of flavor reasons, but one has an exact mechanical equivilent and the other is considered weak and wasn't really taken anyway.)  I find the spells in 3.x much better balanced.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> c) Fights/Melee. The parrying rule seems useless, but gets interesting as long as you take out the -10 AC limit. PArrying with shield needed a house rule to make it more logical and interesting, but after that, all is working.




What are you saying, that as long as you house rule 2E it can be almost as interesting as 3.x?  I mean, look at the combat actions in the 3.x PH.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> But given any D&D system, 2ed is the one who needs less house rules/Errata to be balanced at any level of play. Well, it's my opinion, at least.




I haven't seen any reasons for this, and have found the opposite to be true in practice.  My 2E group was practically torn apart by min-maxing, and all of my (many) 3.x campaigns have been well-balanced*.

* OK, so there was this one time I gave out an artifact to a low-level group, but that was an intentional disruption of balance on my part and had nothing to do with edition.


----------



## DDM

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> My first wizard was in 2nd edition and has 2 hp at level 1, and just 1 1st-level spell.  I remember the effect pretty well.




That's a mage. A specialist wizard has 2 spells.
And any of those can have a signature spells (Spells & Magic) per level, which gives +2 casting level and 1 other casting for a particular spell.
For example, an Invoker with Magic Missile as Signature Spell would be able to cast 3 Magic Missile at 1st level, each one at 3rd lvl of ability (so there would be 2 missiles per spell)
All D&D editions had this 1d4 hp for wizards. with OD&D you were stuck that way with 1 spell. 2ed improved that, and 3ed some more. 




			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> It's been a while since I last played second edition (I stopped playing for a few years 'cause I didn't like the system), but 2E haste was quite a lot more powerful than 3E haste, and incomparable to 3.5 haste.  Sure, it aged you, but if you were an elf (as most wizards were, in my experience) it wasn't as bad.




errr... sorry, but I don't remember Haste 3.0 aging anyone (I don't remember about 3.5, but I guess nothing changed), you know. I don't remember 2ed Haste giving ANOTHER casting to spellcasters either.
2ed Haste lasted 1 rd / Lvl and aged you one year each time, and was used in DIRE situations.
3.0 Haste (we can speak about Heal and Harm too) was simply put THE spell everyone would cast before combat.
About the 1 or 5 year aging, there are rules in 2ed to prevent elves and co. to ignore them: it becomes 1 year per 100 year life span, and 5 years per 100 years life span.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Hit points were lower across-the-board then, and _fireball_ did the same or more damage -- it certainly seemed too strong to me.




Well, not really: Fireball did max 10d6, like 3ed. But you didn't had something, imho, worse: maximised Fireball and other spells.
A Fireball at 10th level would have done an average 35 damage. 17 with a succesful ST.
In 3ed, you can have it doing 60 damage, period. ok 30 with a ST. Granted, you need to take a higher spell slot, like 5th IIRC, and the talent.
Let me think about it, a 10th level mage (he can cast 5th lvl magic) can then do 30hp FOR SURE to anyone. How many hp has a mage, average, at 10th level ?
Fireball never killed anyone in my 17 years of campaign in 2ed. Unless the PC/NPC was already wounded.
Of course, you can fail you ST. However failing a ST vs 35 is way better than one vs 60 (by 2ed you have to do another save vs death for mass damage). And 60 is enough to kill anyone but a warrior at 10th level in 3ed. In 2ed, 35 kills a mage... and that's it. Well, to be honest a rogue has an average of 35 hp at 10th lvl, so he would drop inconscious.

Maximised spells are not so balanced because it's a thing that has different impacts depending on the spell. Maximising a Fireball (10d6) is different than maximising, let's say, Magic Missile. Dies of damage change, and the more you have, the more the spell is powerful. But the talent only increases the spell by 2 lvls.
This do mean that spell balance by spell lvl is "foggy" at best, imho.

And also, usually ST in 2ed, if you were not using the rule "1,2 and 3 means failed save on 1d20", were done more and more easily, failing only with a 1 after a while. So Fireball meant really "17 damage to everyone, with a critical threat of 35". Hardly a problem.




			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I wish I could remember some of the bad abuses of spells were back then, because I'd seen plenty.




I understand. Changing system does that. 
Well, I know a lot of good players were thinking about some of those before playing with me.
Some thought Geas was too strong. It's not if you interpret it right.
Other abuses were proved wrong in an expert players campaign.
The newbie would say "hey, I have this invoker!! he is soooo strong!!!" and think that by casting a ton of Fireballs and Cone Of Colds, with +20hp at 10th level, he would be invicible.
Then he would understand that offense meant nothing if the kept being hit before casting (and Cone of Cold has ini +5 on 1d10. By 2ed rules you need the lower number, not the higher) or if he didn't know where to shoot (because of invisibility, just to give an example).
More veteran players would have some spell lists, quite strong, but still would miss the point that they could be hit before the opponent, and that "finding the opponent first without being found" is really the only key to victory. And to do this, you need balance spells, like Invisibility, Silence, True Seeing, etc etc..
All in all, everybody that went in my campaign thinking 2ed was unbalanced understood that they were just not thinking about everything yet. 
I'm quite sure some of the problems of 3ed can be dealt the same way. Indeed, it's not that the core system is THAT different. Spells are more or less the same. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I haven't seen anything comparable in 3.x.  I don't ban any of the core spells for balance reasons (I ban two out of flavor reasons, but one has an exact mechanical equivilent and the other is considered weak and wasn't really taken anyway.)  I find the spells in 3.x much better balanced.




As long as you say 3.5, that's ok. Saying Haste 3.0 was balanced is however something hard to accept, and even HAste 3.5 is imho too strong. Not getting aged ? (IIRC) why would someone not cast it then at each battle ?



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> What are you saying, that as long as you house rule 2E it can be almost as interesting as 3.x?  I mean, look at the combat actions in the 3.x PH.




No, like I said, I'm speaking about balance. Not "interesting". Combat rules in 3ed are better, no problems about it, but they are balanced for 3ed.
2ed basic rules were... basic. You could attack or... parry for the whole round.
The Fighter's Handbook added some options. Combat & Tactics some more too.
2ed and 3ed have both their ins and outs. 
I've added attacks of opportunity (back attacks were already in 2ed anyway) in some way, since it's not a bad thing in some cases.
I'm the first to admit that there is good in 3ed. But I had no balance problem in combat (or anything) in 2ed. I would have with min/max in 3ed, with some spells, and some classes and feats.
All in all, I could say that maybe the best way would be a mix between 2ed and 3ed. Oh well. 




			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any reasons for this, and have found the opposite to be true in practice.  My 2E group was practically torn apart by min-maxing, and all of my (many) 3.x campaigns have been well-balanced*.




I'm curious, do you remember the examples of min/max in your 2ed group ?
I can figure out some, I guess, like Warriors putting all their points in Str/con/dex, but then, it worked only if you let them do it during creation, which depends on the DM policy. (while in 3rd everyone has more or less the same stats in a given class -which is dull imho- so they can min/max easily, albeit not to the same discrepancies as 2ed)
Oh yes, I've found another one in 2ed. 
This one is VERY horrible, and indeed I stopped it in my campaign.
A warrior specialised in darts. He throws 5 a round, and with exceptional strenght this do mean 1d3+8 (With str 18/00) for each attack... While a warrior specialised in long sword would do 1d8+8 but with max 5/2 attacks per round at 13th level...
Ok, this is, IIRC, the only one I banned in 2ed.


All in all, I guess we can agree that most things that seem unbalanced are because we are not "used" to them...
I'm a lot more used to 2ed than 3ed, and if it's not broken, why fix it ? (at least for me)
I can only say for 3ed seeing my friend who DM with it, and still more than some of the rules banned for game balance and preventing min/max.
Most of this banning is "no, this does not exist where you live" or "you can't take this, it's not allowed for you race"... 
ahh, I love D&D.


----------



## CRGreathouse

DDM said:
			
		

> About the 1 or 5 year aging, there are rules in 2ed to prevent elves and co. to ignore them: it becomes 1 year per 100 year life span, and 5 years per 100 years life span.




I never saw this rule in 2E.  Was it in the core books?



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Well, not really: Fireball did max 10d6, like 3ed. But you didn't had something, imho, worse: maximised Fireball and other spells.




(Oops, you're right about the cap.  Bad memory, there, sorry.)

You've got to be kidding me.  A Maximized _fireball_ is a 6th level spell, comparable then to the 2E _disintegrate_, _chain lightning_, and _death spell_.  In addition, it takes a feat and has the save of a 3rd level spell.  It's weak, only worth using if you're otherwise out of options or have special circumstances.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Fireball never killed anyone in my 17 years of campaign in 2ed. Unless the PC/NPC was already wounded.




I killed many creatures in 2E with _fireball_.  In 3E it does much less damage, proportionately.  An ogre had around 20 hit points in 2E, so a _fireball_ would be likely enough to kill it; in 3E they have half again as many hit points.  An owlbear's typical hit points have nearly doubled; other creatures are similar.

I'm just not seeing your argument here.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> All in all, everybody that went in my campaign thinking 2ed was unbalanced understood that they were just not thinking about everything yet.
> I'm quite sure some of the problems of 3ed can be dealt the same way. Indeed, it's not that the core system is THAT different. Spells are more or less the same.




I did play for several years under 2E, so I was pretty familiar with it and its basic supplements.  I just didn't find it balanced like you did -- the DM would often complain about balance problems.  Frankly they all went away come 3E, and (in my opinion) balance was improved by the transition to 3.5 from 3.0.

As for 2E vs. 3E, you're right in that the spells remained basically the same.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> As long as you say 3.5, that's ok. Saying Haste 3.0 was balanced is however something hard to accept, and even HAste 3.5 is imho too strong. Not getting aged ? (IIRC) why would someone not cast it then at each battle ?




There are a lot of spells that don't age subjects in both editions, why not always cast all of them?  It's a matter of time and resources, as always.  3.0 _haste_ was strong, no doubt, but in 3.0 with wizards routinely casting _haste_ my groups found less balance problems than in 2E.  Chalk it up to different experiences, I guess.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> I'm the first to admit that there is good in 3ed. But I had no balance problem in combat (or anything) in 2ed. I would have with min/max in 3ed, with some spells, and some classes and feats.
> All in all, I could say that maybe the best way would be a mix between 2ed and 3ed. Oh well.




Why would you have to min/max in 3E?  I'm lost.



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> I'm curious, do you remember the examples of min/max in your 2ed group ?
> I can figure out some, I guess, like Warriors putting all their points in Str/con/dex, but then, it worked only if you let them do it during creation, which depends on the DM policy. (while in 3rd everyone has more or less the same stats in a given class -which is dull imho- so they can min/max easily, albeit not to the same discrepancies as 2ed)
> Oh yes, I've found another one in 2ed.
> This one is VERY horrible, and indeed I stopped it in my campaign.
> A warrior specialised in darts. He throws 5 a round, and with exceptional strenght this do mean 1d3+8 (With str 18/00) for each attack... While a warrior specialised in long sword would do 1d8+8 but with max 5/2 attacks per round at 13th level...
> Ok, this is, IIRC, the only one I banned in 2ed.




I don't remember the mechanics precisely, but the first thing that springs to mind was a ranger kit (with much augmentation from various splatbooks -- this was a piece of work) that allowed some ungodly number of attacks per round, at a very high bonus to atk/dmg.

I remember that no characters were worthwhile *at all* unless you did some serious min/maxing.  Throw together a 2E human figher using the more generous 3E rolling method (it was a 2E DMG variant) and make him a level higher than everyone else in my group and he would be weak to the point of contributing almost nothing.  At least, that's as I recall it.

I don't know, I feel that I can throw together almost any character concept in 3E and have a viable character, while in 2E you were constrained to min/max the living daylights out of something just to be barely playable, radically restricting character choice.


----------



## Anubis

Sledge said:
			
		

> So you don't have any elven wizards obviously.... to them 5years is a joke as well.




In 2nd Edition, Elves couldn't get to a high enough level to get _wish_, lol.  They were limited, I believe, to like what, Level 12?



Oh, and DDM, it takes a twisted sense of balance to think 2nd Edition even came close to balanced, lol.


----------



## Pssthpok

15th, Anubis.


----------



## Sledge

What with level limits being the least balanced thing for players in 2e, I was certain that most players just ignored them as per the option in the core books.  Enforced retirement of different characters at different levels is inane.


----------



## DDM

Sledge said:
			
		

> What with level limits being the least balanced thing for players in 2e, I was certain that most players just ignored them as per the option in the core books.  Enforced retirement of different characters at different levels is inane.




Level limits for races different than humans were a Player's Handbook thing, already dealt with in the same years DMG in different manners.
The first was to push back the limit from 1 to 4 levels, depending on the prime requisite score.
A elf wizard with 18 in Intelligence would then reach level 19, more than enough to get wish.
In my campaign, there ia Dwarf cleric of 23rd level.
Quite impossible by *standard* rules, but DMG also gave you the option of doing it, as long as the demi-human doubled the necessary xp to get the additional levels.
So while the cleric was always complaining about it (instead of needing 220k xp to pass a level, he needed 440k), he still did it. Considering that both human mages needed 375k xp to pass a level, it wasn't that much a difference, but the dwarf had some great bonus (ST bonuses to nearly everything, infravision, etc...).

Honestly, those races bonuses are not worth, imho, the double xp cost *forever*. Still, any demihuman gets those bonus up to level 15 (average) without paying any xp costs, so demi human races up to this level are plainly stronger. Paying double cost from 15 and more is then not so bad, considering you had a whole campaign without any penalties to play before that.
None of my players chose races for min/max, but it seems everything is nice (albeit not very logical, I admit) since the wizards are 25th, the cleric is 23rd. Not much difference, even though it starts to add up.
Anyway, the point stands: even demi-human could get to unlimited levels.


----------



## DDM

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I never saw this rule in 2E.  Was it in the core books?




No, I don't think it was in the main core books. At least not that I remember of. Maybe it was in one of the magic books, about "wish" and similar.




			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> You've got to be kidding me.  A Maximized _fireball_ is a 6th level spell, comparable then to the 2E _disintegrate_, _chain lightning_, and _death spell_.  In addition, it takes a feat and has the save of a 3rd level spell.  It's weak, only worth using if you're otherwise out of options or have special circumstances.




True, it's +3, my bad. Ok 6th level is better. I still do not like it at all, I must admit.
I don't know about 3ed, but spell creation in 2ed is very delicate and balanced about die of damages.
5th level magic damage is about Cone Of Cold (1d4+1 /Lvl). 6th level magic is Chain Lightning (1d6 per level, capped at 12d6 IIRC) which is just slightly higher than fireball, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (1d4+2 / level, but if you save, with dex bonus, it's no damage,and it hits only 1 character), etc.
All in all,to get a limit of possible damage, you need 7th level magic: Delayed Blast Fireball: 10d6+10 max.
Far from a maximised Fireball in 3ed.
I understand that in 3ed you save easier vs a low spell level than vs a high one, which is imho a good rule, non existant in 2ed. In 2ed a save is still a save. (unless you take some high level campaign saves rules)
The higher the magic you can cast, the higher level you are, so the easiest you save (both in 2ed and 3ed).
Even though you're right about monsters hp, making a maximised fireball not so strong, I still don't like it vs. wizards. They still get killed by it, even with a save. at 12th level. 
There are really a few magic in 2ed that can kill a wizard even with a ST (in a single blow), and those are Cone Of Cold (if not capped, and only from 20th lvl of casting, and it's not Cone Of Cold is a very versatile spell in battle), and another 8th levl spell (Azi Dabim Horrible something).
Overall, I guess 3ed couldn't do any different...
hp and damage, like in all successive editions of D&D, were increased (this is normal, to make things look better, you better the classes and possibilities to make them more appealing to customers. 2ed was no different than 3ed in that matter, of course ). However, they couldn't really boost damage of spells, since they didn't boost hp for wizards and classes, but at high levels.
Still, since monsters got more sturdy (indeed, it was time they did, since 2ed monsters are a little weak in that department), you needed something.
All in all, well, yes, I agree that +3 level and feat is enough to make it balanced, and I must admit also that if I were a mage I wouldn't take it, finding it "weak". Still, I don't like the concept...




			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I killed many creatures in 2E with _fireball_.  In 3E it does much less damage, proportionately.  An ogre had around 20 hit points in 2E, so a _fireball_ would be likely enough to kill it; in 3E they have half again as many hit points.  An owlbear's typical hit points have nearly doubled; other creatures are similar.




See above. Even though the ogre would likely not save (STs in 2ed of an ogre is about 16/17, so he would need a 16 or more to save on 1d20, without counting possibles malus to the ST) in 2ed, while in 3rd, I honestly don't know, but it can't be worse I guess, since it's about also characteristics, and not only levels.
I guess the ogre wouldn't save either, right ? 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> There are a lot of spells that don't age subjects in both editions, why not always cast all of them?  It's a matter of time and resources, as always.  3.0 _haste_ was strong, no doubt, but in 3.0 with wizards routinely casting _haste_ my groups found less balance problems than in 2E.  Chalk it up to different experiences, I guess.




I guess (even though I must say how could it be so: wizards are already very powerful, casting twice a round makes them even more). I always liked the fact that people could cast Haste, a very decisive spell (double attacks and initiative bonus), but had to pay the price. For 3rd level magic, there is no stronger spell. Paying 1 year seemed a fair and steeped price, in a campaign.
Haste is Alteration school, so if there were no age price, why play a specialist with Alteration barred ? No one would since you could cast Haste in any combat.
I know that barring schools mean you won't cast magic from that school, but Alteration has a lof of other interesting spells. Haste would become a staple like Stoneskin. However, while Stoneskin is defensive, Haste is both defensive and offensive, so it's worse.
Imho, an offensive spell is much more a serious threat, if powerful, to game balance, than a defensive spell.



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Why would you have to min/max in 3E?  I'm lost.




Feat combos, like monk/critical/multiple attacks/death attacks.
The fact that when you gain your point each 4 levels, you're bound to put it in your main characteristic (this is also min/max), leading to, imho, poor character sheets on a RPG point of view. (on the min aspect, I can't create a character with 5 in Str if I wish, which is a pity)
Spells combos (impossible in 2ed) also (i don't remember any specific, but I remember Time Stop in some of them, or something with Magic Missile ?)





			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't remember the mechanics precisely, but the first thing that springs to mind was a ranger kit (with much augmentation from various splatbooks -- this was a piece of work) that allowed some ungodly number of attacks per round, at a very high bonus to atk/dmg.




hmmm... The Ranger's Handbook, I don't have. Does it exist ?
The ranger was always chosen as first warrior class choice, but it allows you 3 attacks per round at highest levels. A specialized fighter has more.
hey, if you have it still, you can sell it to me by ebay. 
It can't be worse than the Elf's Handbook, right ? 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I remember that no characters were worthwhile *at all* unless you did some serious min/maxing.  Throw together a 2E human figher using the more generous 3E rolling method (it was a 2E DMG variant) and make him a level higher than everyone else in my group and he would be weak to the point of contributing almost nothing.  At least, that's as I recall it.




Well, fighters needed strength and constitution. Without they would be weaker than non maxed characters in those characteristics. Same with 3ed, also. A fighter without str and con is not very strong either.
I know however that no min/max was allowed in my campaign (albeit I allowed the 4d6 rolling method, scrap the lowest roll, which method is stronger than 3ed creation I guess), and my players won fighting tournaments (my group was divided in two teams, both made it to the finals), against 30 other players who max/min their characters.
Granted, they knew how to play. I think that if you min/max, you're bound to play your PC like a min/max, which narrows your mind about your possibilities (since the min/max gives you so many bonuses, you focus on those naturally), which leads to defeat against more balanced characters (if played right, which, average, does not happen very often in D&D, I agree).
Heck, one of characters that proved the strongest in the tournament was a 13th lvl Transmuter, with 31hp, 5 in Str, 9 in Con. (all characters were 13th lvl single class, or 12 multi class) And everyone thought it was one of the weakest.
Still, you're right about one thing: fighters at high level are weak, without some boosts in str and con, and even then, they're weaker than wizards, but this is nothing new. 
As a DM, you need to help them a little during game play if you don't want that much of a gap to be created between them and the casters. 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't know, I feel that I can throw together almost any character concept in 3E and have a viable character, while in 2E you were constrained to min/max the living daylights out of something just to be barely playable, radically restricting character choice.




I can understand your point. This is true. In 3ed you can have this feeling, while in 2ed average players would see their character doomed if not min/max.
However, I think that while any 3ed can seem worthwhile to play, it does not mean that in the end, this character is the ultimate killing machine and strongest berk out there. 
The same is for 2ed: "looking weak at the start" is no guarantee, far from it, that it would still be weak after some 8-10 lvls.


----------



## Sledge

Can we maybe take this discussion of editions to a different thread where we don't have to fear hijacking the Immortal's Handbook?

(BTW DDM most of the 2e books are available in pdf format for sale at RPGNow and other sites.)


----------



## DDM

Sledge said:
			
		

> Can we maybe take this discussion of editions to a different thread where we don't have to fear hijacking the Immortal's Handbook?




Totally correct.  Apologies for that. We wouldn't want UK not finishing his work.  (how long it was since he started btw ?)
So, can someone here tell what UK did finish yet (books/chapters of IH), and what is his next step towards this ultimate work ?


----------



## historian

> So, can someone here tell what UK did finish yet (books/chapters of IH), and what is his next step towards this ultimate work ?




U_K is best to answer this one but since he isn't here I'll give you my understanding.  U_K has released a pdf version of the Bestiary which is a mostly complete (the pdf preview does not include all entries that will be included in the final version; additionally, I understand that certain of the creature statistics might be modified) version of what will ultimately be released in hard copy.

Notwithstanding that a superseding version will issue I highly recommend the pdf if you don't have it.  I've enjoyed it mightily.

As for a more general take on U_K's progress I would recommend hitting his website, http://www.immortalshandbook.com/.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Mini-poll.*

Hey DDM mate! 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> Totally correct.  Apologies for that. We wouldn't want UK not finishing his work.  (how long it was since he started btw ?)




...trust me you don't want to know. 



			
				DDM said:
			
		

> So, can someone here tell what UK did finish yet (books/chapters of IH), and what is his next step towards this ultimate work ?




Only the Bestiary has been released so far, and even then only unofficial, pending the completion of the art. 


By the way I wanted to ask everyone, what new monsters they wanted to see in the Bestiary. I already have one decided, but I have two more slots and three monsters are vying for those slots (I am increasing the Bestiary to 96 pages)

Here are the choices:

*1. Abomination: Annedotus (Dragon Men) Approx. CR +20 (Template)*

Its a bit like an epic Half-Dragon Template. The sample character is the son of Tiamat.

*2. Amidah (Ultimate One) Approx. CR +100 (Template)*

Inspired by movies like 'Highlander' and 'The One' (Jet Li). One idea is that paragons everywhere would do battle for it...there can be only one (at any given time that is). The sample character is a very high-level non-evil Vampire warrior called Alabaster.

*3. Nexus Dragon (Worm Hole Dragon) Approx. CR 500-1000*

Think massive Fate dragon with the quantum breath weapon that can erase you from ever existing.

Remember you can only choose 2 of the 3. Its been pointed out that the Annedotus and Amidah will likely see more use (given the relatively lower CRs) so that could be a factor to consider.


----------



## Fieari

I guess if I have to choose 2 out of the 3, that I'd go with the first two.  Pity though, since it'd be great to have more options of really high level challenges, but right now, I think most of us are at lower level epic gaming.


----------



## Anubis

Since the first one sounds easy enough to just make, I'd go with the last two:

2. Amidah (Ultimate One) Approx. CR +100 (Template)
3. Nexus Dragon (Worm Hole Dragon) Approx. CR 500-1000


----------



## historian

U_K, I would go with the last two, notwithstanding that the Nexus Dragon isn't going to see as much playing time.


----------



## Kavon

Hey U_K 

I'll agree with Anubis and historian, the last two sound nice 
The first one doesn't give as much bang to my imagination :3

(gotta love Highlander and big dragons, too XP)


----------



## Sledge

I'd vote for the first two.


----------



## CRGreathouse

I'd vote for the first two.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

I vote for 1 and 3.

U_K, will your formula for calculating Golem HD make it into the IH?


----------



## Alzrius

Anubis said:
			
		

> Since the first one sounds easy enough to just make, I'd go with the last two:
> 
> 2. Amidah (Ultimate One) Approx. CR +100 (Template)
> 3. Nexus Dragon (Worm Hole Dragon) Approx. CR 500-1000




I agree with Anubis, and cast my vote for these two. U_K, given that the Bestiary won't be able to include this last monster (presuming that you won't then put the one that doesn't get packed into volume II), any chance that the losing entry could be posted free for view on your website?


----------



## Crosshair

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *1. Abomination: Annedotus (Dragon Men) Approx. CR +20 (Template)*
> 
> Its a bit like an epic Half-Dragon Template. The sample character is the son of Tiamat.
> 
> *2. Amidah (Ultimate One) Approx. CR +100 (Template)*
> 
> Inspired by movies like 'Highlander' and 'The One' (Jet Li). One idea is that paragons everywhere would do battle for it...there can be only one (at any given time that is). The sample character is a very high-level non-evil Vampire warrior called Alabaster.




Lt. Col. Crosshair votes #1 and #2


----------



## Pssthpok

Gotta go with #2 & #3.


----------



## Anabstercorian

I vote you stop bragging about your design-fu skills and finish your work before you die alone and unloved in a gutter like Mozart did!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello there Ulitharid Lord - and welcome to the boards! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> I vote for 1 and 3.




Thanks for all the votes so far. Unfortunately (counting Rulemaster who voted over msn messenger) it appears at the moment as though choices #1 and #3 are dead level. 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> U_K, will your formula for calculating Golem HD make it into the IH?




I'll probably put that on the website - I have been meaning to add the Clay Guardian/Golem/Sentinel/Gargant/Colossi/Leviathan.

To be honest I am not sure if it works that well without making either major changes to the core golems or major changes to the golems in my Bestiary. My latest idea was that maybe the golems hit dice could be based on the strength modifier attributed to that material (where Flesh would be 9 HD, +0 strength).

That way you get:

Flesh 9 HD
Clay 13 HD
Stone 15 HD
Diamond 16 HD
Iron 22 HD
Mercury 26 HD
Gold 29 HD
Orichalcum 132 HD
Neutronium 251 HD

Although this looks like a major nerfing of the Neutronium Golem, it doesn't really change it that much - its base slam damage is still 100,000+, its hit points are still 1,000,000+. But I am just not sure the change is a good idea.

Oh, and Cheiromancer, the webspace provider still hasn't emailed me back since Friday - I don't know whats going on there. I'll email them again tonight.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Ok.  I'll be around all week.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I agree with Anubis, and cast my vote for these two. U_K, given that the Bestiary won't be able to include this last monster (presuming that you won't then put the one that doesn't get packed into volume II), any chance that the losing entry could be posted free for view on your website?




Well to be honest I really wanted the Bestiary to have 51 entries (I have 153 monster ideas in various stages of development - so that would be 51 per Volume). The monsters you were voting for were all part of the original design of the first volume (although the Akishra and Cogent should have been in the third volume in the big Psuedonaturals section).

Actually I just double-checked and the Annedotus is actually a spare monster so condsider that 154.

The original line up of Volume #1 should have included:

Atalia (Eclipse Shadow)
King Wight...an epic Death Knight, Template
Elementars (7 entries)
Amidah (Ultimate One), Template
Anneal (Exalted One), Template
Anti-Matter Creature, Template
Bicorporeal Creature, Template
Bisects...an alien race
Silver Slaad/Brood
Eldren...an alien race
Nexus Dragon

...and as I mentioned the Akishra and Cogent should have been in the third volume.

If and when the printed version of Volume #1 happens I'll probably try and restore it to its original glory and maybe release the other monsters in a 32 page pdf for an appropriate price.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hello there Ulitharid Lord - and welcome to the boards!




Thanks! 

U_K, when are you going to update your website with the revised Antimagic rules? I've tried revising Antimagic rules here (you have to scroll down), and I'd like to see what you've done to Antimagic.


----------



## Eversius

Wait wait wait... Antimatter creature? GOOD LORD MAN, YOU SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT!


----------



## Sledge

UK I have been thinking and would like to suggest (Although I may be killed for this) that the bestiary in print would be best served as POD until all 3 are finished, and then as one real good book.  Nice big hardcover.  Easily worth $50 if you get it right.


----------



## Sledge

Anyone here have an idea what a ring of wizardry that allows the Automatic Metamagic Capacity to be used ought to be priced at?


----------



## Zoatebix

I'm votin' 1 and 2.  You can never have too many Abominations or Dragons, but there are just so many more dragons out there.


----------



## Pssthpok

Sledge said:
			
		

> Anyone here have an idea what a ring of wizardry that allows the Automatic Metamagic Capacity to be used ought to be priced at?




Given that it would grant at least one bonus epic feat, I'd say just over 200k at least, raised in exponential intervals per feat it grants. i.e. a ring of AMC +1 could be 250,000 gp, +2 could be 500,000 gp, +3 could be 1,000,000 gp, +4 ~ 2,000,000, etc. The way I see it, the epic ring selection is crap and could stand to see a few items really worth the adjective. Even if my pricing suggestion is rebuked, the ring idea is a good one, Sledge.


----------



## Sledge

Pssthpok actually I'm putting it on a character that already has Automatic Metamagic Capacity.  As is the "epic" rings of wizardry are great at say 20th level, but at level 39 they are going to be the equivalent of this guy's cantrips.  Better because of the base spell allowed mind you, but still weak compared to what he normally has.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> Thanks!




Don't mention it mate, happy to help! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> U_K, when are you going to update your website with the revised Antimagic rules?




As soon as I can upload my website again.



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> I've tried revising Antimagic rules here (you have to scroll down), and I'd like to see what you've done to Antimagic.




Anti-magic is potentially one problem with high-level gaing that I would fix and integrate as standard rather than only as an optional rule.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey there! 



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> Wait wait wait... Antimatter creature? GOOD LORD MAN, YOU SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT!




They would certainly compliment the Strange-Matter race from Volume #3.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Heya Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> UK I have been thinking and would like to suggest (Although I may be killed for this) that the bestiary in print would be best served as POD until all 3 are finished, and then as one real good book.  Nice big hardcover.  Easily worth $50 if you get it right.




Thats the plan. 320 page epic bestiary with 153 monsters.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Anyone here have an idea what a ring of wizardry that allows the Automatic Metamagic Capacity to be used ought to be priced at?






			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Given that it would grant at least one bonus epic feat, I'd say just over 200k at least, raised in exponential intervals per feat it grants. i.e. a ring of AMC +1 could be 250,000 gp, +2 could be 500,000 gp, +3 could be 1,000,000 gp, +4 ~ 2,000,000, etc. The way I see it, the epic ring selection is crap and could stand to see a few items really worth the adjective. Even if my pricing suggestion is rebuked, the ring idea is a good one, Sledge.




I don't really think its necessarily 'that' powerful, but it is technically epic.

I suspect you could have:

+1 = 10,000
+2 = 40,000
+3 = 90,000
+4 = 160,000
+5 = 250,000
+6 = 360,000
+7 = 490,000
etc.

Of course the above would need tested to its (il)logical conclusions.

+10 = 1 million...30th-level to own
+20 = 4 million...42nd-level to own
+30 = 9 million...52nd-level to own
+40 = 16 million...61st-level to own
+50 = 25 million...70th-level to own
+60 = 36 million...79th-level to own
+70 = 49 million...88th-level to own
+80 = 64 million...98th-level to own
+90 = 81 million...107th-level to own
+100 = 100 million = 115th-level to own

At first glance, the above seems fairly well balanced. However the question is whether or not the above would be stackable with the feat!? By default maybe not. A stackable version might retail for bonus squared x 20,000 instead of x 10,000 as listed above.


----------



## Fieari

10,000 for AMC +1 seems a little cheap to me.  That sounds affordable to someone at something like 10th level.  I'd say start the numbers off much higher or you'll see these epic items as a staple of lower level gaming.  I can practically see the CharOp board salivating at the thought of being able to quicken every spell for free for a mere 160,000.


----------



## DDM

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> I vote you stop bragging about your design-fu skills and finish your work before you die alone and unloved in a gutter like Mozart did!




I don't know why but this is the post I liked the most. 
So, U_K, what about putting some more "action" and less "thought" ? 
Oh, and for the votes, my humble opinion would be for the first two, for some of those same reasons already written on these boards. But since I want you to decide, then IF my vote creates a balance, then change it and put it to the highest vote pool.


----------



## Anabstercorian

DDM said:
			
		

> I don't know why but this is the post I liked the most.




I thought it struck a nice balance between complimentary comparison and naked contempt.


----------



## Sledge

Okay I'm thinking that some people are missing my point here.  A ring of wizardry double's your spell slots of a certain level.  So a ring of AMC Wizardry would double your slots with the AMC allowed on each slot.  So you take the standard 9 rings of wizardry and you throw on the amount of AMC you want allowed on each slot, with the understanding that it only doubles what you have.  So having +10 AMC on a ring of wizardry IX when you only have AMC twice would only allow you to use AMC twice.  The other 8 AMC is waste until you catch up with the ring.  To do it otherwise will quickly result in imbalance.


----------



## Pssthpok

Hey, UK,

How would your feelings on absolutes affect, say, a Cheribum's 1st Choir traits? That gives him a lot of immunites... Would you factor their Divine Traits with that at all? Like, make them resistant to the first 24 negative levels/ability drain-damage from each attack? Just curious, because after having looked at the Bestiary, you have a lot of FIND+REPLACE moves to make, I think.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Hey UK!

You had best harass your ISP a bit more.  If they haven't responded to your email in a week, they've probably lost it.

-Cheiro


----------



## Upper_Krust

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hey, UK,




Hiya mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> How would your feelings on absolutes affect, say, a Cheribum's 1st Choir traits? That gives him a lot of immunites... Would you factor their Divine Traits with that at all? Like, make them resistant to the first 24 negative levels/ability drain-damage from each attack? Just curious, because after having looked at the Bestiary, you have a lot of FIND+REPLACE moves to make, I think.




Well, if I were to implement the changes as standard I would remove all immunities.

Energy Immunity would be replaced with energy resistance.
They would be protected from Ability Drain and Energy Drain equal to their Divine Bonus.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Hey UK!




Hey Cheiromancer dude! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> You had best harass your ISP a bit more.  If they haven't responded to your email in a week, they've probably lost it.




I don't understand whats going on myself. This is the first time I have ever had any problems with them and they generally respond within 24 hours.


By the way I meant to ask, does anyone have the fonts:

ScalaSans - Regular
ScalaSans - Bold

I use ScalaSans LF Regular in the Bestiary but I don't think the pdf shows up the bold text because I don't have the bold font - even though the text is bold on my screen.


----------



## Anubis

What's Automatic Metamagic Capacity?  I haven't heard of that feat, or haven't found it.


----------



## Verequus

That's a new feat from the Bestiary - or it is on Upper_Krust's website. Or it could be in both locations. I'm too lazy to check that out now. :\


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis matey! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> What's Automatic Metamagic Capacity?  I haven't heard of that feat, or haven't found it.




http://www.immortalshandbook.com/freestuff9.htm


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> They would be protected from Ability Drain and Energy Drain equal to their Divine Bonus.




Ah, my initial guess was correct, then. Thanks!


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

Hey Krusty

About 1200-1300 posts ago in an old thread, you promised that you would do a CR write-up of the core classes on your web site. Well, the time has come!   

I won’t keep you from finishing your already sadly delayed books, but do you think it would be possible to throw us this tidbit. It would help a lot in determining CR adjustments for homemade creatures.
Especially now that you’ve change some bits quite a lot (equipment), it would be nice to see the new values. Maybe you could post the classes here, one by one.

If this is too much hassle, please tell me one thing. How do you calculate CR for abilities that are dependent on ability scores. I am thinking of something like Divine Grace in particular.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Just to let you all know, I got the website back on track a few hours ago (special thanks to Cheiromancer for his help), and I'll update things shortly, starting with the Absolutes/Anti-Magic article.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Hey Krusty




Hi Sorcica matey! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> About 1200-1300 posts ago in an old thread,




When was that, about 4-5 months ago? 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> you promised that you would do a CR write-up of the core classes on your web site.




DOH!   



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Well, the time has come!




Its not exactly the greatest timing in the world...though I suppose with me it never is.   



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> I won’t keep you from finishing your already sadly delayed books, but do you think it would be possible to throw us this tidbit. It would help a lot in determining CR adjustments for homemade creatures.




I'll see what I can do. I have updates for the website planned for every day for the next six days (I'm staggering the stuff you see).



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Especially now that you’ve change some bits quite a lot (equipment), it would be nice to see the new values. Maybe you could post the classes here, one by one.




I might be able to fit something like that in somewhere. Expect something easy to start...like the Fighter class. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> If this is too much hassle, please tell me one thing. How do you calculate CR for abilities that are dependent on ability scores. I am thinking of something like Divine Grace in particular.




Coincidentally enough this is something Rulemaster has been working on solving (check his most recent posts here).

I think the basic findings of his work was that not all ability scores are created equal*, but that they average +1.6 Ability Scores per feat. Which roughly parallels the +10 AS per +1 CR I initially envisioned.

Seemingly the Physical scores were each roughly twice as powerful as the mental scores - meaning that Great Strength (or Dexterity/Constitution) should give a +1 bonus whereas Great Intelligence (or Wisdom/Charisma) should give a +2 bonus.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

> Its not exactly the greatest timing in the world...though I suppose with me it never is.




Heh 



> I'll see what I can do. I have updates for the website planned for every day for the next six days (I'm staggering the stuff you see).





> I might be able to fit something like that in somewhere. Expect something easy to start...like the Fighter class.




Great!



> Coincidentally enough this is something Rulemaster has been working on solving (check his most recent posts here).
> 
> I think the basic findings of his work was that not all ability scores are created equal*, but that they average +1.6 Ability Scores per feat. Which roughly parallels the +10 AS per +1 CR I initially envisioned.
> 
> Seemingly the Physical scores were each roughly twice as powerful as the mental scores - meaning that Great Strength (or Dexterity/Constitution) should give a +1 bonus whereas Great Intelligence (or Wisdom/Charisma) should give a +2 bonus.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

> Its not exactly the greatest timing in the world...though I suppose with me it never is.




Heh 



> I'll see what I can do. I have updates for the website planned for every day for the next six days (I'm staggering the stuff you see).





> I might be able to fit something like that in somewhere. Expect something easy to start...like the Fighter class.




Great!



> Coincidentally enough this is something Rulemaster has been working on solving (check his most recent posts here).
> 
> I think the basic findings of his work was that not all ability scores are created equal*, but that they average +1.6 Ability Scores per feat. Which roughly parallels the +10 AS per +1 CR I initially envisioned.
> 
> Seemingly the Physical scores were each roughly twice as powerful as the mental scores - meaning that Great Strength (or Dexterity/Constitution) should give a +1 bonus whereas Great Intelligence (or Wisdom/Charisma) should give a +2 bonus.




Uhm... Ok. I'm still not sure I get it. I understand that some ability scores might be worth more than others (although I thought we all agreed many moons ago that abilitiy modifiers are equal; it depends on the class/ special ability using them). But Rulesmaster make a good case.
But I still don't get it how you rate a class ability like Divine Grace or an undead having +1 deflection per charisma bonus. (Well, it's easier for the undead, though you'd have to do it for each single undead, if they had different cha.). But Divine Grace? Monk's AC bonus from Wisdom?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

> Its not exactly the greatest timing in the world...though I suppose with me it never is.




Heh 



> I'll see what I can do. I have updates for the website planned for every day for the next six days (I'm staggering the stuff you see).





> I might be able to fit something like that in somewhere. Expect something easy to start...like the Fighter class.




Great!



> Coincidentally enough this is something Rulemaster has been working on solving (check his most recent posts here).
> 
> I think the basic findings of his work was that not all ability scores are created equal*, but that they average +1.6 Ability Scores per feat. Which roughly parallels the +10 AS per +1 CR I initially envisioned.
> 
> Seemingly the Physical scores were each roughly twice as powerful as the mental scores - meaning that Great Strength (or Dexterity/Constitution) should give a +1 bonus whereas Great Intelligence (or Wisdom/Charisma) should give a +2 bonus.




Uhm... Ok. I'm still not sure I get it. I understand that some ability scores might be worth more than others (although I thought we all agreed many moons ago that abilitiy modifiers are equal; it depends on the class/ special ability using them). But Rulesmaster makes a good case.
But I still don't get it how you rate a class ability like Divine Grace or an undead having +1 deflection per charisma bonus. (Well, it's easier for the undead, though you'd have to do it for each single undead, if they had different cha.). But Divine Grace? Monk's AC bonus from Wisdom?


----------



## Borlon

*Absolution (Part Three: Anti-Magic)*

Hmmm.  I'm not terribly impressed with the revised way of doing anti-magic.  UK suggests that it makes spells and supernatural attacks have half their normal effect instead of being completely negated.  I would prefer that it mesh a little more seamlessly with the existing rules.

For instance, suppose it reduces the caster level of spells or SLAs by 20.  If this reduces the caster level below the minimum caster level the spell doesn't function.  Supernatural abilities do 20 dice less damage (for breath weapons and the like) or have +20 to saves (for non-damaging effects with a save) or don't work unless the creature has more than 20 hit dice (for other effects).  

High level creatures would be greatly inconvenienced by this, but (assuming CL above 20) would not be entirely neutralized.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Seemingly the Physical scores were each roughly twice as powerful as the mental scores - meaning that Great Strength (or Dexterity/Constitution) should give a +1 bonus whereas Great Intelligence (or Wisdom/Charisma) should give a +2 bonus.




Idiocy.  Measure stats where they're best for the purpose of increasing them, not where they're worst.


----------



## Pssthpok

Is the antimagic article up? I don't see it on your site, Krust.


----------



## Alzrius

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Is the antimagic article up? I don't see it on your site, Krust.




It's here: http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon1.3.htm

You may be having the same problem I did. My AOL browser didn't show the new update, but IE (and Firefox) do.


----------



## Pssthpok

Not what I expected... Borlon's idea seems closer to home for me.


----------



## Alzrius

Borlon said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  I'm not terribly impressed with the revised way of doing anti-magic.  UK suggests that it makes spells and supernatural attacks have half their normal effect instead of being completely negated.  I would prefer that it mesh a little more seamlessly with the existing rules.
> 
> For instance, suppose it reduces the caster level of spells or SLAs by 20.  If this reduces the caster level below the minimum caster level the spell doesn't function.  Supernatural abilities do 20 dice less damage (for breath weapons and the like) or have +20 to saves (for non-damaging effects with a save) or don't work unless the creature has more than 20 hit dice (for other effects).
> 
> High level creatures would be greatly inconvenienced by this, but (assuming CL above 20) would not be entirely neutralized.




Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of this.


----------



## Eversius

Hmm. So could you also reverse Borlon's idea to work like UK's? For example, make "Mega-Magic" increase caster level/HD for the purpose of effects by 20? If so, how could you augment this and Borlon's proposed effect by heightening AMF/MMF or other effects that are similar?


----------



## Eversius

Also, UK, I'm glad to hear that the bestiary is almost ready! I'm psyched! People who paid for the preview still get the full version, right?


----------



## Verequus

In Elements of Magic - Revised/Mythic Earth, anti-magic is handled like spell resistance. Every effect has to make a caster level check against the SR of the AMF, which starts at 10. I like this solution better. Basically, you have three areas: 1. The caster level is less than SR-21 - all spells fail. 2. The caster level is between SR-20 and SR-1 - spells can function. 3. The caster level is at least the same as the SR - all spells function. There is no need to change the spells and their effects, unlike your system, UK. Also, dividing numbers should be avoided at all costs.

The only problem is, how you determine the SR within the core rules. In EoM-R/ME you have to increase the costs for higher SRs and the maximum is capped by the maximum rank of a magical skill. Maybe increase the SR with the caster level?


----------



## Borlon

The EoMR/ME rules look like they extend well to an epic spell system.  Maybe it is not so surprising that their anti-magic rules might also work well at epic levels.  If we are talking about a Supernatural effect (like a dragon's breath weapon), would it be the source's hit dice that is used as a caster level?

I also recall something about incorporeal creatures disappearing inside an antimagic cone/field.  Or maybe it is an ethereal creature?  Does that happen in EoMR/ME too?

As for the SR; to absolutely match the core rules, an antimagic field would have to be a minimum of SR 40 to block all spells by non-epic casters.  That's very high considering it could be generated by an 11th level caster.  I wouldn't allow it to scale with CL.  If I did, then I would make it SR 20 + caster level.  CL capped at 20 for a maximum SR of 40.

If you want to make greater effects, use higher level spells.  +10 SR/3 spell levels might work.  If a 6th level spell gives SR 40, then a 9th level spell could give SR 50, a 12th level spell could give SR 60, and so on.  If scaling with caster level is a good idea, each 3 levels would increase the cap on caster level by 10.

This idea is pretty rough, and maybe it should be in its own thread.  I just hope that UK doesn't work through all the variations on this before publishing.  It's been delayed enough.

I've been thinking about the other kinds of immunities; SKR's site made me think.  I think that a paladin's immunity to fear needs to be more subtantial than +10 to saving throws vs fear.  +10 + paladin level would be better.  I think the other immunities could be handled the same way: +10 +1/class level, where the class is the one that provides the immunity.

For saves that give half damage, you could add a rule that if you save with a margin of 20 or more, you take no damage, just as if you had evasion or mettle.

If something doesn't allow a save, you get one anyway, but at a -20 penalty (this number might vary).

I like the notion that elemental immunities be based on hit dice.  Resistance of 5/10/20 per hit dice, or something similar.  My only concern is that a 1 hd creature that is immune to fire (but without a fire subtype or anything) would have less resitance than a 1 hd creature with fire resistance 10.  Maybe there should be minimum values.  Immunity can never be less than resistance 20 or something.

Anyways.  While I have high hopes for the release of the various chapters of the Immortals Handbook, I don't think the material on immunities is anywhere close to being published.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Sorcica said:
			
		

> Heh




Howdy! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> Uhm... Ok. I'm still not sure I get it. I understand that some ability scores might be worth more than others (although I thought we all agreed many moons ago that abilitiy modifiers are equal; it depends on the class/ special ability using them). But Rulesmaster makes a good case.




I'm not totally sure what to do for the best regarding ability scores, they have been a thorn in my side for a while.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> But I still don't get it how you rate a class ability like Divine Grace or an undead having +1 deflection per charisma bonus. (Well, it's easier for the undead, though you'd have to do it for each single undead, if they had different cha.). But Divine Grace? Monk's AC bonus from Wisdom?




Well generally what I would do is take the average. So something like Divine Grace, a typical Paladin would have Charisma 16 which is a +3 bonus to all saves which is equivalent to 3 feats which is equivalent to +0.5 CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Borlon dude! 



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  I'm not terribly impressed with the revised way of doing anti-magic.  UK suggests that it makes spells and supernatural attacks have half their normal effect instead of being completely negated.  I would prefer that it mesh a little more seamlessly with the existing rules.




It does mesh seamlessly - its pretty much meta-magic in reverse.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> For instance, suppose it reduces the caster level of spells or SLAs by 20.  If this reduces the caster level below the minimum caster level the spell doesn't function.




Where did I say it reduces caster level?



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Supernatural abilities do 20 dice less damage (for breath weapons and the like) or have +20 to saves (for non-damaging effects with a save) or don't work unless the creature has more than 20 hit dice (for other effects).




I don't know where you are getting these ideas from, but it isn't my optional anti-magic rules. Either you don't understand it or I haven't explained it well enough.

Feel free to post up some examples of where you think its broken and I'll take a look. I don't see where you are getting this +20 to saves business!   



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> High level creatures would be greatly inconvenienced by this, but (assuming CL above 20) would not be entirely neutralized.




The whole point is that it inconveniences opponents relative to their power, yet does not totally neutralise magic.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey CRGreathouse matey! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Idiocy.  Measure stats where they're best for the purpose of increasing them, not where they're worst.




But thats the point - the stats are not equal. Physical stats give far more bang for their buck, in fact they are pretty much *twice* as powerful, 'pound for pound', as their mental counterparts.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Eversius mate! 



			
				Eversius said:
			
		

> Also, UK, I'm glad to hear that the bestiary is almost ready! I'm psyched! People who paid for the preview still get the full version, right?




Absolutely!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi RuleMaster dude! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> In Elements of Magic - Revised/Mythic Earth, anti-magic is handled like spell resistance. Every effect has to make a caster level check against the SR of the AMF, which starts at 10. I like this solution better. Basically, you have three areas: 1. The caster level is less than SR-21 - all spells fail. 2. The caster level is between SR-20 and SR-1 - spells can function. 3. The caster level is at least the same as the SR - all spells function. There is no need to change the spells and their effects, unlike your system, UK.




I fail to see how that is a problem, especially given how simple the change is to implement.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Also, dividing numbers should be avoided at all costs.




However I presume you are happy to multiply numbers, such as through metamagic (ie. Empower spell), so what is the difference?


----------



## Sledge

The difference is that in general it takes people twice or three times as long at least to divide as to multiply.  Not for everyone, but in general this holds true and is a cause for consternation in many people.


----------



## Borlon

Sorry UK, I wasn't clear enough.

By "meshes seamlessly with existing rules" I mean that, for most cases, antimagic under your proposal ought to function just like it does in the current rule set.  It's failure to do so counts against your proposal.

For example, if a beholder's central eye radiates over a party according to the current rules, the +4 enhancement bonus to dexterity that someone gets from _cat's grace_ disappears.  Their +3 flaming longsword suddenly becomes just a masterwork weapon.  And so on; all magic completely ceases.

If I understand your proposed change, then the beholder's central eye won't have these effects any more.  Instead the +4 bonus from _cat's grace_ becomes +2, and the longsword has a +1 bonus and does +1d6/2 fire damage per hit.  That is noticeably different from magic completely ceasing.

The rest of the post is me brainstorming, trying to suggest a method that would make antimagic look much the same as it currently does at lower (nonepic) levels, with differences arising only at epic levels.  For example, if everything had its caster level reduced by 20, then only a _cat's grace_ cast by an epic caster would function.  If all damage was reduced by 20 dice, then the breath weapon of a very powerful dragon would still have some effect.

Or if antimagic functioned like SR (as per Rulemaster's observation) then someone's _cat's grace_ would have to overcome a CL check vs SR 40 to function. Etc.

The effect at non-epic levels would be the same; all magic would completely cease to function.  But very high level casters would still be able to have some of their magic works.

I wouldn't really mind it if a 16th level caster had a minuscule chance of being able to work magic in a beholder's antimagic cone.  But I would object if a 5th level caster could use any magic at all.


----------



## Sledge

I have to agree with Borlon here as well.  Especially with resistances and such, anything that has to get through an antimagic field will almost always be useless at epic levels.  In essence your article will result in anti-magic being least effective at pre epic levels and most effective at truly epic levels.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again Borlon mate! 



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Sorry UK, I wasn't clear enough.
> 
> By "meshes seamlessly with existing rules" I mean that, for most cases, antimagic under your proposal ought to function just like it does in the current rule set.  It's failure to do so counts against your proposal.
> 
> For example, if a beholder's central eye radiates over a party according to the current rules, the +4 enhancement bonus to dexterity that someone gets from _cat's grace_ disappears.  Their +3 flaming longsword suddenly becomes just a masterwork weapon.  And so on; all magic completely ceases.
> 
> If I understand your proposed change, then the beholder's central eye won't have these effects any more.  Instead the +4 bonus from _cat's grace_ becomes +2, and the longsword has a +1 bonus and does +1d6/2 fire damage per hit.  That is noticeably different from magic completely ceasing.




Ah yes - I understand you now.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> The rest of the post is me brainstorming, trying to suggest a method that would make antimagic look much the same as it currently does at lower (nonepic) levels, with differences arising only at epic levels.  For example, if everything had its caster level reduced by 20, then only a _cat's grace_ cast by an epic caster would function.  If all damage was reduced by 20 dice, then the breath weapon of a very powerful dragon would still have some effect.




As I see it though, the fixed (level based) approach is simply another form of absolute.

If your party of epic characters are fighting a lesser deity who employs anti-magic you are still faced with exactly the same problems inherant within core anti-magic. Basically this on/off switch is going to reduce characters by 1/3 power or greater - that is one heck of a situational modifier.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Or if antimagic functioned like SR (as per Rulemaster's observation) then someone's _cat's grace_ would have to overcome a CL check vs SR 40 to function. Etc.




I'd be curious to hear how Rulemasters suggestion works with items.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> The effect at non-epic levels would be the same; all magic would completely cease to function.  But very high level casters would still be able to have some of their magic works.
> 
> I wouldn't really mind it if a 16th level caster had a minuscule chance of being able to work magic in a beholder's antimagic cone.  But I would object if a 5th level caster could use any magic at all.




Why would you object though? Its all relative.


----------



## DDM

Albeit not being a perfect 3ed rule guru, I tend to agree with the core of the posters here.
The idea that ANYONE's magic would still work, even if lessened, in an antimagic area simply takes out, IMHO, the whole mean of "anti-magic" word,
It becomes, like you said, a "lessen magic" (or something of that extent).

Anti-magic has always been a powerful too at DM's disposal.
put a mage in an anti-magic zone, and he will sweat. A lot.
Now a mage is just cursing, saying "well, if things go wrong, my contingencies will still work" (hey, he could still teleport away, right ???). This would mean that some magic might be more useful than others in this new anti-magic concept.

I think I understand the goal you're trying to achieve.
I guess however, that anti-magic *should* stay "anti-magic* at non epic levels.

Some concepts have been proposed there, and I do understand them all.
Another would be to decide that *using magic in an anti-magic area, at epic levels, could be done, but it is tiresome*. Which means that the more you cast magic in an anti-magic area, the more it becomes difficult to overcome the full "anti-magic effect".
This basically means that magic users have to make a distinct effort to overcome anti-magic, and that this effort can be made only by epic level PCs.
How to implement this solution ? in any way you think of. It's the concept that I like, and it follows the line of thought that "antimagic is dangerous", and not "oh, ok, now all my spells are 50% less effective, well, who cares, I can deal with that since I *know* how they will work" (with the tiredness rule, which can be "increasing difficulty to overcome antimagic", you never know WHEN your spell will work.. or fail...).

Just trying to help, of course.


----------



## Verequus

Borlon said:
			
		

> The EoMR/ME rules look like they extend well to an epic spell system.  Maybe it is not so surprising that their anti-magic rules might also work well at epic levels.  If we are talking about a Supernatural effect (like a dragon's breath weapon), would it be the source's hit dice that is used as a caster level?




I think, I should clarify the definition of EoMR/ME. Those are two books, not simply one. The mechanics are similar, but have some major differences. EoMR uses Magic Points, similar to Psionic Points, to fuel spells. Spells are created by combining enhancements, which function similar to augmentations. Enhancements are available through both so-called spell lists and magical skills.

EoMME is a further evolution of EoMR. All spell lists have been converted into skills (and skills have been folded together) and instead using MP, you have to succeed spellcasting checks to cast a spell - low-level spells are practically unlimited. Futhermore, while EoMME uses the term spell level, it refers more to something like the costs of an augmented power. Basically you convert core spell levels to EoMME spell levels with 2*level +1. Considering, that you can increase the power of a spell with buying of enhancements, this system lends itself to epic play.

Regarding the dragon: In EoMR you would use the CR as caster level, but in EoMME you would the HD (at least I think, that you use HD like other spellcasters - the author hasn't addressed this issue).



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> I also recall something about incorporeal creatures disappearing inside an antimagic cone/field.  Or maybe it is an ethereal creature?  Does that happen in EoMR/ME too?




I haven't found a quote, which supports, that being incorporeal or ethereal is a magical effect. The closest I've discovered is a ghost using manifestation. Even if that would be true, I think, that this should be handled like undeads and golems in an AMF.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> As for the SR; to absolutely match the core rules, an antimagic field would have to be a minimum of SR 40 to block all spells by non-epic casters.  That's very high considering it could be generated by an 11th level caster.  I wouldn't allow it to scale with CL.  If I did, then I would make it SR 20 + caster level.  CL capped at 20 for a maximum SR of 40.




Why should magic be cancelled like in the core rules? In EoMR/ME, 2 matching spellcasters can cancel each other spells with 50% probability. It also cancels somewhat the grapple-spellcasters-in-AMF-area tactic.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about the other kinds of immunities; SKR's site made me think.  I think that a paladin's immunity to fear needs to be more subtantial than +10 to saving throws vs fear.  +10 + paladin level would be better.  I think the other immunities could be handled the same way: +10 +1/class level, where the class is the one that provides the immunity.
> 
> For saves that give half damage, you could add a rule that if you save with a margin of 20 or more, you take no damage, just as if you had evasion or mettle.
> 
> If something doesn't allow a save, you get one anyway, but at a -20 penalty (this number might vary).




I think, that adding the paladin level to the +10 is a bad idea. You get already a Will save bonus through class levels, so you would triple the advancement, making a paladin practically immune to fear effects, unless a god casts magic. Too similar to our current situation.


----------



## Verequus

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> However I presume you are happy to multiply numbers, such as through metamagic (ie. Empower spell), so what is the difference?




In EoMR/ME, I don't use Empower Spell - I just add more damage enhancements. In essence, there are no multipliers there. Simple and easy.


----------



## Verequus

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to hear how Rulemasters suggestion works with items.




I can't find it in EoMME, but in EoMR it was the spell level. Probably it is the same there. As the spell level in EoMRE is comparable to 2*core spell level +1, it isn't as bad it seems. But in core, magic items have caster levels already listed, so it wouldn't be a problem here.


----------



## Borlon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> As I see it though, the fixed (level based) approach is simply another form of absolute.
> 
> If your party of epic characters are fighting a lesser deity who employs anti-magic you are still faced with exactly the same problems inherant within core anti-magic. Basically this on/off switch is going to reduce characters by 1/3 power or greater - that is one heck of a situational modifier.




Well, consider the "immune to fire" special quality.  Suppose for a particular creature this immunity is replaced with fire resistance 60.  That's a lot.  Enough to absorb a maximized _fireball_ without breaking a sweat.  A party of 10th level adventurers wouldn't notice the difference between fire resistance 60 and immunity to fire.  An epic level party using empowered maximized _meteor swarms_ would notice the difference; the resistant creature takes fire damage, but the immune creature wouldn't.

What you propose, analogously to replacing elemental immunity with elemental resistance, is to replace antimagic with reduced magic.  I think the analogy should be tighter.  Just as low level adventurers won't distinguish between elemental immunity and really high elemental resistance, so should they be unable to distinguish between the complete absence of magic and greatly reduced magic.  But high level (epic) characters should be able to distinguish very nicely between elemental resistance and immunity; they should be able to notice that while their magic is greatly reduced, it is not totally negated.

As for how to match up divine antimagic with parties... well, why not give antimagic an absolute ceiling.  It can never be higher than SR 40, say.  Against parties with casters (and items) in the 30+ level range it is a hindrance rapidly fading to an annoyance, but higher level parties ignore it entirely.  Against these parties you have to use reduced magic, which functions as you propose; reducing bonuses by a factor of 2, 3 or even more.

Antimagic would be like creature SR in this respect, or very high DR.  Against a certain level of characters it is an absolute barrier.  Against higher level characters it is an annoyance, and against even higher level characters it is hardly noticed.

Alternatively, instead of an absolute cap on antimagic, make the SR grow very, very slowly with respect to level.  A creature that produces an antimagic field produces a field with a SR of 40 or 1/4 their CR, whichever is higher.  This rule might be employed for planes with strongly antimagical properties.  A prison plane can be assigned a CR (and thus an SR) commensurate with the highest level creature whose magic it can hold.  Make it so the antimagic is absolute only against characters who would be overwhelmed anyways.  40th level adventurers should have a very, very hard time against a CR 240 opponent; one way to simulate that is to make that opponent generate an antimagic field with a SR of 60.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But thats the point - the stats are not equal. Physical stats give far more bang for their buck, in fact they are pretty much *twice* as powerful, 'pound for pound', as their mental counterparts.




Physical stats aren't twice as powerful, that's what I'm saying.  The comparison was flawed as it didn't properly consider the importance of casting stats.


----------



## Sledge

So here I am going through stuff for fridays run through of labyrinth of madness, and I'm getting frustrated with checking every critter manually to match with the pc's.  Is there a list of corrected CR's from the SRD?  Also where can I find the latest version of UK's CR/EL rules?


----------



## Kerrick

Interesting take on antimagic, but I have to agree the division is not the same as multiplication - for one thing, you end up with decimal places; for another, like Rulemaster said, dividing takes longer and requires a calculator in most cases. I came up with a variant on antimagic awhile back... basically it was like Borlon's idea, with the SR checks. I also limited AMF in that it can't affect epic spells - in our system, non-epic spells (dispel magic, e.g.) can't affect epic spells, but epic can affect non-epic. To get around this, obviously, I made legendary antimagic field, an epic spell that can affect epic magics. Yes, I know it's another form of absolute, but it's absurd to think that a pathetic little 3rd-level spell can affect, say, an artifact (the DMG doesn't say they're immune, and with the wussified caster levels, a 20th-level caster could easily dispel an artifact's effects [BTW, does anyone else find it interesting that you can suppress an artifact with DM, but you can't dispel an epic spell?]). 

Anyway, getting back on track... AMF would have a caster level check of 1d20+level, max +20 (for a total of 40)., and LAMF would have no max on the CL check (or +40, if you really wanted one). On a related note, I got rid of disjunction as a non-epic spell and made it epic - it has basically the same effects (dispels all 0-9th level spells, caster level check against epic, 1% chance of destroying an artifact), but makes more sense. 



> Is there a list of corrected CR's from the SRD? Also where can I find the latest version of UK's CR/EL rules?




There's a corrected list in the doc, which I will attach to this post.


----------



## Sledge

Thanks Kerrick.


----------



## Zoatebix

Ooh - I think I only have v4...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Rulemaster dude! 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> In EoMR/ME, I don't use Empower Spell - I just add more damage enhancements. In essence, there are no multipliers there. Simple and easy.




That sounds like a cop out. 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I can't find it in EoMME, but in EoMR it was the spell level. Probably it is the same there. As the spell level in EoMRE is comparable to 2*core spell level +1, it isn't as bad it seems. But in core, magic items have caster levels already listed, so it wouldn't be a problem here..




Not a problem!   

Basically it forces you to know the caster level of every item in each characters possession!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Borlon mate! 



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Well, consider the "immune to fire" special quality.  Suppose for a particular creature this immunity is replaced with fire resistance 60.  That's a lot.  Enough to absorb a maximized _fireball_ without breaking a sweat.  A party of 10th level adventurers wouldn't notice the difference between fire resistance 60 and immunity to fire.  An epic level party using empowered maximized _meteor swarms_ would notice the difference; the resistant creature takes fire damage, but the immune creature wouldn't.




Yes, but at those high levels, the Fire Resistance becomes a resistance, whereas Anti-Magic is still an absolute. Theres no gradient - its an all or nothing approach.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> What you propose, analogously to replacing elemental immunity with elemental resistance, is to replace antimagic with reduced magic.




Yes.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> I think the analogy should be tighter.  Just as low level adventurers won't distinguish between elemental immunity and really high elemental resistance, so should they be unable to distinguish between the complete absence of magic and greatly reduced magic.  But high level (epic) characters should be able to distinguish very nicely between elemental resistance and immunity; they should be able to notice that while their magic is greatly reduced, it is not totally negated.




Yes bt the point is that your high-level casters won't be able to distinguish between it because its either off or on. Which means its either useful (in which case the original flaws apply) or useless.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> As for how to match up divine antimagic with parties... well, why not give antimagic an absolute ceiling.  It can never be higher than SR 40, say.  Against parties with casters (and items) in the 30+ level range it is a hindrance rapidly fading to an annoyance, but higher level parties ignore it entirely.  Against these parties you have to use reduced magic, which functions as you propose; reducing bonuses by a factor of 2, 3 or even more.




I don't see the point of making it relative for high-level characters and arbitrary for low-level characters.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Antimagic would be like creature SR in this respect, or very high DR.  Against a certain level of characters it is an absolute barrier.  Against higher level characters it is an annoyance, and against even higher level characters it is hardly noticed.




The problem with this approach is that you are going to have multiple adjudications per round, per character. Will you have to roll for a characters attacks every hit to see if their vorpal sword is working? Will the opponent get the chance to test every defensive item/spell when they go to strike them in turn. This approach just seems like a bottomless pit of confusion.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Alternatively, instead of an absolute cap on antimagic, make the SR grow very, very slowly with respect to level.  A creature that produces an antimagic field produces a field with a SR of 40 or 1/4 their CR, whichever is higher.  This rule might be employed for planes with strongly antimagical properties.  A prison plane can be assigned a CR (and thus an SR) commensurate with the highest level creature whose magic it can hold.  Make it so the antimagic is absolute only against characters who would be overwhelmed anyways.  40th level adventurers should have a very, very hard time against a CR 240 opponent; one way to simulate that is to make that opponent generate an antimagic field with a SR of 60.




Doen't my approach do all thsi with minimal fuss anyway!?

The only problem as I can see it is that you are worried that a 3rd-level spellcaster could still cast a spell on a greater deity of magic with a 36th-level Anti-Magic Field spell in effect. But as I see it the effects are going to be so negligable with the imposed penalty that they become inconsequential. Thats why I don't have a problem with it. 

If monster 'x' has anti-magic, all you need do is up the level of it to neuter weaker casters.

eg. A 23HD Beholder might reduce the magic effect by 1/3 (-8 to DCs)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Physical stats aren't twice as powerful, that's what I'm saying.  The comparison was flawed as it didn't properly consider the importance of casting stats.




What do you propose as the solution to the Challenge Rating dilemma them?

ie. +1 Ability Score = +1 feat 

Therefore +6 to an ability score = +1 CR


----------



## Verequus

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> That sounds like a cop out.




No need to accept the challenge isn't a cop out.  



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Not a problem!
> 
> Basically it forces you to know the caster level of every item in each characters possession!




But you need that number also for dispel magic tries! Or if you attack a creature with SR! It is only another application.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

Interesting take on antimagic. But I agree that division is not the best way to go. It doesn't really make sense that higher-level spellcasters are affected more.

As I mentioned before, I made an antimagic varient, as well as a revision of the epic spell system (see here). One of the varients is X level or lower spells do not function, and spells above that level have the saving throw DC lowered by X. Replace X with any number. I'm not sure what X would be for the antimagic spell or what would happen to items (maybe enhantment bonus lowered by half of X?). Using this varient, low level spells and weak magic items are useless, while high level spells (and heightened spells) function, but are easier to resist. It fits well with my epic spellcasting system, as epic spells are just spells over 9th level.


----------



## Anabstercorian

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> But you need that number also for dispel magic tries! Or if you attack a creature with SR! It is only another application.




Not so.  Dispel magic affects, generally, a single item, and SR only matters for items that manifest attack spells - for which caster level is usually significant anyway.


----------



## Fieari

I don't like the division based antimagic rules.  It's a buff to non-epic characters for one thing, which I tend to like to avoid whenever possible.  I mean, a lower level wizard in an AMF with these rules could still potentially cast spells, which seems... wrong to me.  One thing I've liked about most of the other changes you've made to the system is that it meshes with the current rules as far as lower level gaming goes, but balances it at higher levels.  This completely reworks the concept at lower levels.  At lower levels, sometimes you just shouldn't have certain options available to you.  Like fighting a beholder.  At lower levels, the AM Cone really makes for interesting tactical decisions.  If that cone still allowed some (diminished) spell casting, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

I'm not sure why you think halving power is less of an "absolute" than the alternatives.

The two alternative systems seem to be either flat lowering the caster level of someone trying to cast there, or requiring an SR check to cast.  As I see it, the main benefit of lowering CL is that for those that can cast, they're at least weaker, which means that antimagic areas always mean _something_, and are never pointless.  The main benefit of the SR check is that there's an element of chance involved, which can make things interesting.

I wonder if there's a way to combine the two.  Perhaps layered SR DCs?  Such as, for example, to cast at 50%, you'd have to pass a CL check at DC 40.  To cast at 75%, DC 50.  And to cast without penalty, DC 60.  I don't see this as an absolute, it doesn't step on the toes of non-epic gaming, it has a gradient where just barely overcomming a DC still has an effect on casting, and there's a point where immensly powerful casters can just ignore it.

I do like the idea of mega-casting areas though.  That could be interesting indeed.


----------



## Pssthpok

Well, having antimagic work like SR makes another absolute, if I'm not mistaken. As much as I see where UK is coming from on fractional reductions, that could be too much math just to figure out what's going on, and, as metioned, it weakens antimagic at non-epic levels.

It's easy enough to see how Borlon's idea works insofar as spellcasters. Reduce their caster level by 20 in an antimagic field. If that reduces their caster level below, say, 9th, then they cannot cast 5th-level spells or higher. Of course, this keeps non-epic antimagic the absolute same as it is now, but makes it a gradient at higher levels. Eventually, a 40th-level caster is almost unaffected by antimagic, except their ability to overcome SR. 

With summoned and incorporeal creatures, it would have to work two different ways: one, in the case of summoned creatures, it would stamp the caster level of the summon spell down by 20. If this reduces the caster level to below the required level to cast said summon, then the creature winks out. So, a 29th-level caster could cast summon monster V in an antimagic field and have no problems, but his summon monster VII fails. If antimagic field is cast in an area where there are summoned creatures who have SR, the caster needs to overcome their SR as normal.
Incorporeal creatures would disappear/lose their ability to manifest if their HD is 20 or less. 

With items, if their caster level is 20 or less, they cease to function. So, an epic weapon with a caster level in the 30s would be fine in an antimagic field, but your _periapt of wisdom +4_ stops working. 

Rather than the six-level increase UK proposes, one could simply Heighten antimagic field, each level increasing the amount by which things are reduced. So, a wizard casting a 19th-level antimagic spell would reduce caster levels by 33, wink out incorporeal creatures with fewer than 34 HD, and nullify items with a caster level lower than 34th.

Just my thoughts, anyway. Have fun.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey there! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> Interesting take on antimagic. But I agree that division is not the best way to go. It doesn't really make sense that higher-level spellcasters are affected more.




I'm still waiting for someone else to propse a non-absolute revision for Anti-magic.



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, I made an antimagic varient, as well as a revision of the epic spell system (see here). One of the varients is X level or lower spells do not function, and spells above that level have the saving throw DC lowered by X. Replace X with any number. I'm not sure what X would be for the antimagic spell or what would happen to items (maybe enhantment bonus lowered by half of X?). Using this varient, low level spells and weak magic items are useless, while high level spells (and heightened spells) function, but are easier to resist. It fits well with my epic spellcasting system, as epic spells are just spells over 9th level.




To me this is still an absolute though (and by your own admission even you don't know how it works on items).


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey there!
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone else to propse a non-absolute revision for Anti-magic.




Was my suggestion invisible?


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

I just saw your Clay Guardian/Golem/Sentinel/Gargant/Colossus/Leviathan. Nice. Are you planning on doing the same for other golems? If you are, when will you have them done? I'd love to see stats for a Mithral Leviathan.


----------



## Alzrius

Okay, U_K has posted the finalized table of contents for the IH Bestiary vol. 1.

For those of us who bought the unofficial release, here's what appears to be new:

The Amidah Template, along with the sample creature Alabaster, an amidah vampire fighter.

A Macrobe Preying Mantis (under the Dire Template listing); the information for the Dire Template says it will also include the Macrobe Template, which isn't in the unofficial release. 

The Nexus Dragon (ala Wormhole Dragon); this is the weakest (presumably) of the three breeds of Nehaschimic dragons.

It seems that regarding U_K's recent poll of which two monsters he should put in the Bestiary vol. 1, numbers two and three (the Amidah Template and the Nexus Dragon) won, and the Abomination: Annedotus (Dragon Men) lost out.

Note that there are going to be two more volumes of the Bestiary, along with a "Bestiary 1.5" of 15 monsters that, for some reason, couldn't be squeezed in elsewhere. It's worth noting that the Annedotus isn't listed for any publication.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I don't like the division based antimagic rules.  It's a buff to non-epic characters for one thing, which I tend to like to avoid whenever possible.  I mean, a lower level wizard in an AMF with these rules could still potentially cast spells, which seems... wrong to me.




I've been hearing this a lot over the past few days but as yet no one has said why its wrong.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> One thing I've liked about most of the other changes you've made to the system is that it meshes with the current rules as far as lower level gaming goes, but balances it at higher levels.  This completely reworks the concept at lower levels.  At lower levels, sometimes you just shouldn't have certain options available to you.  Like fighting a beholder.  At lower levels, the AM Cone really makes for interesting tactical decisions.  If that cone still allowed some (diminished) spell casting, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think halving power is less of an "absolute" than the alternatives.




Its obvious. One way either removes magic altogether or doesn't, my way dampens magic.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> The two alternative systems seem to be either flat lowering the caster level of someone trying to cast there, or requiring an SR check to cast.




Neither of which work with items lets be honest. 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> As I see it, the main benefit of lowering CL is that for those that can cast, they're at least weaker, which means that antimagic areas always mean _something_, and are never pointless.  The main benefit of the SR check is that there's an element of chance involved, which can make things interesting.
> 
> I wonder if there's a way to combine the two.  Perhaps layered SR DCs?  Such as, for example, to cast at 50%, you'd have to pass a CL check at DC 40.  To cast at 75%, DC 50.  And to cast without penalty, DC 60.  I don't see this as an absolute, it doesn't step on the toes of non-epic gaming, it has a gradient where just barely overcomming a DC still has an effect on casting, and there's a point where immensly powerful casters can just ignore it.




How would it work on items? 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I do like the idea of mega-casting areas though.  That could be interesting indeed.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Pssthpok matey! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Was my suggestion invisible?




Apologies dude. I am answering these posts in sequence without having read those further down.

Regarding your system, I don't see how it solves the Absolute problem, since its still an on/off approach.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> I just saw your Clay Guardian/Golem/Sentinel/Gargant/Colossus/Leviathan. Nice. Are you planning on doing the same for other golems? If you are, when will you have them done? I'd love to see stats for a Mithral Leviathan.




I'm sure I'll get round to it eventually. I still haven't fully finished the Clay Constructs yet!   

Of course the Diamond, Force, Mercury and Orichalcum Golems in the IH: Epic Bestiary - Volume 1 already use this approach.

As with the Clay Construct, Mithril and Adamantite Versions will have a few changes to the core rules.

One thing I never understood about mithril. Its as strong as iron but half the weight - how the heck does it have a Hardness of 15 then!?


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Pssthpok matey!
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies dude. I am answering these posts in sequence without having read those further down.
> 
> Regarding your system, I don't see how it solves the Absolute problem, since its still an on/off approach.




Oh, no prob. Just givin' ya grief. I see where you're trying to go with absolutes, but I just don't know if divisions are gonna be very popular, especially since they don't mesh with pre-epic games.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Alzrius matey! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Okay, U_K has posted the finalized table of contents for the IH Bestiary vol. 1.
> 
> For those of us who bought the unofficial release, here's what appears to be new:
> 
> The Amidah Template, along with the sample creature Alabaster, an amidah vampire fighter.




Who wields six swords simultaneously and is of a familiarly high-level. Free 1.5 Bestiary (when its available) to the first person who correctly guesses his level. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> A Macrobe Preying Mantis (under the Dire Template listing); the information for the Dire Template says it will also include the Macrobe Template, which isn't in the unofficial release.




Its a derivative of the Dire Template with some extra bells and whistles, so it made sense to have it here. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The Nexus Dragon (ala Wormhole Dragon); this is the weakest (presumably) of the three breeds of Nehaschimic dragons.




They are all roughly equal, if anything, its the middle-powered of the three.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> It seems that regarding U_K's recent poll of which two monsters he should put in the Bestiary vol. 1, numbers two and three (the Amidah Template and the Nexus Dragon) won, and the Abomination: Annedotus (Dragon Men) lost out.




The poll came out virtually even. But I then rationalised that it was better to explain all the dragon types in one go (you'll notice the dragon info is now 3 pages long), and the Annedotus was not in my 153 master list anyway. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Note that there are going to be two more volumes of the Bestiary,




Just for the record, I do have the full monster list at hand, but I am sure there will be one or two changes before release, and there are also few monsters whose names I have not yet finalised (The Elementars for instance).



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> along with a "Bestiary 1.5" of 15 monsters that, for some reason, couldn't be squeezed in elsewhere.




That may actually be 14 now that I have snuck the Amidah Template into Volume 1. The Bestiary, just like the IH itself, just seems to grow and grow, at first I wanted 50 monsters, then it got to 75, so I divided it into two pdfs, then it doubled in size again, so I divided it into three, but then I was left with the original part one being about 37 monsters and finished, whereas the other 15 or so are not, and I really need to get something on sale ASAP. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that the Annedotus isn't listed for any publication.




Its a spare monster that will show up on the website at some stage in the future, as with other monsters like the Rocatrice that I just have lying around.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Alzrius matey!
> 
> 
> 
> Who wields six swords simultaneously and is of a familiarly high-level. Free 1.5 Bestiary (when its available) to the first person who correctly guesses his level.




50?


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Who wields six swords simultaneously and is of a familiarly high-level. Free 1.5 Bestiary (when its available) to the first person who correctly guesses his level.




I'm guessing 41st, same as Nimrod. It's the only "familiar" thing I can guess.


----------



## Pssthpok

60th.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

U_K, before you mentioned Black Hole Golems. Have you actually made stats for them, or just calculated how many HD they would have?

By the way, when you revise the Clay Golem and all its other forms, are you going to post (on the website) your formula for golem HD calculation? You show how to get HD for larger/smaller forms using the Golem HD, but never say how to calculate Golem HD.


----------



## Fieari

How about 42?


----------



## Wolv0rine

Fieari said:
			
		

> How about 42?



Dammit, that was going to be *my* guess!


----------



## Anubis

I guess I just have to take a wild guess at the dude's level.

Hmmm . . .

Level 40.


----------



## Verequus

I'm saying 66. Makes sense, if we play in the low-epic field (<100).


----------



## Upper_Krust

No one has correctly guessed Alabasters level yet. 

Also Nimrods level might well change in the Bestiary, but thats nothing to do with Alabaster.

Hey Ulitharid Lord matey! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> U_K, before you mentioned Black Hole Golems. Have you actually made stats for them, or just calculated how many HD they would have?




Well I don't have full stats for them, but I know Hit Dice, Ability Scores, Damage, Special Attacks and Qualities.



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> By the way, when you revise the Clay Golem and all its other forms, are you going to post (on the website) your formula for golem HD calculation? You show how to get HD for larger/smaller forms using the Golem HD, but never say how to calculate Golem HD.




I explain this in the bestiary. My latest system is based on the strength modifier derived from the creatures material density + 9 HD (Flesh Golem base).

eg. Clay density = +8 strength (+4 modifier). So a clay golem will have 9 + 4 = 13 HD


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Thanks for the updates.  Your God of War review had me looking back at some of the templates in the Preview.  I was wondering whether you would give us any hints on the higher-end divinity templates such as whether they have a HD multiplier?

Looking forward to the release.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Thanks for the updates.  Your God of War review had me looking back at some of the templates in the Preview.  I was wondering whether you would give us any hints on the higher-end divinity templates such as whether they have a HD multiplier?
> 
> Looking forward to the release.




Macrobe does, Amidah sort of doesn't - you'll see.


----------



## Kerrick

> I've been hearing this a lot over the past few days but as yet no one has said why its wrong.




I don't think it's anything we could really quantify... it's more like a feeling, something you can't put your finger on, but you know it's there. 

And since I'm posting, I might as well guess too... 53.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Well, there was a thread on 100th level characters a while ago.  Does that make 100 a familiar level?  I'll try that as my guess.

(Do we get multiple guesses?  If so, I guess all of them consecutively.  But my first guess is 100)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Kerrick dude!  



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> I don't think it's anything we could really quantify... it's more like a feeling, something you can't put your finger on, but you know it's there.




That is indigestion you are describing mate. 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> And since I'm posting, I might as well guess too... 53.




Nope. 

...oh and Cheiromancer you were wrong too.

You only get to guess once per week.


----------



## CRGreathouse

I'll guess 75.


----------



## Knight Otu

128?


----------



## Kavon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Who wields six swords simultaneously and is of a familiarly high-level.



If I read just this line, I think of Cloud in Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children :B

And just because of that, I'll take the max level of FFVII (just for the heck of it)  Level 99?


----------



## Alzrius

Kavon said:
			
		

> If I read just this line, I think of Cloud in Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children :B
> 
> And just because of that, I'll take the max level of FFVII (just for the heck of it)  Level 99?




This is the best guess, I think. The only reason I discounted that was because it seemed to stretch the limit of "simultaneous" use of six swords.

EDIT: I'd absolutely love to see a d20 version of how his swords worked, however. Especially that move at the end (which, I hold, is not Omnislash).


----------



## Sledge

I'm very tempted to revise anti-magic to work against characters inside it.  Have them make a save or something to fight it off and all of their equipment works right.  The halving rule starts running into trouble with stuff like true seeing.  All or none seems to be the only simple approach.


----------



## Sledge

Was just looking around.  UK you might want to reconsider DTRPG as they, last I heard, have a policy where you cannot charge more on their site than on other sites, including your own.  Also you might consider trying out ENGS as they have a lower percentage, but have a higher set up fee.


----------



## Kavon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'd absolutely love to see a d20 version of how his swords worked, however. Especially that move at the end (which, I hold, is not Omnislash).



I looked up how the sword actually worked, and found some nice fan explanations and pics and such. I even sort of made some stats for the individual swords and the whole thing combined (and other combos), but it's just a bit of a rough thingy :B

**Edit**
Mind you, those stats are more for my own personal house rules heavy version of something that might once have been able to have been called D&D, so it's a bit different than what would be considered normal D&D 
**/Edit**

And that move at the end is Choukyuu Bushin Hakuzan Ver. 5 (the name was mentioned by Nomura in an interview.. I think it was).
Choukyuu Bushin Hakuzan was translated into Omnislash for the English version of the game, so the move is Omnislash version 5, or whatnot :3

*wonders about versions 2 through 4 now*


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys - no one has guess Alabasters levels yet, and as a second clue I will say no one has guessed within 10 levels (prior to this post).

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Was just looking around.  UK you might want to reconsider DTRPG as they, last I heard, have a policy where you cannot charge more on their site than on other sites, including your own.  Also you might consider trying out ENGS as they have a lower percentage, but have a higher set up fee.




Yes I sort of half-remembered something like that when I was looking around their site. I have to be honest, I like the security in drivethru...and you do get that free printing thing (albeit in the US only I think). I can see their reasoning for not wanting to be undercut as well, that makes sense.

There are a few things I want to do (aside from completing the pdf I mean) before I contact those websites.


----------



## Knight Otu

Does that "once per week" limitation mean seven days waiting? Or does it mean, "once per Mon to Sun period"?


----------



## Alzrius

Kavon said:
			
		

> I looked up how the sword actually worked, and found some nice fan explanations and pics and such.




Was this the article? If not, this is a good one too.



> _Choukyuu Bushin Hakuzan was translated into Omnislash for the English version of the game, so the move is Omnislash version 5, or whatnot :3
> 
> *wonders about versions 2 through 4 now* _




I wonder if they had the "version 5" part in English (in Japanese, that'd be "go no tachi"). According to what I looked up online, "Choukyuu Bushin Hakuzan" is literally "Super-Ultimate War God Supreme Kill." I still think I like Omnislash better though.


----------



## weiknarf

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Alzrius matey!
> 
> 
> 
> Who wields six swords simultaneously and is of a familiarly high-level. Free 1.5 Bestiary (when its available) to the first person who correctly guesses his level.




666


----------



## Kavon

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Was this the article? If not, this is a good one too.



Yep, that's the one 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I wonder if they had the "version 5" part in English (in Japanese, that'd be "go no tachi"). According to what I looked up online, "Choukyuu Bushin Hakuzan" is literally "Super-Ultimate War God Supreme Kill." I still think I like Omnislash better though.



Well, the topic I got it from didn't have the kanji, just the romaji, which had "Ver 5". It was from an interview that came with a bonus DVD that was in the special Japan only (as always) FFVII AC box set :3


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Does that "once per week" limitation mean seven days waiting? Or does it mean, "once per Mon to Sun period"?




It means you have to wait seven days from your previous attempt. 



			
				weiknarf said:
			
		

> 666




Hes high-level, but he ain't that high a level.


----------



## Sledge

I'm not going to get into an argument about "security" at DTRPG.  Suffice it to say that although the watermarking is better than the previous "security" measures, I still have no desire to shop there.  I do however shop at ENGS and will occasionally shop at rpgnow despite some of the negative changes there.

Anyway I haven't guessed yet so I'm going to say 117 as that is that level of the Thrin you have on www.immortalshandbook.com


----------



## Wolv0rine

What the heck, I'll make a guess.  350?  (the text version of the bestiary is listed as £3.50 afterall)


----------



## Fieari

By the way, WRT antimagic and SR checks, they can be applied to items easily enough I think.  For use activate items, treat as casting something new.  For persistant items, they can roll as if needing to be recast (at their CL).  For ease of gaming, you could require only one SR check, made at the CL of the most powerful item you're wearing, and it applies to all your equipment (if the most powerful thing failed, it's all going to fail).  You could force this check only when entering the area, or every round, or every minute, or every ten minutes or whatever.  Could also be an aspect of different Antimagic spells, how often the check must be made.

Thoughts?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into an argument about "security" at DTRPG.  Suffice it to say that although the watermarking is better than the previous "security" measures, I still have no desire to shop there.




I'd be curious to hear why? I am still mulling over which online shops to use.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> I do however shop at ENGS and will occasionally shop at rpgnow despite some of the negative changes there.




Like what? Don't leave me hanging.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Anyway I haven't guessed yet so I'm going to say 117 as that is that level of the Thrin you have on www.immortalshandbook.com




CONGRATULATIONS! WE HAVE A WINNER!


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> CONGRATULATIONS! WE HAVE A WINNER!




So when will he be able to collect his prize?


----------



## Kerrick

> By the way, WRT antimagic and SR checks, they can be applied to items easily enough I think. For use activate items, treat as casting something new. For persistant items, they can roll as if needing to be recast (at their CL). For ease of gaming, you could require only one SR check, made at the CL of the most powerful item you're wearing, and it applies to all your equipment (if the most powerful thing failed, it's all going to fail). You could force this check only when entering the area, or every round, or every minute, or every ten minutes or whatever. Could also be an aspect of different Antimagic spells, how often the check must be made.




That's pretty much the way I'd treat it - more like a magic suppression field than a true dead magic field. Non-epic spells simply aren't powerful enough to duplicate the effects of a dead magic zone, but magic suppression... that's well within the realm of possibility (and it makes more sense, since greater globe is also 6th level, and only blocks up to 4th level spells - I wonder if anyone saw that when they were revising these things? Really, antimagic field should be around 8th level...).

I'd make it when the item enters the zone, for simplicity's sake - one save, on or off. If it leaves/enters again, it gets a new check. Every time someone casts a spell, he has to make a caster level check, or it fizzles. Artifacts ARE NOT affected by an antimagic field (I don't know if it mentions that somewhere - I think it does - but I felt like saying it again anyway).


----------



## Knight Otu

Since the limitation is moot now - my next guess would have been 216 - the number of hit points a typical marilith has.


----------



## Sledge

DTRPG had a DRM method originally which took less than a minute for someone that wanted to crack and greatly lessened peoples ability to use it.  Now they use watermarks.  This is a bit better, but is still removeable by anyone that wants to.  In any event stuff will show on the p2p networks if you sell to people.  No avoiding that.  I prefer the methods of companies like Bastion Press where it has notes that the pdf is a paid product and that if you didn't pay for it, to please do so.
RPGNow recently split their site in two in order to separate the big publishers from the little ones.  They also changed the colours and a few other things which irritate my eyes.  Just personal taste there.
ENGS (ENWorld's Store) has a hefty ($100) setup fee but charges less than rpgnow which in turn charges less than DTRPG per sale.  I prefer ENGS at the moment espescially because they have more dedicated staff.  On rpgnow a product can be waiting for someone to activate it for sale for a week or a month.  ENGS will be fast turnaround.


----------



## Sledge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> CONGRATULATIONS! WE HAVE A WINNER!




Now I shall dance the dance of the free PDF!  *Sledge Dances*


----------



## Alzrius

Darn. I thought about Thrin, but I couldn't remember his name or level, so that pretty much nixed that (that and I only thought of it after I made my guess).


----------



## Pssthpok

Hey UK,

Not to bug you, but I think the caster level for the clay collosus is off on your site. Shouldn't it equal the HD (104?) Just a heads up.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Hope all is well.  I really enjoyed your God of War review.  Your comments on Kronos inspired me to stat out a Teratoid Seraphim   .

This got me to wondering how many HD an average Time Lord would have?!


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I have updates for the website planned for every day for the next six days (I'm staggering the stuff you see).




So, we've had updates for the 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th. Where are the last two updates?


----------



## Knight Otu

historian said:
			
		

> Teratoid



Hmmm... Teratoid. I missed that word on the first readthrough of the table of contents... I see you use it as a big-big-bigger dire creature? (Dire->Legendary->Behemoth->Teratoid)

Well, I guess it is no big surprise you're using the word as well.


----------



## Eversius

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Teratoid. I missed that word on the first readthrough of the table of contents... I see you use it as a big-big-bigger dire creature? (Dire->Legendary->Behemoth->Teratoid)
> 
> Well, I guess it is no big surprise you're using the word as well.



 Legendary is ability and HD adjustment (among other things) without size increase. The order of the series of Dire templates that have been named (theoretically, this template could be applied an infinite number of times) are Dire->Behemoth->Teratoid->Brobdingnagian.


----------



## Knight Otu

Yeah, legendary creatures aare as big as their normal counterpart (despite what the ELH illustration wants us to believe). I was trying to illustrate my line of thought from the "advancement" I know.


----------



## historian

> Hmmm... Teratoid. I missed that word on the first readthrough of the table of contents... I see you use it as a big-big-bigger dire creature? (Dire->Legendary->Behemoth->Teratoid)




Yes, it's on page 56 of the Bestiary Preview in case anyone is wondering.  Of course, U_K also has a Brobdingnagian template that serves as the next step up from Teratoid.

BTW, the Teratoid Seraphim is something to behold.  Over 4,000 feet long, over 80,000 hit points and an AC of 1,261!  



> Well, I guess it is no big surprise you're using the word as well.




 

I tend to go for the bigger stuff as it goes hand in hand with the ultimate "Kosmology" of the world in which the PCs exist.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> So when will he be able to collect his prize?




Ssshhhush you.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge matey! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> DTRPG had a DRM method originally which took less than a minute for someone that wanted to crack and greatly lessened peoples ability to use it.  Now they use watermarks.  This is a bit better, but is still removeable by anyone that wants to.  In any event stuff will show on the p2p networks if you sell to people.  No avoiding that.  I prefer the methods of companies like Bastion Press where it has notes that the pdf is a paid product and that if you didn't pay for it, to please do so.




I know its inevitable it will end up on kazaa and places like that.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> RPGNow recently split their site in two in order to separate the big publishers from the little ones.  They also changed the colours and a few other things which irritate my eyes.  Just personal taste there.




Hurts your eyes!? What are you an albino?   



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> ENGS (ENWorld's Store) has a hefty ($100) setup fee but charges less than rpgnow which in turn charges less than DTRPG per sale.  I prefer ENGS at the moment espescially because they have more dedicated staff.




Do DTRPG or RPGNow charge setup fees? Also what is the ENGS charges. From what I recall Drivethru is 25% and RPGNow is 20% (I think)



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> On rpgnow a product can be waiting for someone to activate it for sale for a week or a month.  ENGS will be fast turnaround.




I'm not sure what you mean by this?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hey UK,




Hiya mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Not to bug you, but I think the caster level for the clay collosus is off on your site. Shouldn't it equal the HD (104?) Just a heads up.




It is equal to Hit Dice, but the minimum is 13th level for Guardian and Golem.

I'll make that clearer when I update the costs. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> So, we've had updates for the 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th. Where are the last two updates?




Yeah sorry about that, I wanted to update the Amilictli and Anakim stats with the new artwork, but I haven't finished 'merkering' the new Amilictli pic yet.

I also meant to scan in all the golem illustrations and put them up on the website. Part of me just wants to get everything done and then scan it all in together, but I'll probably just scan the golems in tomorrow anyway.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi historian matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Yes, it's on page 56 of the Bestiary Preview in case anyone is wondering.  Of course, U_K also has a Brobdingnagian template that serves as the next step up from Teratoid.
> 
> BTW, the Teratoid Seraphim is something to behold.  Over 4,000 feet long, over 80,000 hit points and an AC of 1,261!




I don't want to scare you, but the Seraphim is a tad tougher in the official stats.  



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I tend to go for the bigger stuff as it goes hand in hand with the ultimate "Kosmology" of the world in which the PCs exist.




Is that Ultimate Kosmology where the Ultimates reside?


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> I don't want to scare you, but the Seraphim is a tad tougher in the official stats.




Bring him on!  



> Is that Ultimate Kosmology where the Ultimates reside?




Actually I was using "ultimate" generically but now that you mentioned it you are required to tell us who the "Ultimates" are.  

BTW, if you are referring to the group of beings who are generally classed as Ultimates within the Marvel hierarchy then I have some inkling.

Thanks in advance (hopefully).


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hi historian mate! 

...speaking of historians, looking forward to that Rome television show on BBC2 tonight. I presume this has already aired in the states? Anyone seen it, is it worth watching?



			
				historian said:
			
		

> BTW, if you are referring to the group of beings who are generally classed as Ultimates within the Marvel hierarchy then I have some inkling.




Yes, thats what I meant.


----------



## Kerrick

So I glanced over the clay golem stuff... and I picked out several mistakes. For shame, UK... but since I'm feeling magnanimous, I'll point them out to you.

"Colossi" is plural. "Colossus" is singular.



> Anti-Magic Field (Su): A diamond colossus generates an anti-magic field with a radius of 100 ft.




Diamond? I thought this thing was clay?



> The effect is otherwise the same as an antimagic field cast by a 336th-level caster.




I don't think this is a mistake, but 336th?? Yow...



> A clay golem’s body is cut from solid stone.




Stone. Wouldn't that make it... a _stone_ golem? I could swallow it if you needed polymorph any object as a prereq, but it's not there...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Thanks Kerrick mate! 

Obviously there was a lot of copy and paste going on there to save me some time. When I get to adding the construction costs I'll fix the errata.

By the way I think I updated Godzilla's stats but didn't mention it on the news page (because it was a fairly minor update).


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

Quick question regarding cosmic entities that represent more than their physical manifestation's size.  Assuming one wished to do a bare bones statting of something that represented an entire Universe (in advance of the release of the full IH) would it be fair to give it a number of hit dice that was the square root of what it represented?  

Any pointers?

Thanks


----------



## Farealmer3

Hi U_K

I feel the Anti-magic feild change isn't a good idea. It's like turning an force effect into a web affect. I understand your hesitation to take item power away from people. But hows is using a antimagic fieild different than force caging someone then killing them from outside. And lets not forget force affect allow teleporting, so if you trap them in a sphere you could teleport lava, water, acid, or anything else dangerous in and if they don't possess the few  magical defenses against it they're dead.

Don't get me wrong, anti-magic feild should change, but not in the way you propose. That just takes away the point and doesn't have the desired effect across the board.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!
> 
> Hiya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> historian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question regarding cosmic entities that represent more than their physical manifestation's size.  Assuming one wished to do a bare bones statting of something that represented an entire Universe (in advance of the release of the full IH) would it be fair to give it a number of hit dice that was the square root of what it represented?
> 
> Any pointers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think representing a universe purely from the size perspective would be pretty boring.
> 
> I prefer to do that sort of thing with powers rather than raw Hit Dice, which is just going to be far too unwieldy anyway.
> 
> A universe would technically have some ridiculous figure for its Hit Dice (decadillion - off the top of my head) and I am sure even the square of the square of the square would be inappropriate.
Click to expand...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Hi U_K




Hey Farealmer3 dude! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> I feel the Anti-magic feild change isn't a good idea.




Its only an optional idea.



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> It's like turning an force effect into a web affect. I understand your hesitation to take item power away from people. But hows is using a antimagic fieild different than force caging someone then killing them from outside. And lets not forget force affect allow teleporting, so if you trap them in a sphere you could teleport lava, water, acid, or anything else dangerous in and if they don't possess the few magical defenses against it they're dead.




Wall of force and forcecage type effects should have a break DC.



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, anti-magic feild should change, but not in the way you propose. That just takes away the point and doesn't have the desired effect across the board.




I just don't like the black and white nature of it. Its going to really mess with epic mortal vs. immortal battles.


----------



## Farealmer3

> I just don't like the black and white nature of it. Its going to really mess with epic mortal vs. immortal battles.



I agree

However what about giving a negative to CL(for spells, items, and the like) equal to half the CL of the feild(rounded up). And if the negative equals the CL of the items or spell it is suppressed otherwise it is halved(like you suggested before). That way nothing gets a free ride through the field.


----------



## Eversius

Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> I agree
> 
> However what about giving a negative to CL(for spells, items, and the like) equal to half the CL of the feild(rounded up). And if the negative equals the CL of the items or spell it is suppressed otherwise it is halved(like you suggested before). That way nothing gets a free ride through the field.




That seems like an excellent idea, although, as somebody in this thread (probably UK) has said before, it would require one to keep track of the CL of every magic item in a character's possession. If someone could formulate an idea to make such a thing easier, or even eliminate the need for it, your suggestion would be absolutely perfect.


----------



## Cheiromancer

How about if it negates non-epic magic (CL 20 or below) and halves the bonus provided by everything whose caster level is 21 or higher?

People might not remember the exact CL, but they will probably know if it is epic or not.  And the notion that there is a sharp dividing line between the two is not that alien.

I have a question about the Ioun swarm thingie.  Is it immune to weapon attacks?  I can't see how a hardness 5 and healing 25 hp/hour are going to make it practically impossible to kill.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> How about if it negates non-epic magic (CL 20 or below) and halves the bonus provided by everything whose caster level is 21 or higher?
> 
> People might not remember the exact CL, but they will probably know if it is epic or not.  And the notion that there is a sharp dividing line between the two is not that alien.




There doesn't seem to be an ideal solution at present, so the best idea is probably just to retain the official rules.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I have a question about the Ioun swarm thingie.  Is it immune to weapon attacks?




Yes (as per fine swarm traits).



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I can't see how a hardness 5 and healing 25 hp/hour are going to make it practically impossible to kill.




They are tough to hurt with spells as well since they can absorb spells cast at them. They sort of alienate fighters to the same extent that other golems alienate spellcasters.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I was browsing the pdf you sent me a little bit more, and I think you need a proof reader. I'm no John Cooper, but I noticed a couple of cut n paste mistakes and a few awkward sentences. There's probably a need for fresh eyes to look the pdf over.

I'm curious as to why you decided that the eldest elemental should be called Satan as well as Sin.  It seems to me that if you are choosing esoteric names, Ahriman would do better as the material principle of evil.  Satan would be better suited as the universe's Chief Special Prosecutor, the head of the hierarchy of strict justice, or some such.  Though if you wanted to link a principle of evil with the elemental plane, you could do worse than associate Iblis with Efreet and the plane of fire.

I also wonder if there is a different name that you could use for guardian angels than egregori.  I recognize the latter term as referring to the embodiment of the collective subconsciousness of a group (sometimes a person); more exactly, a personification of the group's negative drives and desires.  I'm thinking of the Anonymous Meditations on the Tarot ("Anonymous" is Valentin Tomberg, an Anthroposophist.  Egregores are discussed in the chapter on the Devil).  Now that I think of it, Tomberg mentions that some esoteric groups believe (falsely, in his opinion) that the "genius" of an organization could be benevolent, a kind of guardian angel.  Is that the reasoning behind the term?

Oh, and about the 4th dimension.  You identify the ethereal with the past, the astral with the present, and the plane of shadow with the future.  I've always thought of the ethereal as associated with the elemental planes, the astral with the outer planes, and shadow with alternate prime material planes.  Is there some time related correspondence that I'm missing?  I guess the slow time on the astral is kinda like an eternal present, but other than that I don't see it.  I suppose Dream should be in there somewhere, too.

Another question- the whole Kosmic Localization thing.  If I understand it correctly, two completely separate primes might have very similar cosmologies- each has a Hell, for example, with Asmodeus in charge, Baalzebul and Mephistopheles jockeying for position, the whole bit.  But these would be parallel hells, each on a different (approximately planet sized) patch of the plane.  Correct?

The primes might have difference in their cosmologies, of course.  Maybe one is ruled by the Norse Pantheon, and the other has the Greek Pantheon.  Neither set of gods knows about the other (because of kosmic localization) although both would know about the devils.

Now suppose the two primes come into contact.  Some adventurers discover the secrets of shadow walking, or long lost portals from a pre-humanoid history.  If I understand Kosmic Localization, the respective pantheons will start to "see" each other.  Zeus will become aware of Odin, and vice versa.  The two hells will notice each other.

Now I can see how two distinct pantheons might discover each other, but I can't visualize two more or less identical hells coming into contact.  Each of the dukes of hell will discover he has a double?

How much "mixing" is required?  Does the first traveller from one world to the other make the respective pantheons and hells immediately aware?  If this guy dies (or if the long lost portal is lost again- or destroyed!) do the two kosmic localizations separate again?  I'm just having some trouble wrapping my mind around it.

Of course, this question is left wholly unresolved in the "standard" cosmology- do all the primes share a common hell?  But if you do resolve the problem, I want to see how the solution works.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Cheiromancer matey! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I was browsing the pdf you sent me a little bit more, and I think you need a proof reader. I'm no John Cooper, but I noticed a couple of cut n paste mistakes and a few awkward sentences. There's probably a need for fresh eyes to look the pdf over.




Possibly. Remember of course that the document you have is a few months old and I have fixed the errata that either I or other people have spotted since then.

If you spot anything though, make a note and email me, just in case. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to why you decided that the eldest elemental should be called Satan as well as Sin.




I'll explain that more when the time is right. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> It seems to me that if you are choosing esoteric names, Ahriman would do better as the material principle of evil.




Too pantheon bound for my likings. I prefer to have Ahriman/Ormazd as Greater Deities of the Persian Pantheon.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Satan would be better suited as the universe's Chief Special Prosecutor, the head of the hierarchy of strict justice, or some such.




I divorced the idea of Lucifer from Satan (as do most occult books in fairness), he probably fits your description better.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Though if you wanted to link a principle of evil with the elemental plane, you could do worse than associate Iblis with Efreet and the plane of fire.




I think theres a difference between Evil and EVIL.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I also wonder if there is a different name that you could use for guardian angels than egregori.




I was considering this myself (The name might change to Flaga), because I wanted to use that name for an undead creature instead.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I recognize the latter term as referring to the embodiment of the collective subconsciousness of a group (sometimes a person); more exactly, a personification of the group's negative drives and desires.  I'm thinking of the Anonymous Meditations on the Tarot ("Anonymous" is Valentin Tomberg, an Anthroposophist.  Egregores are discussed in the chapter on the Devil).  Now that I think of it, Tomberg mentions that some esoteric groups believe (falsely, in his opinion) that the "genius" of an organization could be benevolent, a kind of guardian angel.  Is that the reasoning behind the term?




My occult encyclopedia states that Egregores (sometimes written as Egregori) are celestial beings said to be the shadows of the higher planetary angels.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Oh, and about the 4th dimension.  You identify the ethereal with the past, the astral with the present, and the plane of shadow with the future.  I've always thought of the ethereal as associated with the elemental planes, the astral with the outer planes, and shadow with alternate prime material planes.  Is there some time related correspondence that I'm missing?




Yes. As per Manual of the Planes those three planes are described collectively as the *Transitive Planes*.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I guess the slow time on the astral is kinda like an eternal present, but other than that I don't see it.  I suppose Dream should be in there somewhere, too.




Dream would be linked to Thought which is the Far Realm.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Another question- the whole Kosmic Localization thing.  If I understand it correctly, two completely separate primes might have very similar cosmologies- each has a Hell, for example, with Asmodeus in charge, Baalzebul and Mephistopheles jockeying for position, the whole bit.  But these would be parallel hells, each on a different (approximately planet sized) patch of the plane.  Correct?




At the moment I may slightly change that.

Each kosmically localised layer would technically be infinite, but the size of the populated area would be finite. Roughly equal to a planetary sized area or multi-planetary sized area (if the ruler is known on multiple planets). 

eg. For practical purposes, the populated areas of Lolths Layer(s) would cover an area of a dozen or so planets.

However, when two cosmologies discover one another, the two infinities become one.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> The primes might have difference in their cosmologies, of course.  Maybe one is ruled by the Norse Pantheon, and the other has the Greek Pantheon.  Neither set of gods knows about the other (because of kosmic localization) although both would know about the devils.




Exactly. Although you could argue that the Norse and Greek Pantheons know each other from Earth. Also the more powerful the deity, the greater chance they are worshipped on multiple worlds, which means the greater chance they will have encountered other immortals.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Now suppose the two primes come into contact.  Some adventurers discover the secrets of shadow walking, or long lost portals from a pre-humanoid history.  If I understand Kosmic Localization, the respective pantheons will start to "see" each other.  Zeus will become aware of Odin, and vice versa.  The two hells will notice each other.




Yes.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Now I can see how two distinct pantheons might discover each other, but I can't visualize two more or less identical hells coming into contact.  Each of the dukes of hell will discover he has a double?




Its not necessarily his 'double'. The alternate Hell might have four layers and different rulers (as per the Goetia) for example.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> How much "mixing" is required?  Does the first traveller from one world to the other make the respective pantheons and hells immediately aware?  If this guy dies (or if the long lost portal is lost again- or destroyed!) do the two kosmic localizations separate again?  I'm just having some trouble wrapping my mind around it.




Two intelligent beings from different worlds would have to make first contact. As long as the knowledge of the other is in the mind of one person on either planet then the kosmically localised areas can access each other. Although you could say that the greater the interaction between the cultures the closer the kosmically localised areas become, until they eventually merge.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Of course, this question is left wholly unresolved in the "standard" cosmology- do all the primes share a common hell?  But if you do resolve the problem, I want to see how the solution works.




Well, the idea is basically about giving the DM freedom to integrate new cosmologies into their campaign without having to rewrite everything.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I think it was the anthroposophists who went around classifying different kinds of evil as "Ahrimanic" (based on matter or a materialist point of view) or "Luciferic" (based on spirit or an idealist point of view).  But yeah, you don't want to waste the best example of a dualist religion by assigning the name a different role.

I'm sure you have been asked this already, but have you read Neil Gaiman's books?  I'm thinking of the novel American Gods, and the Sandman series of graphic novels.  Mike Carey's spinoff of Sandman is also worth checking out (Lucifer).  I think there's another spin-off following Death (who likes to appear as a cheerful Goth girl), but I haven't read any of those.  In this setting the angels hang out in "the Silver City" instead of a bunch of upper planes.  Prominent figures in the cosmology are "the Endless" - Death, Destiny, Dream, Desire, Delirium (formerly Delight), Despair,... and one absent brother who decided he no longer wanted to be the personification of his portfolio.

The kindly ones (the furies) seem to outrank the Endless, or at least Dream (who is junior to Death and Destiny, but senior to the rest).  But the furies are also aspects of Eve (who has a cave in Dream's realm).  Lilith is an important figure- I think she represents freedom (in the sense of self determination) more than any other figure.  She played an important role in the fall of the angels.  And of course she is the mother of a whole race of half-fiends. 

Anyway, it's a nice mythology.  I hope the Immortals Handbook provides tools that will help describe it in game terms.


----------



## Kavon

Yeah, having the Endless and such would be really cool 

I'm still collecting the graphic novels (I've got 1 through 3, and the one with Amano), but I have to say I like what I've seen/read :B

I still want to read American Gods as well, though that'll probably wait after I'm done with this year of school.


----------



## Pssthpok

I love Sandman; it's an amazing story. I think the Endless would fall in at around First Ones, but we sorta need Apotheosis to be sure.


----------



## Cheiromancer

It's hard to say.  Dream gets trapped in a thaumaturgical diagram after being summoned by a mortal spellcaster.  He was gravely weakened after a previous conflict with an (unspecified) being, but still.

Lucifer is a freakin' powerful angel, but there are areas where he has to rely on his wits.  The episode (in the Lucifer spinoff) where he has to walk naked (because anything carried or worn falls apart) to the realm of... who is it- the goddess who appears as a stone sculpture.  Whose castle is on the back of a big turtle.  That was very cool.  

We see a lot of Lucifer in Sandman 4, if I recall correctly.  Season of Mists.  A little bit earlier when Dream recovers his helmet, but that is basically a cameo.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I think it was the anthroposophists who went around classifying different kinds of evil as "Ahrimanic" (based on matter or a materialist point of view) or "Luciferic" (based on spirit or an idealist point of view).  But yeah, you don't want to waste the best example of a dualist religion by assigning the name a different role.




Thats certainly part of it. Also I have a quota of (evil) Greater Gods to meet. Hes a great villain, I think he'll see more use as a Greater Deity.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have been asked this already, but have you read Neil Gaiman's books?




No, but I have been meaning to get American Gods out of the library. Just been too busy of late.   



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of the novel American Gods, and the Sandman series of graphic novels.  Mike Carey's spinoff of Sandman is also worth checking out (Lucifer).  I think there's another spin-off following Death (who likes to appear as a cheerful Goth girl), but I haven't read any of those.  In this setting the angels hang out in "the Silver City" instead of a bunch of upper planes.  Prominent figures in the cosmology are "the Endless" - Death, Destiny, Dream, Desire, Delirium (formerly Delight), Despair,... and one absent brother who decided he no longer wanted to be the personification of his portfolio.
> 
> The kindly ones (the furies) seem to outrank the Endless, or at least Dream (who is junior to Death and Destiny, but senior to the rest).  But the furies are also aspects of Eve (who has a cave in Dream's realm).  Lilith is an important figure- I think she represents freedom (in the sense of self determination) more than any other figure.  She played an important role in the fall of the angels.  And of course she is the mother of a whole race of half-fiends.
> 
> Anyway, it's a nice mythology.  I hope the Immortals Handbook provides tools that will help describe it in game terms.




Well I couldn't say for sure until after I had read the books, but I'd like to think anything is possible with the IH.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well I couldn't say for sure until after I had read the books, but I'd like to think anything is possible with the IH.





Except publishing.


----------



## Pssthpok

Zing!


----------



## Kerrick

Okay, I gotta ask... I think your EL rules are all screwy. Last weekend, we had a combat with three CR 6 monsters (2 chain golems and a chain mistress-thing). Our party of 6-8th level characters got slaughtered (we lost almost half the party before we called foul and the DM let us retreat). According to your rules, that was an EL 14 encounter. 14?!? I could see maybe 12 (it was way more than the EL 9 the DM was claiming), but 14? If I do the "mulitply official CR by 1.5" that makes them all CR 9, and the encounter EL 16! 

And how does party size figure into that? I mean, 8 PCs should have some effect on the EL of the encounter, right?


----------



## Cheiromancer

@Kerrick

UK's rules are a bit hard to follow.  What I do is take his CRs and square them, then add them up.  The first measures how tough the encounter.  Do the same for character levels.  That measures how tough the party is.  If the two are about the same, it could easily be a TPK.  Especially if luck and/or situational factors are against the party.

If the UK CR of the monsters were 9, that would be a total power of 243 (3 times 9 squared).  4 7th level characters would have a power of 196 (4 times 7 squared).  The monsters are more likely to win.  

The encounter toughness (243 in this example) I call CHI, and the party's power (196 in this example) I call RHO.  I base experience awards off of the ratio; multiply by 300, and each character multiplies by his level of experience.  If your party had prevailed, everyone would have gotten around 2600 xp.

[edit] Incidentally, Upper Krust has taken to calling his number ECL instead of CR.  Think of the "multiply by 1.5" rule as accounting for the level adjustment needed to play a monster as a player character.[/edit]


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

BTW, I love the art preview -- your golem reminds me of a scene from the classic Dragon's Lair video game fused with my favorite Herald.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hey Historian mate!  



			
				historian said:
			
		

> BTW, I love the art preview --




How the heck did you see that already? I only uploaded it 15 minutes ago! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> your golem reminds me of a scene from the classic Dragon's Lair video game fused with my favorite Herald.




Well we both know the inspiration behind that one. I tried to make it recognisable, but at the same time different. I also wanted to make one of the arms look like it is 'cooling down' after having fired a plasma blast but I don't know if I captured it right.

What did you think of the new Gibborim picture? 

In general I'm trying to use less blacks where possible, because I don't think my line art is good enough. Also I am trying to put a church window silhouette backgroundy theme thing in to set the images against something, and in many illustrations add some player characters to give a sense of scale.

I know I can design a good image, I just can't draw well enough to fully exploit the design yet.  :\


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> How the heck did you see that already? I only uploaded it 15 minutes ago!




I'm a devoted groupie at this point.  



> Well we both know the inspiration behind that one. I tried to make it recognisable, but at the same time different. I also wanted to make one of the arms look like it is 'cooling down' after having fired a plasma blast but I don't know if I captured it right.




It's recognizable but original.  I like how the faceplate has a more "templar-esque" look to it and the background is quite good.  The right arm definitely appears to be cooling after the plasma blast (if not warming up for a blast).



> What did you think of the new Gibborim picture?




I love what you've done with the ears.  

Overall it looks much more diabolical (in the general sense I mean, not the planar sense necessarily).  Well done.



> In general I'm trying to use less blacks where possible, because I don't think my line art is good enough. Also I am trying to put a church window silhouette backgroundy theme thing in to set the images against something, and in many illustrations add some player characters to give a sense of scale.
> 
> I know I can design a good image, I just can't draw well enough to fully exploit the design yet.




Honestly (no flattery) the art of yours that I've seen is better than what I've seen in most of the d20 line and most rpg products generally.  It's not something that's going to be a problem for you and in fact I would venture that many of your readers would applaud it (although you are your harshest critic).  However, we should keep in mind that you are tackling some difficult subject matter.  Bottom line is that I really like what I see.

I did notice the church window silhouettes and like the idea as a trademark of sort.

Good like with the release of Volume I of the Bestiary!


----------



## Cheiromancer

I like the pictures a lot!  Having a "church window" is a nice touch.

I have a question about items and creatures made out of Orichalcum.  Wouldn't they be so heavy that normal floors would be unable to support them?  If someone has an orichalcum suit of armor, wouldn't they sink into the soil like a normal person sinks into snow?  Unless they have anti-gravity properties, that is.

I was thinking about the omnimentals you mention in the bestiary.  In a sense people are omnimentals; we breath (air), drink and have liquids flowing inside us (water), produce body heat (fire) and are basically solid, especially our bones (earth).  

So I think that omnimentals should be basically humanoid in form.  To emphasize the "body" aspect of them, as opposed to the intellectual and spiritual, they should lack a head.  Eyes and mouth and so on could be on their torso.  Kinda like a four armed star fish.  The lack of a head would give them a "fourness" suited for a creature made from the four elements, while people have a "fiveness" to them (think of the human form drawn in a pentacle).

As for color, your suggestion that they should be black (maybe an oily black) sounds good.  As you say, all colors mixed together make black.  And it's an appropriate color for the eldest omnimental whose common name is "Sin."  I still don't like the esoteric name, but I can't think of a better alternative.  The greek work for sin is "hamartia"  but that doesn't sound right.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper Krust, I know I've been dumping a lot of fairly cruel barbs on you lately - and don't think for a second I'm going to stop, you ditsy cur - but I think your art is quite nice.  Do try to finish your work - I'm not going to buy your new bestiary until you release the new epic level CHARACTER content, but once I have the tools I need to use the creatures you're providing, you can be sure I'll snap em' up.

Now get back to work! *whipsnap*


----------



## Sledge

Okay looking at the pics I really like them.  Slight problem with the scale on the orichalcum golem (twice man-height) unless the little guy is a halfling. As for the omnimental being black, technically adding all the colours will not make black.  In art adding extra pigment (which absorbs spectrums of light) will reduce the brightness of the colours, so that adding lots of colours together approaches black.  However if you are using light (like a prism making a rainbow) you will get white when you add all the colours of light together.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hello again matey!  



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I'm a devoted groupie at this point.




I appreciate the love dude.  



			
				historian said:
			
		

> It's recognizable but original.  I like how the faceplate has a more "templar-esque" look to it and the background is quite good.




I sort of wimped out there, I sort of wanted to have the Immortals Handbook logo as the visor shape (a Teutonic Cross before you ask, the reason being it looks like a combined upper case I and H in a way).



			
				historian said:
			
		

> The right arm definitely appears to be cooling after the plasma blast (if not warming up for a blast).




All my initial sketches for that golem had it flat-footed firing a plasma blast, but generally I prefer a more dynamic image, helps divert attention from the shoddy approach to detail. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I love what you've done with the ears.
> 
> Overall it looks much more diabolical (in the general sense I mean, not the planar sense necessarily).  Well done.




Thanks. I always wanted a humanoid monster that had full size wings growing from its head. I suppose this is something of a compromise. The original monster looked too friendly, so I hunted about looking for ideas that would make him a bit more menacing.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Honestly (no flattery) the art of yours that I've seen is better than what I've seen in most of the d20 line and most rpg products generally.  It's not something that's going to be a problem for you and in fact I would venture that many of your readers would applaud it (although you are your harshest critic).  However, we should keep in mind that you are tackling some difficult subject matter.  Bottom line is that I really like what I see.




I'd just be happy to get by without totally embarassing myself. But I suppose the main thing is whether people like it or not.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I did notice the church window silhouettes and like the idea as a trademark of sort.




I have all these really bizarre chapter title page illustration ideas that incorporate the symbol in some way, like a devils horns or an angels wings or even turned on its side like bullets being loaded into an automatic pistol (for the Gods vs. Modern chapter)...but I am just not sure I can pull off the idea.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Good like with the release of Volume I of the Bestiary!




Thanks dude.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I like the pictures a lot!  Having a "church window" is a nice touch.








			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I have a question about items and creatures made out of Orichalcum.  Wouldn't they be so heavy that normal floors would be unable to support them?  If someone has an orichalcum suit of armor, wouldn't they sink into the soil like a normal person sinks into snow?  Unless they have anti-gravity properties, that is.




Sort of. Few non-cosmics could wield an item made of *pure* orichalcum, most of those beings have the innate power of flight/air walking, which is something I have given the revised orichalcum golem. Such beings could also initiate earthquakes merely by stepping on the ground (as I was trying to show the beginnings of a tremor in the illustration).



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I was thinking about the omnimentals you mention in the bestiary.




Do I actually mention the word omnimental in the bestiary I wonder?   



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> In a sense people are omnimentals; we breath (air), drink and have liquids flowing inside us (water), produce body heat (fire) and are basically solid, especially our bones (earth).
> 
> So I think that omnimentals should be basically humanoid in form.  To emphasize the "body" aspect of them, as opposed to the intellectual and spiritual, they should lack a head.  Eyes and mouth and so on could be on their torso.  Kinda like a four armed star fish.  The lack of a head would give them a "fourness" suited for a creature made from the four elements, while people have a "fiveness" to them (think of the human form drawn in a pentacle).




Or maybe like a rose cross lamen.   



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> As for color, your suggestion that they should be black (maybe an oily black) sounds good.  As you say, all colors mixed together make black.  And it's an appropriate color for the eldest omnimental whose common name is "Sin."  I still don't like the esoteric name, but I can't think of a better alternative.  The greek work for sin is "hamartia"  but that doesn't sound right.




I like the colour to put the tar into Elemen*tar*.

...sometimes you would almost think I had put some thought into these things.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian matey! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Upper Krust, I know I've been dumping a lot of fairly cruel barbs on you lately




That last one was good, I give you that. As long as they are funny or poignant I don't mind.   



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> - and don't think for a second I'm going to stop, you ditsy cur




Perish the thought.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> - but I think your art is quite nice.




Well it should be given the time I've taken to finish it. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Do try to finish your work - I'm not going to buy your new bestiary until you release the new epic level CHARACTER content, but once I have the tools I need to use the creatures you're providing, you can be sure I'll snap em' up.




Okeydoke. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Now get back to work! *whipsnap*




Slave driver!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Okay looking at the pics I really like them.




Thanks.

I reckon if I redid all the illustrations I could probably make them all pretty decent...though I imagine most people wouldn't enjoy the wait so I guess we are stuck with whats there.



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> Slight problem with the scale on the orichalcum golem (twice man-height) unless the little guy is a halfling.




Technically they are actually meant to be 14 feet tall (as tall as two tall men) and very stocky, but I could have made the opponent a touch bigger I suppose.

*cough* I mean he was meant to be a halfling paladin from the start.   



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> As for the omnimental being black, technically adding all the colours will not make black.  In art adding extra pigment (which absorbs spectrums of light) will reduce the brightness of the colours, so that adding lots of colours together approaches black.  However if you are using light (like a prism making a rainbow) you will get white when you add all the colours of light together.




Evil oily tar beastie.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

I just saw the art preview. Impressive. I especially like the Cogent. 

BTW: When's the bestiary coming out?


----------



## Anabstercorian

One interesting thing I rather like about these creatures is how _far_ from generic they are.  I toyed with the idea about converting them to Exalted, but I realized that most of them are too tightly connected to their implied setting to easily fit outside of it.  I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but most likely it's just that Exalted has a really weird cosmology.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> I just saw the art preview. Impressive. I especially like the Cogent.
> 
> BTW: When's the bestiary coming out?




What a nonsensical concept.  Products don't "come out".  They merely fester in production eternally.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Do I actually mention the word omnimental in the bestiary I wonder?




My mistake.  You just call it the eldest elemental.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Cheiromancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...starfish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe like a rose cross lamen.
Click to expand...



Nah, it couldn't walk around then.  It would only just stand/lay there.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I like the colour to put the tar into Elemen*tar*.
> 
> ...sometimes you would almost think I had put some thought into these things.




Is Old Night going to be a character in the IH too?


----------



## Pssthpok

UK, I'm having trouble understanding the relationship between density and Strength. 

While I've found that one can multiply a material's density ratio to water by water's density ratio to flesh (0.83) in order to discern its increase in weight (i.e. gold [19.3 times the density of water] times 0.83 weighs in at roughly 16 [16.02 to be exact] times an equal volume of flesh and bone), I'm not sure how you come to the modifiers to Strength that you do. 

You say that the Strength-to-weight formula can be reversed, but you never reveal the formula nor explain the relationships between density and strength any more than your table shows. Furthermore, it seems like table 1-5 and 1-6 in the Preview are not consistant. One shows a +10 bonus to Strength equalling a x2.82 increase in weight while the other shows a x2.9 increase in weight for the same increase in Strength. Furthermore still, on one hand you say that every +20 bonus to Strength equals a x8 increase in weight - so why does gold (x16 weight increase) only have a +26 to Strength? Shouldn't it be +40? 

Could you shed any light on this? I think I'm just missing something otherwise obvious. I'm interested in materials that are heavier than steel and gold but not as astronomically as orichalcum and ran into these snags when trying to distill your density rules into formulae.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Ulitharid_Lord dude! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> I just saw the art preview. Impressive. I especially like the Cogent.




Thanks! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> BTW: When's the bestiary coming out?




As soon as possible.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> My mistake.  You just call it the eldest elemental.








			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Nah, it couldn't walk around then.  It would only just stand/lay there.




I meant giving the creature(s) a structure similar to the symbolic meaning of the lamen.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Is Old Night going to be a character in the IH too?




?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Pssthpok dude! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> UK, I'm having trouble understanding the relationship between density and Strength.




Rember that has changed since the unofficial release.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> While I've found that one can multiply a material's density ratio to water by water's density ratio to flesh (0.83) in order to discern its increase in weight (i.e. gold [19.3 times the density of water] times 0.83 weighs in at roughly 16 [16.02 to be exact] times an equal volume of flesh and bone), I'm not sure how you come to the modifiers to Strength that you do.
> 
> You say that the Strength-to-weight formula can be reversed, but you never reveal the formula nor explain the relationships between density and strength any more than your table shows. Furthermore, it seems like table 1-5 and 1-6 in the Preview are not consistant. One shows a +10 bonus to Strength equalling a x2.82 increase in weight while the other shows a x2.9 increase in weight for the same increase in Strength. Furthermore still, on one hand you say that every +20 bonus to Strength equals a x8 increase in weight - so why does gold (x16 weight increase) only have a +26 to Strength? Shouldn't it be +40?




It is +40 in the official version. 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Could you shed any light on this? I think I'm just missing something otherwise obvious. I'm interested in materials that are heavier than steel and gold but not as astronomically as orichalcum and ran into these snags when trying to distill your density rules into formulae.




Iridium 22.15
Platinum 21.3

Plutonium and Uranium are more or less similar in density to Gold.

You would also have to wonder about Adamantite.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey Pssthpok dude!




Hey, thanks for the reply.



> Rember that has changed since the unofficial release.




Ahh, looking forward to it, then. 



> It is +40 in the official version.




Well, that certainly alleviates things. I thought I had lost a marble. Wait... doesn't that make a Medium-size neutronium golem's Strength score roughly 2.08E+14?!   



> Iridium 22.15
> Platinum 21.3
> 
> Plutonium and Uranium are more or less similar in density to Gold.




I take it these are density ratios? If so, these look nice. A Medium platinum golem would have a Str of round-about 54, then, if I'm not mistaken.



> You would also have to wonder about Adamantite.




Indeed. I'd wager that its density should be somewhere around 133% the density of iron (since an adamantine object has 4/3 the hit points of a similar object made from regular metals), so let's say 10.25 density/x8.5 weight/+21 Str. 
Hmm... that could be off, or else weapons 'made from' adamantine would have to incorporate a mere percentage of their constitution as adamantine, with a base metal like steel or iron. 
On the other hand, a Huge adamantine golem has a Str 51 in the ELH; given a base of 30 for Huge, and that previous estimate is spot-on.

Mithril, according to the DMG, weighs about half-as-much as 'regular' metals, i.e. iron and steel. Doing the math puts it at 3.86 density/x3.2 weight/+8 Str. The ELH puts the Str of the Huge mithil golem at 39 - one point off this estimate.

Thanks for the hints and the insight. I'll consider churning out platinum weapons, though I was aiming for _scrith gargants_.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Cheiromancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Old Night going to be a character in the IH too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...



From a passage in Paradise Lost:



> Without dimension, where length, breadth, and height
> And time and place are lost; where eldest Night
> And Chaos, ancestors of Nature, hold eternal anarchy.




Elsewhere it is called old Night:



> At which the universal host up sent
> A shout that tore hell's concave, and beyond
> Frighted the reign of Chaos and old Night.




I guess this generates multiple questions.  Is Chaos personified in the IH?  Or Mother Nature?

I'm reminded of Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series.  The first one was gold (On a Pale Horse), but the others weren't as good.  The incarnations are Death, Time, Fate, War, Earth, Evil and Good.  [D]evil and G[o]od, of course.


----------



## Fieari

Fancy that.  I was just reading the mention of "Old Night" and that reminded me of the Incarnations series as well, which I loved as a kid.  I recently re-read them and... yeah.  They do kinda start going downhill, but ah well.  Neat concepts anyway.  I was reminded of it because in "For Love of Evil" they mention Nox, another incarnation who is the most powerful of them all.  The "day" incarnations were split into the 7 listed above, but the "night" incarnations all exist within one person, who has all the power there, and mystery besides.

Which started making me think that while maybe the Incarnations series doesn't hold up so well as a bunch of novels once you've grown up (despite the sex, or maybe because of it, they make great reads when you're about 13 years old)... it might make for some awesome roleplaying.  Basically what amounts to godhood as an office that's inheritable.  

Become Death by killing Death.  This is only possible when the current Death becomes careless.

Time picks up the Hourglass left behind when his predecessor is born, then lives his life backwards in time (without deaging in the process, Time is immune to paradox) until the moment of his birth (or conception, they said they weren't clear which one mattered) at which point the hourglass drops on the ground until someone else picks it up.

Fate gets to choose their successors when they get tired of the job (fate is split into three aspects).  The person selected is thus fated to become Fate.

War "dies" when at any given moment, there is no war anywhere in the world, or perhaps at least no active battles.  As soon as the next conflict pops up, the most violent man on earth gets to become War (by choice, he has to pick up the sword that approaches him).

Nature has to nurture a replacement for years until the new nature is ready to take up the mantle of the office willingly.

(d)Evil loses the office by doing something good.  The most evil man in the world becomes the new (d)Evil.

Go(o)d apparently loses office by being... umm... voted out by an act of the united states congress.  Don't ask.  I don't get it myself.  I hated the last book.  The new Go(o)d is also voted in.

I think it'd make for a neat campaign.


----------



## historian

*Playtesting?*

Hey U_K!  

I was curious as to whether anyone had done any playtesting with the Bestiary Preview.  I have been tinkering around and have determined that the Robe(s) of the Almighty are even more powerful than I initially anticipated.


----------



## Fieari

I've made use of the preview quite a bit, but I can't quite say I've really -playtested- it so far.  Other than Quintessence Elementals and Unelementals, which were fantastic for the game (at the time, it was average party level 18, max character level 20).  I've used the Dire templates quite a bit, and shown the players glimpses of the higher level stuff.  

Here's what happened.  They fought a polychromatic wyrmling, summoned by epic level mages who are ironically dominated by the leadership of a nation which has formed a symbiotic relationship with chromatic dragons.  This nation is at war with the country to the south, which makes use of magitech ala FFVI, but who happens to be running out of their primary resources (hence the need for the PCs).  After driving off several waves of adult and older dragons, the PCs (some of whome are specialized dragon slayers) were getting a little cocky until Mr. Polychromatic showed up.  I bumped up a few of the little guy's stats too, in order to give him a nice Blasphemy that was decimating the city's population.

So the polychromatic was tearing up the party, who finally found a dragon they truely truely feared personally, not just feared for what the dragon could do to others.  They teleported away in ignoble defeat, and found the dragon was now stalking them.  Through judicious use of wish and miracle, time stop and some custom 9-th level spells they designed, they managed (at great expense, a couple levels lost in terms of XP expenditure) to only suffer one permanent death, and ALSO severed the divinity from the dragon, creating the quintessence elemental (smallest type).  The dragon flees for the time being.

The quintessence elemental was actually quite nice, and the party more or less tamed it.  Which attracted the attention of some other dragon worshippers who desire the end of this universe so another universe that the dragons they worship live in can better prosper.  Thus, this cult made quite a few assassination attempts against the elemental, with the goal being to create an Unelemental.  They nearly succeeded a number of times.

Unfortunately, what with one thing and another, this campaign was temporarily put on hold...


----------



## Shariell

Hi UK!
I've been out for a while... months ago I've purchased the first part of your awesome bestiary, the version without artwork, and not all the monsters statted.

The thread is so long..and I've not time to read again all posts to search my response, so I ask you:

- Is the full version of thr 1st part of the bestiary out there? Where I can find it?
- Has any other part of the IH been relased?

bye!
Shariell


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hey, thanks for the reply.




Thats what I am here for. 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Well, that certainly alleviates things. I thought I had lost a marble. Wait... doesn't that make a Medium-size neutronium golem's Strength score roughly 2.08E+14?!




No it works out at 502.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> I take it these are density ratios? If so, these look nice. A Medium platinum golem would have a Str of round-about 54, then, if I'm not mistaken.




Well if it wa sMedium sized then it would be a Platinum Guardian. 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Indeed. I'd wager that its density should be somewhere around 133% the density of iron (since an adamantine object has 4/3 the hit points of a similar object made from regular metals), so let's say 10.25 density/x8.5 weight/+21 Str.
> Hmm... that could be off, or else weapons 'made from' adamantine would have to incorporate a mere percentage of their constitution as adamantine, with a base metal like steel or iron.
> On the other hand, a Huge adamantine golem has a Str 51 in the ELH; given a base of 30 for Huge, and that previous estimate is spot-on.
> 
> Mithril, according to the DMG, weighs about half-as-much as 'regular' metals, i.e. iron and steel. Doing the math puts it at 3.86 density/x3.2 weight/+8 Str. The ELH puts the Str of the Huge mithil golem at 39 - one point off this estimate.








			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Thanks for the hints and the insight. I'll consider churning out platinum weapons, though I was aiming for _scrith gargants_.




Well Platinum is a softmetal so although its heavy it will have a very poor hardness.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Howdy! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> From a passage in Paradise Lost:




Ah, okay.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I guess this generates multiple questions.  Is Chaos personified in the IH?  Or Mother Nature?




Yes, see the First Ones in the Glimpse of the Kosmos section.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm reminded of Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series.  The first one was gold (On a Pale Horse), but the others weren't as good.  The incarnations are Death, Time, Fate, War, Earth, Evil and Good.  [D]evil and G[o]od, of course.




Remove Earth and make War = Chaos/Thought and he would have had it right.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I was curious as to whether anyone had done any playtesting with the Bestiary Preview.




Not beyond what Playtesting was done for the Challenge Rating system.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I have been tinkering around and have determined that the Robe(s) of the Almighty are even more powerful than I initially anticipated.




To be honest I sort of rushed the Challenge Ratings in the unofficial release, rest assured I won't treat the official version as slipshod.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Shariell said:
			
		

> Hi UK!




Hi Shariell dude! 



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> I've been out for a while... months ago I've purchased the first part of your awesome bestiary, the version without artwork, and not all the monsters statted.
> 
> The thread is so long..and I've not time to read again all posts to search my response, so I ask you:
> 
> - Is the full version of thr 1st part of the bestiary out there? Where I can find it?




Its almost ready. I will send it to you (and everyone else who purchased the preview) when I have it completed. Apologies for taking so long. 

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/immortalshandbook.htm

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/IHpreview3.htm



			
				Shariell said:
			
		

> - Has any other part of the IH been relased?




Not yet. 

I'll try to have the Bestiary done within a week and try my hardest to get the Apotheosis ready before Christmas.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'll try to have the Bestiary done within a week and try my hardest to get the Apotheosis ready before Christmas.




That'd be excellent. Godspeed *badumching*


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> No it works out at 502.




Hmm.. how does this work? If its density is 1E+14 then its weight factor is [0.83 x 1E+14] 8.3E+13... x2.5 (the relationship between +20 and x8) and the Strength is 2.08E+14 (208,000,000,000,000) with a modifier in the neighborhood of 1.04E+14. Despite the relative sanity your results create, I'm not sure how you came to +502; frankly, that's about where I placed scrith (100 meters of which is as dense as a light-year of lead). Am I still missing something?



> Well if it wa sMedium sized then it would be a Platinum Guardian.




Of course. 



> Well Platinum is a softmetal so although its heavy it will have a very poor hardness.




So, like silver it might incur a damage penalty as well as have a relatively low hardness?


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> Not beyond what Playtesting was done for the Challenge Rating system.




Which is the definitive standard!  



> To be honest I sort of rushed the Challenge Ratings in the unofficial release, rest assured I won't treat the official version as slipshod.




In no way do I view the CRs as slipshod, your ratings are BY FAR better than what I could come up with and far better than I would expect anywhere else.  As the aforementioned, they are _the standard_.

FWIW, I was drawing mainly from Nimrod whose CR BTW is variable even in the unofficial release.  In other words, you nailed it!  

Nimrod's artifact is just so bad @ss.  Put another way, if he were to master the "kiloton" spell from the IH I would give him better than even odds vs. even the neutronium golem.

P.S. Fieari, your campaign sounds awesome.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Platinum really isn't a particularly soft metal.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Pssthpok mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hmm.. how does this work? If its density is 1E+14 then its weight factor is [0.83 x 1E+14] 8.3E+13... x2.5 (the relationship between +20 and x8) and the Strength is 2.08E+14 (208,000,000,000,000) with a modifier in the neighborhood of 1.04E+14. Despite the relative sanity your results create, I'm not sure how you came to +502; frankly, that's about where I placed scrith (100 meters of which is as dense as a light-year of lead). Am I still missing something?




Not sure what you are doing wrong.   

In the official release its...

+30 Str/x8 Density, +60/x64, +90/x512, +120/x4096 etc.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> So, like silver it might incur a damage penalty as well as have a relatively low hardness?




Not sure if it would have a damage penalty as such, but certainly soft metal would have a tendency to lose its edge pretty quickly. Might not make much difference to a bludgeoning weapon.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Howdy mate! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Which is the definitive standard!




...well its almost perfect. 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> In no way do I view the CRs as slipshod, your ratings are BY FAR better than what I could come up with and far better than I would expect anywhere else.  As the aforementioned, they are _the standard_.
> 
> FWIW, I was drawing mainly from Nimrod whose CR BTW is variable even in the unofficial release.  In other words, you nailed it!
> 
> Nimrod's artifact is just so bad @ss.  Put another way, if he were to master the "kiloton" spell from the IH I would give him better than even odds vs. even the neutronium golem.




Nimrod is getting something of a boost in the official release, I didn't think his relatively low levels were taking full advantage of the Akalich Template.



			
				historian said:
			
		

> P.S. Fieari, your campaign sounds awesome.




Yes, very interesting stuff Fieari!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Platinum really isn't a particularly soft metal.




Indeed. My mistake. On MOHs scale...

Gold and Silver both 2.5
Platinum 3.5
Iron 4

For the purposes of D&D I would imagine that each point on the Mohs scale equals 3.33 hardness (with 1 on the Mohs scale treated as 0 Hardness)

So... 

Diamond = Hardness 30*
Glass = Hardness 15*
Iron = Hardness 10
Platinum = Hardness 8
Copper = Hardness 6
Gold/Silver = Hardness 5
Fingernails = Hardness 3

*But fragile and subject to critical hits.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Not sure what you are doing wrong.
> 
> In the official release its...
> 
> +30 Str/x8 Density, +60/x64, +90/x512, +120/x4096 etc.




I'm multiplying the material's weight factor by 2.5 (since every x8 equals +20; 20/8 = 2.5), It's given accurate results up until now.

Wouldn't changing the +20/x8 to +30 radically alter the extant golems' Strength scores?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya Pssthpok mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> I'm multiplying the material's weight factor by 2.5 (since every x8 equals +20; 20/8 = 2.5), It's given accurate results up until now.




Accurate compared to what?



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Wouldn't changing the +20/x8 to +30 radically alter the extant golems' Strength scores?




Yes. All the golem strengths have changed as have all the golem Hit Dice figures.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya Pssthpok mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Accurate compared to what?




Hiya, UK. The results have been accurate compared to published golems... 




> Yes. All the golem strengths have changed as have all the golem Hit Dice figures.




...which are moot, in light of this. So, I want to stay on the same page... just to check, an iron golem should have a Strength of 47? Would it also have a base (at Large/'Golem' size) of 23 HD?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hiya, UK.




Hiya mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> So, I want to stay on the same page... just to check, an iron golem should have a Strength of 47? Would it also have a base (at Large/'Golem' size) of 23 HD?




I actually worked it out to Str +26 = 46 (26 + 10 + 10) and 22 HD.

I am guessing there are probably a few variant figures for iron density (?), however even with Str 47 it would still be 22 HD, not 23.

ie. 27 divided by 2 = 13.5 + 9 = 22.5 (round down naturally).

By the way, I just updated some more illustrations to the website.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/IHpreview4.htm


----------



## Shemeska

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> By the way, I just updated some more illustrations to the website.
> 
> http://www.immortalshandbook.com/IHpreview4.htm




For what it's worth, can I assume the 'Gibboram' on the new art for the book is derived from Chaugnar Faugn of Frank Belknap Long fame? It's a dead ringer for that particular Great Old One, with the exception of not having arms.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya mate!
> 
> I actually worked it out to Str +26 = 46 (26 + 10 + 10) and 22 HD.
> 
> I am guessing there are probably a few variant figures for iron density (?), however even with Str 47 it would still be 22 HD, not 23.




Hi, UK.

I was using a density of 8.0, I think you're using 7.7. Yours is more accurate. 



> ie. 27 divided by 2 = 13.5 + 9 = 22.5 (round down naturally).




Ahh, I was adding 10. Okay, I getchya. That means my custom-built silver golems are off... again. 



> By the way, I just updated some more illustrations to the website




Oh, excellent, going to check post-haste.


----------



## Zoatebix

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. My mistake. On MOHs scale...
> 
> Gold and Silver both 2.5
> Platinum 3.5
> Iron 4
> 
> For the purposes of D&D I would imagine that each point on the Mohs scale equals 3.33 hardness (with 1 on the Mohs scale treated as 0 Hardness)
> 
> So...
> 
> Diamond = Hardness 30*
> Glass = Hardness 15*
> Iron = Hardness 10
> Platinum = Hardness 8
> Copper = Hardness 6
> Gold/Silver = Hardness 5
> Fingernails = Hardness 3
> 
> *But fragile and subject to critical hits.



That's the kind of stuff I love to see!  No one else ever posts this kind of stuff.  Too bad Moh's scale isn't so much a scale as an ordering...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Shemmy mate! 



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, can I assume the 'Gibboram' on the new art for the book is derived from Chaugnar Faugn of Frank Belknap Long fame? It's a dead ringer for that particular Great Old One, with the exception of not having arms.




To be honest its derived more from the classic occult image of Behemoth (which may or may not have inspired Chaugnar Faugn in the first place?).

http://www.occultopedia.com/b/behemoth.htm


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Zoatebix matey! 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> That's the kind of stuff I love to see!  No one else ever posts this kind of stuff.




Glad to be of service. 



			
				Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Too bad Moh's scale isn't so much a scale as an ordering...




True, but D&D is pretty much representative of that.

For instance, with regards true hardness Diamond is 75 times harder than iron, but I don't think it should have hardness 750.


----------



## Pssthpok

Hey, UK.

Does the change regarding density affect the acquisition of virtual size categories? I'm guessing it would switch to +1 VSC/+30 Str. If not, doesn't iron gain a virtual size category?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hey, UK.




Hiya dude! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Does the change regarding density affect the acquisition of virtual size categories? I'm guessing it would switch to +1 VSC/+30 Str.




+1 VSC/+15 strength...I don't need to explain exactly how bad@ss that makes the revised Neutronium Golem.   



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> If not, doesn't iron gain a virtual size category?




Yes it would.


----------



## Pssthpok

Hello again, UK.

That.. certainly makes things... very.. very powerful. My silver golems are off, yet again.  I'll need to give them the extra VSC. I'd wager it makes the neutronium golem somewhere around +33 VSC. 

On the issue of VSC, why doesn't it grant the size modifier to grapple check?

Finally, if iron gains a VSC, does the base damage on my iron longsword change?


----------



## Alzrius

U_K, minor issue about the IH's dragons. For the most part, they have names that haven't been given to D&D dragons before. However, the adamantite dragon was featured in MC 8, the _Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix_. Likewise, the mithril dragon was from the _Spelljammer_ product _Practical Planetology_.

In regards to the mithril dragon, I'd recommend changing the name there to platinum dragon. That resolves the conflict, and makes sense to say that Bahamut is thus a great, great, great platinum wyrm (since he's called the Platinum Dragon). There's never been a non-unique platinum dragon before, and it'd be cool if there was one.

I'm not sure what the Mithril dragon's name could be changed to to make it unique.


----------



## Alzrius

Hm...is it just me, or is the IH website down?

EDIT: It seems Firefox can't locate the page..which is odd, since other browsers seem to have no trouble.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Just you.  Upper Krust still hasn't finished any of his work, and he's still a failure, FINISH THE BOOK DAMMIT *ARGH*

Edit: *DOUBLE ARRRRRRRGH* 

Edit the second: *WHY CAN'T IT BE INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FORCE GOLEM HITS ANOTHER FORCE GOLEM ARGH*

Edit the third: *THE FORCE GOLEM'S POWER WORD STUN IS VAGUELY DEFINED AND MAKES NO SENSE IN LIGHT OF HOW THE SPELL WORKS*

Edit the fourth: Okay, enough ranting.

The diamond golem's Cascading Slam is pretty weird.  No saving throw, and I don't know how you calculated the Dispel Check DC.  That should be clarified, as I imagine the number is higher for bigger golems.  Likewise for the hypnotic pattern.

The above complaint applies to mercury golems poison.  Does the Mercury Golem's _sharpness_ ability require a second roll to confirm the crit?  If not, it should, and it should be avoidable like any other crit using Fortification and the like.

The diamond golem's duplicate ability should have a clarified cap, to either prevent it from single-handedly wiping out an army in a round, or to explicitly declare that it can.

Orichalcum Golems: Plasma Beam damage is constant for all levels of golem?  Is it a line or a ranged touch attack?  How does an Echoing Weapon interact with whirlwind attack?

Grigori: The 'insight' ability is vague.  How much of an insight bonus?  What if he doesn't WANT to go last?  Once Karmic Scrutiny is active, how can you break the effect beyond killing the watcher?

Unelementals: If someone is sucked in to the void and lost forever, well, forgive me but how hard is it for them to become un-lost?  Flight claims they can disintigrate solid matter in their path, but how quickly?  They don't really do that much damage.  Do their attacks ignore hardness?  How long does fascinate last?

Send John Cooper a comp copy.  Seriously.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Hello again, UK.




Hiya matey! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> That.. certainly makes things... very.. very powerful. My silver golems are off, yet again.  I'll need to give them the extra VSC. I'd wager it makes the neutronium golem somewhere around +33 VSC.




+32.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> On the issue of VSC, why doesn't it grant the size modifier to grapple check?




I see that more of a size related issue than a density related one. Density already gives you a bonus to strength which is added to the Grapple Modifier, and I don't like the idea of a double boost.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Finally, if iron gains a VSC, does the base damage on my iron longsword change?




Yes.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> U_K, minor issue about the IH's dragons. For the most part, they have names that haven't been given to D&D dragons before. However, the adamantite dragon was featured in MC 8, the _Monstrous Compendium Outer Planes Appendix_. Likewise, the mithril dragon was from the _Spelljammer_ product _Practical Planetology_.




I own the former, but never saw the latter.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> In regards to the mithril dragon, I'd recommend changing the name there to platinum dragon. That resolves the conflict, and makes sense to say that Bahamut is thus a great, great, great platinum wyrm (since he's called the Platinum Dragon). There's never been a non-unique platinum dragon before, and it'd be cool if there was one.




I'll consider it.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the Mithril dragon's name could be changed to to make it unique.




Do you mean Adamantite?

Given that WotC would use Adamantine nowadays anyway I think I'll keep this as is. Its meant to be the epic version of the Ferrous Dragons.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Hm...is it just me, or is the IH website down?
> 
> EDIT: It seems Firefox can't locate the page..which is odd, since other browsers seem to have no trouble.




That might be a problem my end, I'll check things when I update the website tonight.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Howdy! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Just you.  Upper Krust still hasn't finished any of his work, and he's still a failure, FINISH THE BOOK DAMMIT *ARGH*
> 
> Edit: *DOUBLE ARRRRRRRGH*
> 
> Edit the second: *WHY CAN'T IT BE INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FORCE GOLEM HITS ANOTHER FORCE GOLEM ARGH*
> 
> Edit the third: *THE FORCE GOLEM'S POWER WORD STUN IS VAGUELY DEFINED AND MAKES NO SENSE IN LIGHT OF HOW THE SPELL WORKS*
> 
> Edit the fourth: Okay, enough ranting.
> 
> The diamond golem's Cascading Slam is pretty weird.  No saving throw, and I don't know how you calculated the Dispel Check DC.  That should be clarified, as I imagine the number is higher for bigger golems.  Likewise for the hypnotic pattern.
> 
> The above complaint applies to mercury golems poison.  Does the Mercury Golem's _sharpness_ ability require a second roll to confirm the crit?  If not, it should, and it should be avoidable like any other crit using Fortification and the like.
> 
> The diamond golem's duplicate ability should have a clarified cap, to either prevent it from single-handedly wiping out an army in a round, or to explicitly declare that it can.
> 
> Orichalcum Golems: Plasma Beam damage is constant for all levels of golem?  Is it a line or a ranged touch attack?  How does an Echoing Weapon interact with whirlwind attack?
> 
> Grigori: The 'insight' ability is vague.  How much of an insight bonus?  What if he doesn't WANT to go last?  Once Karmic Scrutiny is active, how can you break the effect beyond killing the watcher?
> 
> Unelementals: If someone is sucked in to the void and lost forever, well, forgive me but how hard is it for them to become un-lost?  Flight claims they can disintigrate solid matter in their path, but how quickly?  They don't really do that much damage.  Do their attacks ignore hardness?  How long does fascinate last?




Points noted. I'll get to work correcting them.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Send John Cooper a comp copy.  Seriously.




Would he be up for such an endeavour, pre-release I mean?

There are lots of changes in the official version, and clearly still a few more to make obviously. I wouldn't want to send it to him prior to having it all finished.


----------



## Pssthpok

Ahoy, Krust.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> +32.








> I see that more of a size related issue than a density related one. Density already gives you a bonus to strength which is added to the Grapple Modifier, and I don't like the idea of a double boost.




Point conceded.



> Yes.




That's an bold move, friend. A d8 longsword has been standard since dice have been thrown.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

I have just noticed that my website is down, I cannot access my control panel either. Also sonofapreacherman's website www.wakinglands.com is also down and it uses the same webspace provider, so I am guessing its a problem at their end. Hopefully it will all be sorted within a day or two. The company business hours are monday to friday so I won't be getting any answers until tommorrow at the earliest, unless the problem has sorted itself by then? So thats going to hamper any updates over the immediate future - just so you know.

By the way if anyone else has any notes, comments or errata about the Bestiary, keep it coming.


----------



## Cheiromancer

What's this about an iron longsword not doing d8?  Isn't iron its default material?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Ahoy, Krust.






That's an bold move, friend. A d8 longsword has been standard since dice have been thrown. [/QUOTE]

Medium Creature slam = d4 (assuming that is their natural attack)
Large creature slam = d6
+1 VSC = d8

An iron golem using its fists will deal 1d8+18

Medium Longsword = d8
Large Longsword = 2d6
+1 VSC = 2d8

An Iron Golem wielding a longsword would deal 2d8+18 damage.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'll consider it.




For what it's worth, I think it's a good move to make. I couldn't say why, but for some reason realizing that there's never been a non-unique platinum dragon is annoying me.



> _Do you mean Adamantite?_




B'oh! Yeah.



> _Given that WotC would use Adamantine nowadays anyway I think I'll keep this as is. Its meant to be the epic version of the Ferrous Dragons._




You mean the ones from _Dragon_ #170? The cobalt, nickel, tungsten, iron, and chromium dragons? That's interesting, since I'm not at all sure if adamantine is ferrous or not. 

After checking out the periodic table, my suggestion would be to rename the adamantite dragon to titanium, since that's one of the strongest real metals, and likewise, there's never been a TSR/WotC titanium dragon.

Likewise, splitting verbal hairs is enough to say that your solar and lunar dragons are different from _Spelljammer_'s sun and moon dragons (though you both have stellar dragons).

Sorry if I'm nitpicking, it just seems like a shame to cover the same ground twice, since that makes your work that much less unique.


----------



## Pate Pot Pete

I am just wondering if the Epic Bestiary is on RPGNow or any other non-paypal RPG product selling sights. I am sure this has been mentioned before however I am to lazy to read this entire thread.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Medium Creature slam = d4 (assuming that is their natural attack)
> Large creature slam = d6
> +1 VSC = d8
> 
> An iron golem using its fists will deal 1d8+18




With you...



> Medium Longsword = d8
> Large Longsword = 2d6
> +1 VSC = 2d8
> 
> An Iron Golem wielding a longsword would deal 2d8+18 damage.




Okay... so what about my medium-size humanoid with an iron longsword? 1d8? 2d6? 

I think I'm just not wrapping my head around this properly. Does the inherant +VSC of a material increase a weapon's base damage, or only when used by a creature of matching relative size or greater? For instance, if I have an adamantine rapier (+2 VSC, if my math is right) does it deal 1d6, or 2d6, or does it only deal 2d6 when used by a Huge creature or a creature with enough +VSC to be considered Huge (like an iron golem)?


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Would he be up for such an endeavour, pre-release I mean?




It seems iffy. His style of reviewing is to look for, and list, mechanical and grammatical errors that he finds, but I don't know if he'd actually be up for a pre-release editing.



> _There are lots of changes in the official version, and clearly still a few more to make obviously. I wouldn't want to send it to him prior to having it all finished._




Don't forget that he's (AFAIK) a staff reviewer here at EN World. Anything sent to him for review would likely end up in his "to do" pile for a while.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> You mean the ones from _Dragon_ #170? The cobalt, nickel, tungsten, iron, and chromium dragons? That's interesting, since I'm not at all sure if adamantine is ferrous or not.




Me neither, but it appears in meteors (according to the DMG) so it would suggest its replacing meteoric iron from 1st Edition.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> After checking out the periodic table, my suggestion would be to rename the adamantite dragon to titanium, since that's one of the strongest real metals, and likewise, there's never been a TSR/WotC titanium dragon.




Quite a nice alternative there.

Is Titanium a ferrous metal?



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Likewise, splitting verbal hairs is enough to say that your solar and lunar dragons are different from _Spelljammer_'s sun and moon dragons (though you both have stellar dragons).




I've never read any spelljammer product. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Sorry if I'm nitpicking, it just seems like a shame to cover the same ground twice, since that makes your work that much less unique.




I can see your reasoning.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Pate Pot Pete! 



			
				Pate Pot Pete said:
			
		

> I am just wondering if the Epic Bestiary is on RPGNow or any other non-paypal RPG product selling sights.




Not just yet - the bestiary is almost finished. I'm only a handful of illustrations shy of having it completed, so hopefully that will be sorted within the next few days. 

The latest details are on my website, unfortunately the server appears to be down at the moment.   



			
				Pate Pot Pete said:
			
		

> I am sure this has been mentioned before however I am to lazy to read this entire thread.




No harm done.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Pssthpok mate! 



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> With you...
> 
> Okay... so what about my medium-size humanoid with an iron longsword? 1d8? 2d6?




1d8.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> I think I'm just not wrapping my head around this properly. Does the inherant +VSC of a material increase a weapon's base damage, or only when used by a creature of matching relative size or greater?




It would, except for the fact that iron is obviously the default material for weapons so there is already a +1 VSC built-in. 

eg. A bone longsword would probably only deal 1d6 damage.



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> For instance, if I have an adamantine rapier (+2 VSC, if my math is right)




Where does it give the weight of adamantine objects?



			
				Pssthpok said:
			
		

> does it deal 1d6, or 2d6, or does it only deal 2d6 when used by a Huge creature or a creature with enough +VSC to be considered Huge (like an iron golem)?




I would doubt that Adamantine is fully eight times heavier than iron. An iron rapier deals a base 1d6 damage, therefore so will an adamantine rapier.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> It seems iffy. His style of reviewing is to look for, and list, mechanical and grammatical errors that he finds, but I don't know if he'd actually be up for a pre-release editing.
> 
> Don't forget that he's (AFAIK) a staff reviewer here at EN World. Anything sent to him for review would likely end up in his "to do" pile for a while.




Thats pretty much what I thought.

Hopefully I'll keep the mistakes to a minimum for the official release.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Pssthpok mate!




Hello, UK, how are ya?



> It would, except for the fact that iron is obviously the default material for weapons so there is already a +1 VSC built-in.
> 
> eg. A bone longsword would probably only deal 1d6 damage.




I see.



> Where does it give the weight of adamantine objects?




It doesn't, but I'm going on a premise of it having 133% the weight of iron, since it has 133% the HP.



> I would doubt that Adamantine is fully eight times heavier than iron. An iron rapier deals a base 1d6 damage, therefore so will an adamantine rapier.




It isn't, but with 133% the weight, I find it to have a weight factor of about 8.5 (with a density of 10.25). As such, that makes adamantine a +30 Str which, according to our discussion, is a +2 VSC.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Quite a nice alternative there.
> 
> Is Titanium a ferrous metal?




In the strictest sense, no. However, by that logic, neither are tungsten, nickel, chromium, or cobalt. Ferrous metals are metals that are magnetic, which only iron is. Unless the metal is iron or an iron alloy, it's not ferrous. Given that four out of five of the "ferous dragons" aren't ferrous to begin with (something the article in _Dragon_ magazine doesn't even broach), it seems okay to use titanium.



> _I've never read any spelljammer product. _




Ah, you're missing out there. The stellar dragon there is worthy of you. It's one million feet long, and eats knowledge. It's breath weapon is that it can inhale creatures into its gullet, which acts as a _sphere of annihilation_.



> _I can see your reasoning._




Solar and lunar seem sufficiently different from sun and moon. I'm not sure what I'd use as an alternative for stellar dragons though. Maybe "spacial"? "galactic"? "cosmic"?


----------



## Anabstercorian

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Solar and lunar seem sufficiently different from sun and moon. I'm not sure what I'd use as an alternative for stellar dragons though. Maybe "spacial"? "galactic"? "cosmic"?




Constellar Dragon.

*GET TO WORK*


----------



## Michael Silverbane

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Not just yet - the bestiary is almost finished. I'm only a handful of illustrations shy of having it completed, so hopefully that will be sorted within the next few days.




So...  a few days?  You're not yanking our chains, are you?  Because some of us have been looking forward to this thing officially coming out for something like one hundred and fifteen years.

Later
silver


----------



## Cheiromancer

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> So...  a few days?  You're not yanking our chains, are you?  Because some of us have been looking forward to this thing officially coming out for something like one hundred and fifteen years.
> 
> Later
> silver




Upper_Krust is an optimist.

But the difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that a pessimist is sometimes pleasantly surprised.  We'll see in a week or two.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> So...  a few days?  You're not yanking our chains, are you?  Because some of us have been looking forward to this thing officially coming out for something like one hundred and fifteen years.
> 
> Later
> silver




He said pretty much the same thing a year ago.  Don't believe a word of it.

Or will you prove me wrong?   Eh?  Come on then, oi!

I was talking to a friend of mine about your product and how I was sometimes skeptical but you had an infectious enthusiasm.  Know what she said?  _I already own Rifts, thanks._

OWNED.  Prove us wrong, limey!


----------



## Pssthpok

Limey! Buuuurn.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Michael! 



			
				Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> So...  a few days?  You're not yanking our chains, are you?  Because some of us have been looking forward to this thing officially coming out for something like one hundred and fifteen years.




I know, sorry about that.   

Heres what I have left to do with the bestiary.

1. I have five illustrations to 'ink*'
2. I have five illustrations which need drawn *and* inked.
3. I have to finish off the Amidah and Nexus Dragon entries.
4. I have to fix the more recent errata (such as that which Anabstercorian recently posted)
5. I have to collect the cover illustration from the hired artist (I'm not doing the cover illustration myself).
6. I was going to convert the templated characters to the new standard character layout (As per Dungeon magazine, or Dungeon Masters Guide II).
7. I have to double check the Challenge Ratings.

*Or more specifically 'marker'.

In a perfect world I have my heart set on a Monday 21st November release date...but obviously we are talking about me, and I am an idiot when it comes to making these release dates. But if its not Monday 21st then it should be fairly close to that.


----------



## Anabstercorian

As long as we're listing problems, I'll try to give it a cover-to-cover scan for ambiguous language you should look over, and deliver it in a less confrontational tone.  I've probably done enough harshing on you to keep me sated until at least sunday.

First off, the Cometary Dragon's seventh sense power is...  I don't even know how I'd use that in a game.  It sounds tedious and boring, and ultimately not really an advantage because everyone will act differently.  You just do things over and over and over.

You need to find a better way to represent it's ability to see in to the future.  I'll see if I can provide one using the power of SLEEP DEPRIVATION as inspiration:

Seventh Sense (Ex):  A cometary dragons senses extend one round into the future, granting it the following advantages:

A cometary dragon can never be caught flatfooted or surprised, and always enjoys its full dexterity bonus to armor class, even against foes it cannot perceive, because it senses the strike before it occurs and can twist to avoid it.
A cometary dragon becomes aware of any encounter a round before it occurs.  It can use this round to cast preparatory magic to enhance itself, or, if it's foes would outmatch it, immediately act to evade them.
A cometary dragon may have time to prepare against an attack before it actually hits - the paradoxial possibilities of whether or not the cometary dragon will actually choose to do so mean that a cometary dragon suffers no effects from any attack or power until immediately after their own action.  For example, Kratos unleashes the Blades of Chaos against the Cometary Dragon that has been leashed to  Mount Olympus and is currently dragging it to the end of the world to draft it and all of it's inhabitants to fight in Ragnarock.  He and the Cometary Dragon roll initiative.  The dragon unleashes its breath weapon, engulfing the mighty warrior in memories of forgotten glories and dreams of unfulfilled possibility, but Kratos parries the blast with the timeless essence of the Chaos Blades.  He then counter attacks with a truly terrifying attack, grievously wounding the dragon - and yet also not.  The blow does not take effect until AFTER the Cometary Dragon's action, which, since this does not kill the dragon, it spends on striking Kratos once before, once during, and once after, shaking the resolve of the godlike champion.  Kratos' answer volley, however, splits the dragon in twain! - or does it?  The blow does not take effect until AFTER the cometary dragon's action, but since the dragon would be killed (or otherwise prevented from acting) by this attack, the dragon must spend his action on preventing himself from being killed by this effect, or lose the action.  The dragon elects to utilize a time skip to jump ahead in time one round, allowing him to evade the entire attack and remain alive.

If you're as good as you say, you should now be sufficiently inspired to make something better.  MAN UP.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I'm probably in the wrong IH thread, but I was thinking about Upper_Krust's CR numbers.  What's he's taken to calling ECL to distinguish them from WotC's numbers.

They are really quite brilliant.  Even the mistakes are brilliant.

Remember that he recently concluded that he overvalued feats (they should be one sixth of an ECL instead of one fifth) and undervalued PC wealth (which should be one third of an ECL instead of one fifth).  Net result is that the average PC level is worth about the same (maybe 1.14 instead of 1.17) but monsters are a little overvalued, since they are built out of feat equivalents and don't have PC wealth.

But notice what happens if you take an ECL 10 monster and make it into a PC character.  Multiply by 5/6 to account for the discounted value of feats.  That's 8.33  Give it PC treasure for a 10th level character.  +3.3  That's 11.63, virtually the same as a 10th level PC.  (2% over, but I'm sure there is something I am failing to calculate...)

In other words, the "golden rule" numbers given in v4 or v5 of the IH appendix are perfect for using monsters as PCs.  Even though Upper_Krust used a mistaken value for feats to arrive at them.  Calling them ECLs is an utterly appropriate fix.

There *is* one issue that I am still wrapping my mind around.  That is that a player character with one of the standard classes and standard wealth will be equivalent to a monster almost 40% higher (37% actually) without equipment.  If you had to bet on an 11th level charcter vs an ECL 15 monster, the odds should be just about even as to who would prevail.  Which means that a character has excellent chances against a monster of equal ECL.  Unless the monster has a tactical advantage (say it is a great grappler whose low ECL is based on its vulnerability to ranged attacks, and the PC is a close combat fighter.  Or if it has an ability that targets the PCs weak save.  Or something).

I think this is a feature, though, not a bug.  My CHI/RHO method uses the sum of squares method to determine the power of each side in a combat.  I use UK's numbers for the monsters, and character levels for the PCs.  In light of this analysis an "equal encounter" where CHI=RHO actually indicates that the odds are tilted fairly heavily in the PCs favor.  Which is actually quite appropriate.  You want the PCs to win against overwhelming odds more often than not, and the intrinsic pro-PC spin in the CHI/RHO equation makes this happen; even if CHI is twice RHO (ECL 15 monster vs CL 11 PC) the PC has almost even odds.

Anyways,  I just wanted to praise UK instead of criticizing him for the IH delays.  It may take time for him to get something absolutely right, but it is generally worth the wait.


----------



## Kerrick

> A cometary dragon may have time to prepare against an attack before it actually hits - the paradoxial possibilities of whether or not the cometary dragon will actually choose to do so mean that a cometary dragon suffers no effects from any attack or power until immediately after their own action. For example, Kratos unleashes the Blades of Chaos against the Cometary Dragon that has been leashed to Mount Olympus and is currently dragging it to the end of the world to draft it and all of it's inhabitants to fight in Ragnarock. He and the Cometary Dragon roll initiative. The dragon unleashes its breath weapon, engulfing the mighty warrior in memories of forgotten glories and dreams of unfulfilled possibility, but Kratos parries the blast with the timeless essence of the Chaos Blades. He then counter attacks with a truly terrifying attack, grievously wounding the dragon - and yet also not. The blow does not take effect until AFTER the Cometary Dragon's action, which, since this does not kill the dragon, it spends on striking Kratos once before, once during, and once after, shaking the resolve of the godlike champion. Kratos' answer volley, however, splits the dragon in twain! - or does it? The blow does not take effect until AFTER the cometary dragon's action, but since the dragon would be killed (or otherwise prevented from acting) by this attack, the dragon must spend his action on preventing himself from being killed by this effect, or lose the action. The dragon elects to utilize a time skip to jump ahead in time one round, allowing him to evade the entire attack and remain alive.




You've got to be kidding... not only is this thing poorly designed, like Anabster pointed out, it's twice as long as it needs to be. Do we _really_ need to know what the cometary dragon is doing when Kratos attacks it? And "He then counter attacks with a truly terrifying attack". And "paradoxial". Come on, UK... I hope you were planning on running this through an editor again.

I thought over this for a little bit, and I can't figure out any way to explain it. I figured out that cometary dragons exist in a separate time stream, from the looks of it - one round in the future. Of course, this makes it easy to combat them - you just bring it into the area of a pre-existing time lock, e.g., where time-affecting effects don't work (like insight), or have someone under the effects of a temporal ward (immune to time-viewing effects, again, like insight) attack it. But, really, the logistics of such an ability are nearly impossible to wrap the mind around - it would be nearly impossible to kill such a being, since it would see a death blow coming and would act that round to avoid it. You might also trap it with some kind of epic spell that traps beings in a given path of time for x rounds, kind of like _time stop_. That way, the dragon wouldn't be abe to "time jump" away, because the spell eliminates all other timelines, taking the one the caster chooses and making it the ONLY one.


----------



## Anabstercorian

No, uh...  That was what I wrote.  I have a habit of writing extended examples of stuff I feel is unclear.  I'm sorry it's confusing - I did write it at five in the morning.

Here's IH's, which is simpler, but arguiably worse:

Seventh Sense (Ex):  A cometary dragons senses extend one round into the future. To adjudicate this, allow the dragon to replay the round again with the knowledge of whats going to happen next. A cometary dragon can only replay the same round once for every age category, beyond that, the time stream becomes too muddied for it to perceive until time once again is allowed to take its natural course.


----------



## Verequus

Regarding John Cooper: I think, he was made into a editor by couple of publishers, so he could fix errors before the public ever saw them. But beware: JC isn't as perfect as one likes to think.  He makes mistakes, too. Just look at the E.N. Critters line reviews (the last three).


----------



## Anabstercorian

There's an inconsistency between the draconic breath-weapon damage die chart on page 59 and the Breath Weapon entry for the Void Dragon - one says d20 damage per hit die, the other says d3 Hit Dice or Levels per hit die of the dragon.  Also, the sample very young void dragon fires a line of damage (d20 dice) instead of a cone of level annihilation.

The Quintessence Elemental's Soul Mastery ability is vague.  "They lose their divine bonus  when fighting against quintessence elementals."  It would probably be better to say, "Immortals cannot apply their divine bonus on attacks/actions against quelementals, nor does it apply to their armor class/saving throws against actions by the quelemental."  Or something.  Define what it means in game terms.

As long as we're on the subject, how difficult is it to get that immortal essence back inside you after it's sundered using Spirit Bomb or Schism?  Can an Akalich use Trap the Soul on a quelemental?

Clarify the challenge ratings of the variant diamond golems.  It might be more appropriate for the Green diamond golem to do an enormous load of con damage (10d6, or somesuch) instead of instant death, but honestly that might be more accounting than it's worth.  OH!  I get it now, they're prismatic...!  That's classy.

Ioun Golems might be suited to vulnerability to dispel magic.  Just a thought.  I like the ioun stone stacking rules.

Many of the golems are held together by immense gravitational forces.  Should a Reverse Gravity spell perhaps negate their regeneration, or something similar?

Regarding the Gibborim: The Breath Weapon and Dimensional Folding entries can probably be folded in to one.  Distasteful should probably allow a save of some sort.

Regarding the Odium, or shall I call it the Malboro: What precisely can a puppet do each round - i.e., what is the Odium giving up in exchange for one of it's tentacles?

Regarding the Sadim: It would probably be seemly to describe the mechanisms through which Gold Rot functions, or at least what to tell the player beyond, "Your money be gone."  Also, I propose that it be possible to breach it's regeneration with an epic weapon given to the wielder as a gift.

Regarding the Akalich: What's the saving throw DC for Aura of Dread?  In Trap The Soul, by 'levels are drains', do you mean something besides 'negative levels inflicted'?  Are you sure it's wise to inflict that sort of penalty?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Thanks for the replies everyone, and I think I know how to fix the Cometary Dragon. ;-)


----------



## CRGreathouse

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Regarding John Cooper: I think, he was made into a editor by couple of publishers, so he could fix errors before the public ever saw them. But beware: JC isn't as perfect as one likes to think.  He makes mistakes, too. Just look at the E.N. Critters line reviews (the last three).




I remember he did some editing for Silverthorne as well.


----------



## Alzrius

Just wanted to post this here after it came up in another thread. There's apparently a fan page about the Toho Godzilla films, that includes a few pages with some excellent d20 materials. Check out the deities in particular. I think their Godzilla would whip U_K's.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius, and thanks for the info CRGreathouse! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Just wanted to post this here after it came up in another thread. There's apparently a fan page about the Toho Godzilla films, that includes a few pages with some excellent d20 materials.




Thanks for the link, very interesting idea, turning the toho terrors into deities.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Check out the deities in particular. I think their Godzilla would whip U_K's.




If I had a nickel for everytime I had heard that... 

I don't agree with their stats (much too weak), but at least I got to learn a few of the actual names for the special abilities (at least I assume those are the given names) which of course I could update if my site was online*.   

*I have spoken to the webspace providers and they assure me they are doing everything to correct the problem (a hardware problem according to them).

By the way, with regards the pdf. does it make sense to have a blank page as the second page, so that people who print it out will have the appropriate facing pages?

ie.

Page One = Cover
Page Two = Blank Page (representing the inside front cover)
Page Three = Credits/Contents (numbered page 1)
Page Four = Monsters by CR/Type Tables (numbered page 2)
Page Five = Feats (numbered page 3)
etc.

This way most of the monsters will be on facing pages if people print the whole thing out.


----------



## Anabstercorian

> By the way, with regards the pdf. does it make sense to have a blank page as the second page, so that people who print it out will have the appropriate facing pages?




Hell, why not?  It's a PDF.  If you add a blank page, it costs nothin'.  If they don't want to print it, they don't have to - it's not hard to do.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

Yeah...  That extra page doesn't really take up much space electronically, and it allows the individual owner to decide whether or not to print the page out, if they intend to print at all.

Later
silver


----------



## Zoatebix

Anabstercorian is making what some would call "the awesome suggestions," or perhaps "suggestions de teh roxxor."  I would agree with them.  Especially that bit about the Sadim and the gift weapon.  Awesome.

Also, he got UK in trouble with Kerrick, which was funny.

Finally, Cheiromancer's first post on this page makes my heart leap.

I'm up waaaaaaaaaaaaay to late.
-George


----------



## Sledge

You could just put in a dedication to all of your patient fans.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> You could just put in a dedication to all of your patient fans.




Good idea...quite a nice touch if I might add.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay, I am temporarily stumped with regards the design of one of the illustrations, namely the Nexus Dragon. While I have no doubts something would eventually inspire me, I want to get the last of the dragons out of the way tonight (once thats done there will only be six illustrations left to finish, four to be inked, two to be drawn, hopefully I can make a dent in those over the weekend or even finish them completely).

Okay, so what am I rambling on about. Basically I need a 'look' that captures the essence of the Nexus Dragon. So if anyone has any ideas or has seen any cool images lately that might help (not necessarily dragons, it could be anything, even abstract images), this is the time to let me know.

The parameters for the Nexus Dragon (aka Worm Hole Dragon) are that its grey and obviously akin to a worm hole. The dragon should look unique, but still be recognisable as a dragon. Everything else (including wings) are optional.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I'd have it look kinda like a chinese dragon with a long body.  Mouth open wide, and it's gullet is a portal to another universe; you can see galaxies and stuff inside.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!
> 
> Okay, I am temporarily stumped with regards the design of one of the illustrations, namely the Nexus Dragon. While I have no doubts something would eventually inspire me, I want to get the last of the dragons out of the way tonight (once thats done there will only be six illustrations left to finish, four to be inked, two to be drawn, hopefully I can make a dent in those over the weekend or even finish them completely).
> 
> Okay, so what am I rambling on about. Basically I need a 'look' that captures the essence of the Nexus Dragon. So if anyone has any ideas or has seen any cool images lately that might help (not necessarily dragons, it could be anything, even abstract images), this is the time to let me know.
> 
> The parameters for the Nexus Dragon (aka Worm Hole Dragon) are that its grey and obviously akin to a worm hole. The dragon should look unique, but still be recognisable as a dragon. Everything else (including wings) are optional.




http://www.norfacad.pvt.k12.va.us/puzzles/elephant.gif

http://www.freshgasflow.com/images/illusions/flowmeter_illusion.gif

Looking at the Nexus dragon should be enough to make a mortal flip the hell out from confusion.

Edit: And white hole dragons should have an infinite number of heads.


----------



## Cheiromancer

You might want to get some inspiration from these pages:

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rfrankel/fourd/FourDArt.html

or http://www.mcescher.com/ especially "Recognition and Success 1955-1972"

Although the latter might work better for a swarm type of creature.  But heck- it could be a singular creature who just happens to look like a swarm.

A black, dragon shaped outline in a warped star-field might work, too.

BTW- what's the problem with your website?  Your webhost provider hasn't gone out of business, has it?


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

Here is a picture of a 120-cell (a 4-D shape)

Black dodecahedra could merge to form the scales of the dragon. Instead of back legs, the dodecahedra could start to separate and trail off into nothingness.

I like the idea of the nexus dragon being 4-D and/or distorted.


----------



## Upper_Krust

...okay now I have too many ideas. 

Thanks to Rulemaster (who gave me his ideas on msn), Cheiromancer and Anabstercorian for their help.

Great stuff guys. 

Expect the unexpected. 

Edit: and thanks Ulitharid_Lord too, you just snuck in under my radar there.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> Here is a picture of a 120-cell (a 4-D shape)
> 
> Black dodecahedra could merge to form the scales of the dragon. Instead of back legs, the dodecahedra could start to separate and trail off into nothingness.
> 
> I like the idea of the nexus dragon being 4-D and/or distorted.




Yep, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th dimensions are pretty much the only interesting ones for hyperpolyhedra.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> WotC would use Adamantine nowadays anyway




As it turns out, they did. The Adamantine Dragon entry appears in _Dragon_ #321. You should still change those dragon names in the IH though.


----------



## devilish

*More 4-D madness!*

I found this : http://4d.shadowpuppet.net/4d.php : today 
Pretty cool description of 4-dimensional space with an interactive
4-D rotation tool --- though my mind can't wrap around it, it looks 
cool.   The background music is cool, too.    

Keep it going, UK -- sounds like you can at least see the finish line (for the
Bestiary at least    )

-D


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Just a quick update, it seems the web server thing has been sorted, although I need to reload all my pages (I think) before you can view them. However, when I tried logging in to my control panel it didn't recognise my password. So I am going to email the support desk again and see exactly what do do because its not at all clear from the prompting.

So at least we know they are making progress, but it may still take me 24 hours to resolve this matter.

Currently there are six illustrations that need finished (one of which only needs a background). I hope to cut that figure in half by tonight and finish the remainder tomorrow. I will then need *at least* 24 hours work on the text to finish the changes I mentioned. 

I have also seen the first sketches for the cover characters, so I can confidently say that is in good hands.

1. I have two illustrations to 'ink*', and one that just needs a background.
2. I have three illustrations which need drawn and inked.

So that is the art status.

3. I have to finish off the Amidah and Nexus Dragon entries.
4. I have to fix the more recent errata
5. I have to collect the cover illustration from the hired artist (I'm not doing the cover illustration myself).
6. I was going to convert the templated characters to the new standard character layout (As per Dungeon magazine, or Dungeon Masters Guide II).
7. I have to double check the Challenge Ratings.

#3 and #4 are well underway, but still need some work. As I mentioned above I am still going to need 24 hours work on the text to finish it off...there are a lot of changes that most of you will be unaware of, but I think you'll get a kick out of. 

So bear with me slightly longer, we are definately on the home stretch.


----------



## Pssthpok

Please, don't blow time converting to the format from DMGII... such a waste of time and for little to no real effect.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Please, don't blow time converting to the format from DMGII... such a waste of time and for little to no real effect.



 I disagree.  The new format is a lot more readable, and makes it a lot easier to reference information during a fight.  For this particular instance, take your time, UK.


----------



## Kerrick

I have to add my voice to Pssthpok's - stick with the old statblocks. I hate the new ones - they're stupid, ugly, and they take up too much space.


----------



## Knight Otu

When a guy as prodding as Anabstercorian says "Take your time", either hell froze over, or it is a really good idea. I'm with the illithid on this.


----------



## Anabstercorian

The question is, am I eager for a more readable bestiary, or have I just *stopped caring?*  Maybe he should hurry after all.

Edit: Seriously, though, do whichever you prefer.  Ultimately it's your choice.  Whatever you decide, try to complete the task in a timely fashion.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Regarding the new stat blocks, if I don't get ScalaSans *Bold* (and ScalaSans _Italic_ - although thats less important) I won't be doing it.

Those new stat blocks really require you to have the bold version which I don't have. Making ScalaSans bold on my computer works, but when it comes to making a pdf, it didn't work for the unofficial version (remember all that bother I had with not being able to get the fonts emboldened). 

So, I'd like to change things but if I don't find that font within the next day or two it won't be happening.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Font


----------



## Upper_Krust

Heya matey! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Font




Thanks for that... 

...and for giving me more work to do.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Heya matey!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that...
> 
> ...and for giving me more work to do.



 Work harder or perish ignomiously!


----------



## Eversius

Agreed! We are all eager to see the finished work!

Of course, then we'll start hounding you about Apotheosis, Grimoire, and Chronicles.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Okay, just in case there is any confusion, the website is back, however, all the updates from the past 12 months have disappeared.

I am personally not able to update my control panel and simply reload the material (for some reason its stopping me). I have of course emailed the webspace provider again so as soon as I can have the problem solved I will have a *MASSIVE* art update.

With regards progress, okay it was a given I was going to be behind, but I should have 34 (of 36) finished illustrations by the end of tonight (Technically I have over 40 finshed but some of them took me two tries to get satisfactory results, like the Gibborim for instance).

However, after tonight I should have only one image to draw + ink (the Nexus Dragon) and one image to ink (Amidah Vampire). Although in saying that I may have to redo the Unelemental as I think thats the poorest of the 34 completed illustrations.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay I just got talking with Cheiromancer and it appears that he can't see the website, only I can, so its probably a more far reaching problem than I first anticipated. I can see the website, but its 12 months out of date, all he can see is a bunch of gibberish text...which, I presume is what the rest of you can see?

Also I wanted to ask for suggestions as to what I will call myself as a Publisher at RPGNow?

How about *Eternity Publishing*? Since thats generally how long it takes me to get it to press?   

What do you all think? 

Obviously I'll be looking to get a proper publisher after the Bestiary pdf is on sale, so this is likely not a long term deal at any rate.


----------



## Zoatebix

Eternity Publishing sounds good.  It looks like there are already a _couple_ of different "Eternity Publishing" companies out there (and one "Stepping into Eternity Publishing") so, I don't think it'll be a problem.

I get gobledegook on the webpage, too.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

I agree that Eternity (or mayhaps Eternal) Publishing would be fine.  Not only does it refer to the length of time between books, but also to the eternal nature of the subjects of those books, which is what we're all most interested in.

Good luck finishing your one and a half (or two and a half, as the case may be) illustrations.

Later
silver


----------



## Verequus

Hi!

To UK and everyone, who works so determined despite setbacks: This strip is for you!

http://www.countyoursheep.com/d/20040204.html


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

Upper_Krust,
Like everyone else (besides you), your site is unreadable. But it worked, for a while, though it was out of date.
I'm no expert, but the page looks like it is encrypted, which might explain why only you can see it. Even if I am right, and it is encrypted, I am not completely sure how to fix it. Try www.pestscan.com, maybe it will turn up something. A quick note about the site though, it does not remove stuff it finds (unless you buy the full version), but it does tell you where it is and tells you how to remove it.
Hope that helps.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> Upper_Krust,




Hi Ulitharid_Lord dude! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> Like everyone else (besides you), your site is unreadable. But it worked, for a while, though it was out of date.




Indeed. I have been told it should be fixed by Monday. *fingers crossed*



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> I'm no expert, but the page looks like it is encrypted, which might explain why only you can see it. Even if I am right, and it is encrypted, I am not completely sure how to fix it. Try www.pestscan.com, maybe it will turn up something. A quick note about the site though, it does not remove stuff it finds (unless you buy the full version), but it does tell you where it is and tells you how to remove it.
> Hope that helps.




Thanks, although the problem isn't software related its hardware related so I think I am better off letting the webspace provider sort it out rather than have me waste my time toying about with a problem I know scant little about.

I appreciate the help though mate, and thanks to those others who suggested the publisher names.


----------



## Sledge

Wow a thousand replies.  How far along is this thread now in the top list?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Can anyone confirm that the website is back okay and updated for the 28th of November? I can see it, I'm just hoping the rest of you can.

No major updates to the site yet (just a message that the site is back), but there will be a big art update later tonight.


----------



## Anabstercorian

The site appears to be back up.

If you don't have a complete product done by the end of Christmas, you're dead to me.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Yep.  Looks good to me.

As for publishing names, how about Sempiternal Press (or Publishing, or whatever)? Something that has a beginning but no end is sempiternal; eternal things have neither beginning nor end.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*I don't believe it...*

Hey all!

I just spent the past 90 minutes updating the website (wait for it) adding a dozen new illustrations. But when I went to upload the files to the control panel, the uploads kept failing everytime.

I don't know if this is related to the previous problem or sometthing new, everything seemed to be working out fine earlier. Suffice to say I have emailed the webspace provider and hopefully I'll get it sorted as soon as possible.


----------



## Ashardalon

Well, the site is back to gibberish, so I suspect it is connected...


----------



## Ashardalon

Scratch that, it's back up. Maybe try now?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Okay, it wasn't working earlier, but I think its should be working now. *fingers crossed*

most (but not all) of the new artwork is here:

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/IHpreview5.htm

I'm not totally sure about the Akalich. If I make it totally black you just lose all detail. What do you think?


----------



## historian

The link works dude.  My favorite illustration is the Quintessence Elemental but very good across the board.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi historian matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> The link works dude.  My favorite illustration is the Quintessence Elemental but very good across the board.




Thanks, thats meant to be the sundered divinity of Hercules fighting Ares in Olympus.

A few other notes you may or may not pick up on. 

- Thats a Balor in the Kyriotates picture (for scale).
- The dragon in the Cometary Dragon picture is a Great Wyrm Red Dragon
- The Adamantite Dragon is standing over the body of a Gibborim
- The background of the Akalich is the Tower card from the Major Arcana in a Tarot deck. I read that particular card was based on the Tower of Babel - so it was appropriate for Nimrod.
- Thats a decapitated Marilith in the Malakim picture.
- The five angels surrounding Sandalphon are (going from left to right) a Monadic Deva, Astral, Deva, Planetar, Solar and Movanic Deva
- The shining mountain behind the Elohim was meant to represent the Seven Heavens.
- The Timber Dragon picture is meant to be during the winter months (thats why it has no leaves/wings)

Also, the dragon illustrations were roughly shaped according to the first letter of their name. So the Mithril Dragons body looks like an 'm', the Polychromatic Dragon looks like a 'p' and so forth.

A few things I am not that happy with:

- I am wondering if the Akalich is dark enough.
- Syzygy's 'frozen flame shroud' looks more like electricity than fire.
- I probably should have had beams of light shining out from behind the cracks in the Atata.

But overall I am fairly happy I suppose.


----------



## Alzrius

So U_K, does this mean you won't be changing those dragon names?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> So U_K, does this mean you won't be changing those dragon names?




Not on account of the illustrations, that was simply a design device I used to help me create the piece.

But I still want to review what the name changes will do to che dragons stats - the adamantite dragon would seemingly need some powers changed.

By the way, another day, another website failure to load. Hopefully these latest teething troubles will have sorted themselves before tonight and I can update the rest of the art.


----------



## weiknarf

*kyriotates*

"in its right hand it wields a sword of brilliant radiance, while in its left it carries a double rod;" 

However U_K, in the illo he has the weapons in opposite hands.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But I still want to review what the name changes will do to che dragons stats - the adamantite dragon would seemingly need some powers changed.





Oh for pete's sake!  That's just foolish.  Just change the name to something generic like Durant Dragon and move on with your life before you die of old age or a thrown brick.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Here's a darker Akalich.  I photoshopped it up for you.


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  




> Thanks, thats meant to be the sundered divinity of Hercules fighting Ares in Olympus.




Cool idea.



> Thats a Balor in the Kyriotates picture (for scale).




Got it!



> The dragon in the Cometary Dragon picture is a Great Wyrm Red Dragon




Nice touch.



> The background of the Akalich is the Tower card from the Major Arcana in a Tarot deck. I read that particular card was based on the Tower of Babel - so it was appropriate for Nimrod.




I've noticed the Tarot influence sprinkled throughout your work.  



> But overall I am fairly happy I suppose.




You should be as it appears the Bestiary is ripe for a release.

On another note, I noticed that www.classicmarvel.com has posted several of the original TSR downloads on the site (most everything).  I've compiled most in pdf format.  If you like I could send them to you.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> But I still want to review what the name changes will do to che dragons stats - the adamantite dragon would seemingly need some powers changed.




I agree with Anabstercorian that that's taking it a bit too far. That'd only be an issue for the one trait of the Adamantite dragon, and that's just an issue of renaming that ability. Make it an Extraordinary power, and call it Piercing Damage or something, and it's all good.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey weiknarf dude! 



			
				weiknarf said:
			
		

> "in its right hand it wields a sword of brilliant radiance, while in its left it carries a double rod;"
> 
> However U_K, in the illo he has the weapons in opposite hands.




DOH!   

By the way I tried to update the site both last night and again this morning. So far no luck. The Amidah Vampire and Nexus Dragon illustrations are almost finished (I should have them ready within the hour. The Amidah illustration is my favourite of all, and the Nexus Dragon is suitably surreal. 

Although I had originally hired an artist to do the cover, that partnership didn't quite work out. However, now that I have a few months of practice behind me, I have redrawn a new cover (which I think is actually pretty good). I hope to have the painting finished sometime tomorrow.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey there! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Oh for pete's sake!  That's just foolish.  Just change the name to something generic like Durant Dragon and move on with your life before you die of old age or a thrown brick.




I think you misunderstand. I simply haven't attended to the changes yet, I was only belabouring the matter while I finish the art. Now that is almost finished I will begin to concentrate on the aforementioned revisions.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Here's a darker Akalich. I photoshopped it up for you.




I quite like it, I may blacken my akalich illustration later.


----------



## Upper_Krust

historian said:
			
		

> Hey U_K!




Hiya matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I've noticed the Tarot influence sprinkled throughout your work.




Mostly revolving around the angels it must be said (and in fact with regards the illustrations themselves generally only the Kyriotates and Sandalphon are Tarot inspired). The only other two illustrations I can think of that draw some of their inspiration from the cards are the aforementioned Akalich and, one I suspect you didn't get (?)...the Diamond Leviathan.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> You should be as it appears the Bestiary is ripe for a release.




I still, to this day cannot fathom how it has taken me this long.   



			
				historian said:
			
		

> On another note, I noticed that www.classicmarvel.com has posted several of the original TSR downloads on the site (most everything).  I've compiled most in pdf format.  If you like I could send them to you.




I suspect I already own all of those. But thanks anyway dude.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I still, to this day cannot fathom how it has taken me this long.




I'm trying to write a novella right now, and trust me, you have more sympathy from me than you've had in a while.  Stupid Angband.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

just to let you know that I updated the website with the stuff I tried to update last night. Basically, interior illustrations 27-34 (of 36). The Amidah Vampire just needs the upper half of its background sorted and the Nexus Dragon just needs its tail fixed (you'll understand when you see it).

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/IHpreview6.htm

...and I appreciate the empathy Anabstercorian mate.


----------



## Fieari

Hey, Upper Krust... a week ago or so there was a thread in the main forum about whether or not Lavos, from Chrono Trigger, was a tarrasque.  I thought the resemblence was similar myself, except that I always pictured Lavos as being the size it appears on the map screen... that is to say, as being comparative to the size of an entire city by itself.  So I applied the Brobdignagian and Teratoid templates to a tarrasque in order to make a Macro-Large one, and came of with this monster: http://d20npcs.wikicities.com/wiki/Brobdignagian_Teratoid_Tarrasque

The fact that it's so devestatingly powerful kinda dissapoints me a little though, as it becomes an _impossible_ encounter for anything less than a party of four 256 level characters, and even then it's horrific.  Epic literature, however, regularly has heroes fighting such massive creatures though... I mean, like in Chrono Trigger.  But the heroes of Chrono Trigger didn't seem to be anywhere near the power of even a single level 256 character.  At their peak, I'd hardly put them much into the epic levels.

Any thoughts for how to take a massive massive massive creature like that, and still make it possible for less immortal heros to fight it?  I suppose you could use stats for a smaller creature, and just DESCRIBE it as being that big, but...

Also, didn't you come up with rules for really huge creatures attacking much much smaller ones?  I seem to remember something about having it make an area attack when sufficiently large, but I can't find anything like that in the IH preview.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Fieari said:
			
		

> Hey, Upper Krust...




Hiya mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> a week ago or so there was a thread in the main forum about whether or not Lavos, from Chrono Trigger, was a tarrasque.




I remember the thread...although I must say I am not familiar with Lavos/Chrono Trigger.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I thought the resemblence was similar myself, except that I always pictured Lavos as being the size it appears on the map screen... that is to say, as being comparative to the size of an entire city by itself.  So I applied the Brobdignagian and Teratoid templates to a tarrasque in order to make a Macro-Large one,




About 2 1/3 miles in size. Ouch.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> and came of with this monster: http://d20npcs.wikicities.com/wiki/Brobdignagian_Teratoid_Tarrasque






Do you mind if I put a link to it on the website?



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> The fact that it's so devestatingly powerful kinda dissapoints me a little though, as it becomes an _impossible_ encounter for anything less than a party of four 256 level characters, and even then it's horrific.




I have the CRs wrong in the Bestiary remember. 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Epic literature, however, regularly has heroes fighting such massive creatures though...




...regularly?

I can think of a few from comics, but generally you rarely see anything bigger than a few hundred feet.

I don't recall anything from Final Fantasy much over 100 feet (if that), In Shadows of the Colossus, I suspect they top out at a few hundred feet. I already gave my analysis of the creatures from God of War in my review of the game on my website.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I mean, like in Chrono Trigger.  But the heroes of Chrono Trigger didn't seem to be anywhere near the power of even a single level 256 character.  At their peak, I'd hardly put them much into the epic levels.




Thats suggests that Lavos was the Tarrasque, rather than a Brobdingnagian, Teratoid Tarrasque. 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Any thoughts for how to take a massive massive massive creature like that, and still make it possible for less immortal heros to fight it?  I suppose you could use stats for a smaller creature, and just DESCRIBE it as being that big, but...




Well firstly I would question your reasoning for wanting it that big in the first place. With great size comes great responsibility...or words to that effect. 

I'm not sure what to do for the best, you could always inform your players that its fear aura makes them think its as big as a city. 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Also, didn't you come up with rules for really huge creatures attacking much much smaller ones?  I seem to remember something about having it make an area attack when sufficiently large, but I can't find anything like that in the IH preview.




Those are in the Unofficial Bestiary Release. I have revised and simplified them for the official release.


----------



## Fieari

Feel free to link to it.

I suppose the Chrono Trigger team could have been fighting a tarrasque with a couple added abilities... the Manifest DNA one for certain, but it'd also need two spell like abilities... a short range "Destruction Rains from the Heavens" and a global ranged version.  In the game, when Lavos erupted on judgement day (in the year 1999, in fact) it seared the surface of the entire planet.

What I found most interesting though, was that simply by increasing the tarrasque's size to Macro-Large, it practically gained the shorter ranged version of the same effect (seen when fighting Lavos more personally) for free... via Improved Whirlwind Attack and it's 2 mile melee attack range.

Having a fear aura make players think the creature they're fighting is much larger is a very cool idea by the way, and I think I'll make use of it in my own games.

As for why I want something that big... well, mostly it's just a case of the imagery.  Lavos is basically this huge spikey sphere that rains death and destruction.  I suppose one could do with something slightly smaller though.  Maybe only the size of a skyscraper, instead of the whole city.

Figuring out the stats was fun though.  Interestingly enough, it seems to me that it has revealed yet another flaw in the official epic level system, in that Wizards' is definitely anthrocentric when it comes to size.  I mean, when you're this huge, you have OODLES of skill points, but a balance DC of 120 is all you need to be able to -stand on a cloud-?  Hm.  Perhaps really really huge creatures should get a penalty to DEX based skill checks to make them have to spend those oodles of points to be able to do such things?  Perhaps a division-based penalty?  Something to think about.

Now I'm itching to stat up the Great A'tuin, the Star Turtle from Discworld fame... and the four elephants as well.  (A'tuin swims through space carrying four elephants on its back, and on the backs of those elphants is the Discworld, an entire planet that just happens to be flat)


----------



## Rhuarc

Hey UK,

most of the time I follow the thread in silence but now I've found something to contribute 

The dark picture of the Akalich is quite fine but I would prefer to see him with a more "shadowy", flowing body. At the moment he has a more or less quadratic face and a very straight body form. 

Just my opinion, hope you get the book finished ASAP and keep up the great work


----------



## Farealmer3

"holds 5 magic rings to the sky"
EARTH!
FIRE!
WIND!
WATER!
HEART!
GO UPPER KRUST!

I need your help, there is a debate at the dicefreaks boards about whether or not your nuclear blast stats are accurate i need you to go tell them what's what.

It's here
nonbelievers

It may take a while to get to it(page 12-13)

Remember 
The power is yours!


----------



## Eversius

Farealmer wins this thread.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Feel free to link to it.




Thanks.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> I suppose the Chrono Trigger team could have been fighting a tarrasque with a couple added abilities... the Manifest DNA one for certain, but it'd also need two spell like abilities... a short range "Destruction Rains from the Heavens" and a global ranged version.  In the game, when Lavos erupted on judgement day (in the year 1999, in fact) it seared the surface of the entire planet.




Wouldn't that have killed everyone? Or is that what the Chrono-Trigger (Time Travel?) aspects are for?



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> What I found most interesting though, was that simply by increasing the tarrasque's size to Macro-Large, it practically gained the shorter ranged version of the same effect (seen when fighting Lavos more personally) for free... via Improved Whirlwind Attack and it's 2 mile melee attack range.








			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Having a fear aura make players think the creature they're fighting is much larger is a very cool idea by the way, and I think I'll make use of it in my own games.




Glad you like it.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> As for why I want something that big... well, mostly it's just a case of the imagery.  Lavos is basically this huge spikey sphere that rains death and destruction.  I suppose one could do with something slightly smaller though.  Maybe only the size of a skyscraper, instead of the whole city.




One thing I notice from comics is that artists tend to 'rein in' the really big monsters to better facilitate interaction between them and normal sized characters...which sort of parallels what I am trying to do with the IH.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Figuring out the stats was fun though.  Interestingly enough, it seems to me that it has revealed yet another flaw in the official epic level system, in that Wizards' is definitely anthrocentric when it comes to size.  I mean, when you're this huge, you have OODLES of skill points, but a balance DC of 120 is all you need to be able to -stand on a cloud-?  Hm.  Perhaps really really huge creatures should get a penalty to DEX based skill checks to make them have to spend those oodles of points to be able to do such things?  Perhaps a division-based penalty?  Something to think about.




Thats something I have been working on sorting out for the IH (although alas it won't be ready in time for this Volume of the Bestiary).

My current idea is that perhaps you shouldn't gain any skill points after 20th-level/20 Hit Dice. Supernatural effects (from using skills) would kick in at DC 50 with perhaps each leap of +10 representing an extra spell level. But this is just brainstorming at this stage.



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Now I'm itching to stat up the Great A'tuin, the Star Turtle from Discworld fame... and the four elephants as well.  (A'tuin swims through space carrying four elephants on its back, and on the backs of those elphants is the Discworld, an entire planet that just happens to be flat)




I presume the Great A'tuin is Pratchetts vision of Bahamut as it were.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Rhuarc said:
			
		

> Hey UK,




Hi Rhuarc mate! 



			
				Rhuarc said:
			
		

> most of the time I follow the thread in silence but now I've found something to contribute




I appreciate all constructive comments.



			
				Rhuarc said:
			
		

> The dark picture of the Akalich is quite fine but I would prefer to see him with a more "shadowy", flowing body. At the moment he has a more or less quadratic face and a very straight body form.




There are six illustrations I am not totally happy with: the Akalich, the Cherubim, the Seraphim, the Grigori, Kabiri and the Neutronium Golem.

However even if I was to redo those pictures there is no guarantee that I would get the results I wanted. So I think its probably best if I just say enough is enough.

As regards the Akalich, I agree with you. The version I drew actually had far more detail on it than you can see, my intention was that you would be able to see some of the finer points. But technically the Akalich *should* be jet black. So I was really in two minds about that creature from the start and I have ended with an illustration that is neither one thing nor the other. Those monsters which are universally black are actually far more tricky to draw well than you might think. The pose and background become ultra-important and I am still finding my way back to 'match fitness' with regards the art as a whole.



			
				Rhuarc said:
			
		

> Just my opinion, hope you get the book finished ASAP and keep up the great work




Thanks, I hope to get the cover finished either today or tomorrow. Then I should only need 24 hours to wrap everything up.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Farealmer dude! 



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> "holds 5 magic rings to the sky"
> EARTH!
> FIRE!
> WIND!
> WATER!
> HEART!
> GO UPPER KRUST!




Hyper-logic higher brain functions activated, Mecha-King-Krust unleashed!   



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> I need your help, there is a debate at the dicefreaks boards about whether or not your nuclear blast stats are accurate i need you to go tell them what's what.




I shall kill him in an instant.



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> It's here
> 
> nonbelievers
> 
> It may take a while to get to it (page 12-13)




Done and dusted.



			
				Farealmer3 said:
			
		

> Remember
> The power is yours!




...Omnipotence even.


----------



## Pssthpok

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> My current idea is that perhaps you shouldn't gain any skill points after 20th-level/20 Hit Dice. Supernatural effects (from using skills) would kick in at DC 50 with perhaps *each leap of +10 representing an extra spell level.* But this is just brainstorming at this stage.




 

BTW, what do you mean by the bolded passage?


----------



## Knight Otu

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> BTW, what do you mean by the bolded passage?



I suppose it means DC 50 is equivalent to a 0 level spell, 
60 -> 1st
70 -> 2nd
80 -> 3rd
etc


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I suppose it means DC 50 is equivalent to a 0 level spell,
> 60 -> 1st
> 70 -> 2nd
> 80 -> 3rd
> etc




...what he said. Thanks Knight Otu mate.


----------



## Sledge

Removing skill points at epic levels will truly suck.  I would much prefer putting some penalties based on size to physical skills.


----------



## Eversius

Sledge said:
			
		

> Removing skill points at epic levels will truly suck.  I would much prefer putting some penalties based on size to physical skills.




You could just use the penalties that are in place for hide checks and the like, unless it would make sense that having a larger size would help the subject in a physical skill.


----------



## Fieari

Here's another design principle I was just thinking about.  At low levels, the bonuses you get to a die roll have a much smaler influence effect on your abilities than at high levels, at which point you may as well just stop rolling, since a varience of only 20 won't get you anywhere.

But at bonuses of a mere, say, 20, rolling the d20 can potentially DOUBLE your bonus in terms of what you actually get.  If your skill at Balance is 20, you can hit a DC 40 with a really lucky roll.  At higher bonuses, the impact of the roll is less, and less, and less, and less.

My thought is that what if every time your bonus increases by 20, you double your d20 roll (or perhaps roll an additional d20).  Start doing this when in the epic levels, so when your bonus to something is 40, that would be the first time you double, and then 60 would be triple, 80 would be quadruple, etc.

This obviously has big effects on what you can do, but consider the Encounter Level chart. As you go up in levels, the range of foes you should be able to handle goes up as well.  At the moment, that involves the fact that sometimes, you have to 100% avoid certain attacks in order to be effective (because they ALWAYS work on you), or you are denied certain effects because they're 100% ineffective.  But with this system, I suspect that there would be more _variety_ amongst the foes that the EL chart say you should be able to fight.

Thoughts?


----------



## Cheiromancer

Fieari said:
			
		

> My thought is that what if every time your bonus increases by 20, you double your d20 roll (or perhaps roll an additional d20).  Start doing this when in the epic levels, so when your bonus to something is 40, that would be the first time you double, and then 60 would be triple, 80 would be quadruple, etc.




Adding an extra d20 would add, on average 10.5 to your rolls.  I could see that at certain intervals you would subtract 10, say, from your bonus and add another d20, but it would involve a rather "lumpy" progression.

Say you introduce it at epic levels.  A fighter with a +20 BAB and +10 in various modifiers (strength, weapon focus, etc) hits AC 31 on anything but a 1.  He has a very small chance of hitting AC 50.  Suppose he loses 10 points of bonuses and gets to roll 2d20 instead of 1d20.  Now he misses AC 31 a lot more often, but has a better chance of hitting AC 50.

(He misses AC 31 if 2d20 comes up 2-10; which is 45 chances out of 400, or 11%, vs 5% previously.  He hits AC 50 if 2d20 comes up 30 or higher, which is 66/400, or 15%, vs 5% previously.)

This kind of discontinuity is a little hard to justify; why does his chance of hitting AC 31 go down?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

Regarding the whole d20 escalation idea. I am against it to be honest. Personally I believe greater ability should bring with it less chance of failure/success (depending on the power of the ability).

So the idea that chance should always be as relative at epic levels as it is at low levels is anathema to the very idea of skill in the first place.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

By the way I meant to ask does anyone know the typical picture resolution used in pdfs?

Obviously 75 dpi (used on the website) is too low.

I have tried it with 180 dpi and _I think_ that is okay, although it looked a little faded when I printed out a test page. However, that could just be a combination of my printer set on low resolution itself coupled with my limited used of strong blacks in the illustrations.


----------



## Fieari

I'm pretty sure 180 is standard.

Anyway, my thought with the dice thing was actually a power boost, not a nerf.  In that, yes, on average, you're adding a +10.5 bonus every time they get an additional +20 bonus.  The purpose was to give a better chance against things MORE powerful than you, and create a slightly better chance for things less powerful than you, to increase challenge.

Although it occures to me now that I had forgotten about factors such as power attack... which is a definite staple of epic play, I can see.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Okay I seem to have a really weird problem at the moment I hope someone can help.

As I mentioned before, I have the illustrations scanned in at 180 dpi - no problems there.

I decided to copy and paste them into the Pagemaker document from Paint Shop Pro 7. The first few attempts went okay. But then all of a sudden, everytime I went to paste a new image it would appear as big as the whole page. At first I thought I could simply resize these huge images, but when I tested making pdfs with the images that initially showed up larger, they all turn out like scrambled negatives.

What the heck could be causing this? Also why does it only affect certain images?

I'm very puzzled by this.

EDIT: Okay forget about this - I got it sorted. PHEW! Though I still don't understand the initial problem I think it was the copying/pasting instead of going through the normal placing image procedure that was messing things up. Glad I got that fixed I was starting to panic.

On a brighter note, I should add that the cover illustration is shaping up nicely (easily my best illustration). I hope to have the painting side of things finished by tomorrow.


----------



## Anabstercorian

The Nexus Dragon and Amidah pictures aren't visible on the front page of your site, but seeing as you haven't posted about the update yet that may not be news to you.


----------



## Knight Otu

It seems some of the preview pics vanished, the two on the front page included (the dragon was - well, weird isn't strong enough). Others include the brood lord and the quint elemental, Universial Deva and Ioun Golem, and the old Gibborim.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Fill us in on the dragon, man.  Did it have infinite heads?


----------



## Knight Otu

It was, quite honestly, too weird to tell. I'm not even sure where the dragon began or ended. Much less identify what was a head.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Good, good.  That sounds perfect.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

What dragon? The Nexus Dragon? I had its picture on the front page since last Friday. Unfortunately, ever since Monday morning the website has been all over the shop. I have emailed the webspace provider and I am basically at the end of my tether with them. If they don't sort this out sharpish, I'll just have to change providers.

On a brighter note, I have the cover 90% finished...and I am quite pleased with it. Sufficed to say it will definately be finished tomorrow. From which I will only need one day to finish *everything* off....finally.

So worst case scenario the Bestiary should be on sale on my website (provided my website is working by then!?) via paypal for Saturday. If ENWorld Publishing, RPGNow and Drivethrurpg can be sorted over the weekend then I'll do that. If not, people with credit cards will have to wait for Monday.

Anyone who purchased the unofficial Bestiary will be sent their copy of the official Bestiary as soon as it goes on sale (from anywhere). I was hoping to send those people complimentary copies from one of the online shops, that way they would automatically be notified of future updates to the document. Do you think thats a good idea or not? 

Regarding the Nexus Dragon illustration, if I knew how to post images here I could post it up. The following link still shows the Nexus Dragon, for me at least - but I know sometimes I can still see pages when others are getting garbled text.

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/index.htm


----------



## Knight Otu

Re: Attaching images: While writing the post, scroll down and click Manage Attachments. Browse for the image file. Click Upload. Pray the image isn't too large. Hit Submit.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Talk to Kolja Raven Liquette.  He found another provider that has better support and is cheaper.  Don't put up with  service.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya Knight Otu mate - thanks for the help. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Re: Attaching images: While writing the post, scroll down and click Manage Attachments. Browse for the image file. Click Upload. Pray the image isn't too large. Hit Submit.




*Fingers crossed*


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Talk to Kolja Raven Liquette.  He found another provider that has better support and is cheaper.  Don't put up with  service.




I know, I know. I've given them a few days to sort everything out otherwise I am leaving them. As soon as I have the Bestiary complete I will have the time to change webspace providers. So they have a few days...or else I send in the Neutronium Golems on their candy @sses.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya Knight Otu mate - thanks for the help.
> *Fingers crossed*




Hooooly crap.  I'm _not_ messing with that thing.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> So they have a few days...or else I send in the Neutronium Golems on their candy @sses.




Trunks: "NO, FATHER!  YOU'LL DESTROY THE WHOLE PLANET!"


----------



## Anabstercorian

*double post*


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> On a brighter note, I have the cover 90% finished...and I am quite pleased with it. Sufficed to say it will definately be finished tomorrow. From which I will only need one day to finish *everything* off....finally.




Another Festivus miracle!



> _So worst case scenario the Bestiary should be on sale on my website (provided my website is working by then!?) via paypal for Saturday. If ENWorld Publishing, RPGNow and Drivethrurpg can be sorted over the weekend then I'll do that. If not, people with credit cards will have to wait for Monday._




I'm really just guessing here, but I think most of these places still work over the weekend.



> _Anyone who purchased the unofficial Bestiary will be sent their copy of the official Bestiary as soon as it goes on sale (from anywhere). I was hoping to send those people complimentary copies from one of the online shops, that way they would automatically be notified of future updates to the document. Do you think thats a good idea or not? _



I can't speak for DTRPG or RPGnow (which is ironic since I staff review for them), but the EN Gamestore gives you an option that any product you get (by buying, or if it's complimentary) can be put on your bookshelf. Once it's there, you can redownload it whenever you want. An added feature of this is that whenever the product is updated on the Gamestore, your bookshelf automatically notes it, with the "download" tag changing to read "updated". So I'd recommend using that.


----------



## Sledge

Yes.  The bookshelf rocketh.


----------



## Sledge

Hmmmm I think I need to create some Prestige Classes from some of the Immortals Handbook Bestiary.  Specifically the Quintessence Elemental and Unelemental.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*So you want to see the cover then do ya!?*

Hey all! 

...heres hoping the cover image isn't too big an attachment.   

What do you all think?

There are a few things I sort of chickened out on in case I made a total mess of it (like purple lightning and metallic seeming skin/scales for the Seraphim), but overall I am fairly happy.

I may make the Amilictli's eyes red, and lighten the angels mouth slightly for the final version, but basically thats it.


----------



## Fieari

Hm.  That doesn't seem like the dimensions of most book covers.  Is that cropped?  Where's the title going to be put?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Hm.




Your enthusiasm has not bowled me over. Does that mean you don't like it?   



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> That doesn't seem like the dimensions of most book covers.  Is that cropped?  Where's the title going to be put?




The illustration will be across the centre of the cover, similar to how Malhavoc Press do their covers (although for what its worth I actually had the idea years ago, its just taken me that long to fully realise it).

So, layout roughly similar to this:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_Treas


----------



## Anabstercorian

That tarrasque is so screwed.


----------



## historian

I liked it U_K.  

Logistical question U_K -- my e-mail address has changed and I was wondering if I should note that pre-release, etc. so as to receive the pdf?

Thanks


----------



## Cheiromancer

*Holy Cow*!!!

That Seraphim is the scariest looking angel I've ever... well, I guess I haven't ever actually seen an... but they aren't normally portrayed as so... yikes.   

It actually kinda looks like Demogorgon, only with twice as many heads, and wings, and celestial instead of fiendish.

Not that the Amiliciti doesn't deserve some lovin (a storm god's lost temper, iirc) but the seraph is freakin' cool.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian matey! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> That tarrasque is so screwed.




I cheated ever so slightly, the Tarrasque should be  bigger than it is (up to knee height rather than ankle height) but I sort of wanted to give the impression the Tarrasque was about to be crushed underfoot...so we can just assume they are advanced Amilictli's and Seraphim.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya matey! 



			
				historian said:
			
		

> I liked it U_K.




Thats the main thing.  



			
				historian said:
			
		

> Logistical question U_K -- my e-mail address has changed and I was wondering if I should note that pre-release, etc. so as to receive the pdf?
> 
> Thanks




Yes, if anyone who purchased the unofficial release has since changed their email address, send me your full name, old email address and new email address so that I can update my list.

I know one person has already done this.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Cheiromancer dude! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Holy Cow*!!!




Quite literally in fact, its the angelic cow head taking a battering. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> That Seraphim is the scariest looking angel I've ever... well, I guess I haven't ever actually seen an... but they aren't normally portrayed as so... yikes.




Its the angel of love...tough love. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> It actually kinda looks like Demogorgon, only with twice as many heads, and wings, and celestial instead of fiendish.




Now you are giving me ideas for who is going to get stepped on in the next cover battle.   



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Not that the Amiliciti doesn't deserve some lovin (a storm god's lost temper, iirc) but the seraph is freakin' cool.




I love the idea of the two big powerhouses slugging it out...which kinda makes you wonder who we will see duking it out on the front cover of Bestiary Volumes #1.5, #2 and #3.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

I like it. Though I was expecting Netronium Golem or Nexus Dragon, but Seraphim and Amiliciti are good too. The Tarrasque being steped on is a nice touch.

The Amiliciti brings a new meaning to losing your temper.


----------



## Fieari

Don't let my underenthusiastic post fool you, I think it's awesome.  Angels rock, esspecially angels as actually described in the bible, which tend to be FAR cooler than mere people with wings.  Albeit, you've swapped the descriptions of Cherubim and Seraphim, but still.


----------



## Sledge

So does that mean, it's done?  Finished?  Ready?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Ulitharid_Lord matey! 



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> I like it. Though I was expecting Netronium Golem or Nexus Dragon, but Seraphim and Amiliciti are good too.




Basically wanted to represent the two main groups of dimensional guardians detailed within the Bestiary. Unfortunately the Elementars won't appear until Volume 1.5, so that meant I had to represent an Angel and one other. Of course I wanted something that says epic in terms of scale and a unique look, and the Seraphim does both I think. It also pretty much covers the dragon side of things. With the Seraphim being good, I sort of wanted the opponent to be evil, and it also had to be able to match the Seraphim hand to hand (in the illutration at least, if not the stats themselves). So I needed something approx. 200+ feet tall and evil. The amilictli seemed the obvious and perhaps only choice.



			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> The Tarrasque being steped on is a nice touch.








			
				Ulitharid_Lord said:
			
		

> The Amiliciti brings a new meaning to losing your temper.




I forgot to pack his angry eyes, but hes quite an interesting looking monster.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Don't let my underenthusiastic post fool you, I think it's awesome.  Angels rock, esspecially angels as actually described in the bible, which tend to be FAR cooler than mere people with wings.  Albeit, you've swapped the descriptions of Cherubim and Seraphim, but still.




There are so many iterations of these angels and their hierarchies that you could write a book about them. 

I simply chose the most widely accepted forms for those angels.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Sledge mate! 



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> So does that mean, it's done?  Finished?  Ready?




Not quite. If I had an uninterrupted Friday things could get finished tonight. But alas I am going to be unavoidably out of the house most of today, so I'll probably only get 3-4 hours done at best and I probably need about 12 hours of work to finish everything.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Can anyone tell me if they can see the website okay? Specifically the

http://www.immortalshandbook.com

and 

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/immortalshandbook.htm

pages.


----------



## Ulitharid_Lord

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!
> 
> Can anyone tell me if they can see the website okay? Specifically the
> 
> http://www.immortalshandbook.com
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.immortalshandbook.com/immortalshandbook.htm
> 
> pages.




I can see it okay. I checked the art galleries too, and the pictures are showing up fine.


----------



## Zoatebix

It looks good to me. The preview of the cover image makes loading http://www.immortalshandbook.com/ a bit lengthy on dial-up, but they're both displaying a-okay.
-G


----------



## Pssthpok

We have visual.


----------



## Sledge

It's up! Yay!
So is it done yet?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay I am glad the website is working again. Sorry about having such a big picture on the main page Zoatebix mate. I'm just so used to broadband, and the people I asked about the site on msn all said it loaded virtually immediately, so I never thought much of it. 

Basically all I need to do is copy up the last notes I made tonight and we are virtually there, except for the following details.

1. I cannot update to the new Dungeon magazine/DMG 2 format. Even though someone was kind enough to send me the previously requested fonts (*ScalaSans Bold* and _ScalaSans Italic_), and they worked great, it then became apparent that they did not integrate well with my ScalaSans LFRegular. LFRegular looks identical to ScalaSans Bold - how was I to know.    

So if I don't get ScalaSans tomorrow you will all have to wait until a revised version is done before I can change the format for individual characters. 

This may be something to undertake with regards an update. So if there is a version a few weeks down the line fixing any errata I can always update the unique character format too.

2. The cover needs a background to diffuse the flat colour. At this point in time I am thinking of having a black cover with gold text. With the image roughly across the middle. However I need some sort of appropriate background image which I can make 50% grey and set on top of a flat black.

This raises the issue of whether or not a very black heavy cover is a good thing for a pdf to have. Its a bit toner unfriendly for anyone wanting to print it out, but then again how many people print out the covers to their pdfs at home? What do the rest of you think about this point? I tested every colour against the illustration and black background with gold text easily looked the best. For the Immortals Handbook itself I am think more along the lines of a predominantly white cover, but the current incarnation of the Bestiary appears to work best with black.

3. As yet I have not changed the Adamantite and Mithril Dragon names to Titanium and Platinum respectively (sorry Alzrius mate). It may still happen, but only if I get everything else sorted to my satisfaction first sometime tomorrow.

So basically I have about 2-3 hours of typing up notes. Then sort the cover background out and basically thats it.

The revised format change is out of my hands, and the Dragon name change may happen but thats also optional.

With regards where its going on sale. I think as of Monday morning I will have it on sale at my website, and hopefully by Monday afternoon I can have ENworld and RPGNow sorted as well.

I have emailed Drivethrurpg, but as yet have had no reply. I couldn't find any links on their website about becoming a vendor so I was forced to email customer service and ask them how to go about it. With this unorthodox approach they may not have taken me seriously (I emailed them a week ago)? Maybe I should post in their forums. Does anyone know anything about becoming a drivethrurpg vendor? Its weird, because the other sites have easy to follow details but I just couldn't find anything about it on drivethru.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> 3. As yet I have not changed the Adamantite and Mithril Dragon names to Titanium and Platinum respectively (sorry Alzrius mate). It may still happen, but only if I get everything else sorted to my satisfaction first sometime tomorrow.




Don't give up on that U_K! Of all the points you listed, that one is the easiest to tackle! I still hold that those are the sorts of subtle changes that'll help make the product a great one!


----------



## Zoatebix

I'd shy away from a black-heavy cover unless you include (a) ink saving printing instructions in a clearly labeled text file (pretty much just telling people what page range to print out - e.g. not the covers.  Your layout and monochrome art all look rather printer-friendly, as I recall) , or (b) separate "on-screen" and "printer-friendly" pdfs.

(a) seems like a no brainer, given your self-imposed time constraints.


----------



## Sledge

A lot of publishers simply have 2 versions of the pdf, one for print and one for display, or put the cover as a separate file.


----------



## Zoatebix

Ooh - I forgot about including the cover as a separate file.  Good one!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all!   

Just to pre-empt the inevitable, no its not finished yet. A few things are taking longer than expected. However I should be at the 'just have to double check everything' stage shortly (ie. later today). I'll let you all know the moment I have things ready.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi all!
> 
> Just to pre-empt the inevitable, no its not finished yet. A few things are taking longer than expected. However I should be at the 'just have to double check everything' stage shortly (ie. later today). I'll let you all know the moment I have things ready.




Friendly reminder: If you don't have a finished product out by christmas, you're dead to me. ^_^


----------



## Cheiromancer

I've seen the cover, and he's posted the artwork on his site, so that's all done.  He's now editing the text- probably incorporating feedback and fixing small errors.  It shouldn't take long, but it always takes longer than you expect.

Now as to getting things sorted out with the Internet vendors like RPG Now etc., - I don't know how far along that is.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Friendly reminder: If you don't have a finished product out by christmas, you're dead to me. ^_^




I appreciate the kick in the pants dude.

Its basically some eleventh hour editing that unfortunately invoves having to redo (and rework) all the first (of two) dragon tables for each of the dragons (this seems to take forever). Other than that, there are a few minor issues to sort out like the Golem construction costs which need redone. The question is not whether it will be finished before christmas but rather what time tomorrow I will have it finished by.

Anyway, back to work.


----------



## Fieari

So... what time tommorow do you think?


----------



## Solauren

Since I am not going over 10 pages of stuff

Where can I pick up these books?   Just email ya, or are they avilable online for download/purchase?


----------



## Fieari

As of this moment, email him.  As of tommorow?  Supposedly, available for purchase.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Fieari mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> So... what time tommorow do you think?




Late.

Probably 11:59 pm Pacific Coast Time.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi there Solauren! 



			
				Solauren said:
			
		

> Since I am not going over 10 pages of stuff




I'll start a new thread the minute the Bestiary is available, with all the details. I'll also have the details on my website with an announcement that the Bestiary is available.



			
				Solauren said:
			
		

> Where can I pick up these books?  Just email ya, or are they avilable online for download/purchase?




I haven't posted the details yet, but I am planning to sell the Bestiary from the following websites:

1. http://www.immortalshandbook.com (via paypal only)

2. http://www.enworld.org/shop/

3. http://www.rpgnow.com

I'd also like to sell it at drivethrurpg.com, however, that may take a few days of sorting out.

Price: $8.95 (96 Pages).

I should have it finished by tonight.


----------



## Davus Antonius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi there Solauren!
> 
> 
> 
> I'll start a new thread the minute the Bestiary is available, with all the details. I'll also have the details on my website with an announcement that the Bestiary is available.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't posted the details yet, but I am planning to sell the Bestiary from the following websites:
> 
> 1. http://www.immortalshandbook.com (via paypal only)
> 
> 2. http://www.enworld.org/shop/
> 
> 3. http://www.rpgnow.com
> 
> I'd also like to sell it at drivethrurpg.com, however, that may take a few days of sorting out.
> 
> Price: $8.95 (96 Pages).
> 
> I should have it finished by tonight.





Any chance of being able to buy it by money order?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all!  :\ 

Okay, for those keeping score maybe I meant it will be finished on Thursday when I mistakenly typed Tuesday.   

Hi there! Davus! 



			
				Davus Antonius said:
			
		

> Any chance of being able to buy it by money order?




Absolutely.

When I post payment details on my website tomorrow I will include money orders because a few people have inquired about that method of payment.


----------



## Davus Antonius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!  :\
> 
> Okay, for those keeping score maybe I meant it will be finished on Thursday when I mistakenly typed Tuesday.
> 
> Hi there! Davus!
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> When I post payment details on my website tomorrow I will include money orders because a few people have inquired about that method of payment.




Great! That's the only way I get stuff over the internet. No credit card and no intention of getting one (too easy to abuse).


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!  :\
> 
> Okay, for those keeping score maybe I meant it will be finished on Thursday when I mistakenly typed Tuesday.




That is just weak!  You don't deserve my mockery.  Give yourself twenty lashes!


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> Okay, for those keeping score maybe I meant it will be finished on Thursday when I mistakenly typed Tuesday.




 

Godspeed, I'm anxiously awaiting.

Sincerely,

the VP


----------



## Fieari

Careful U_K, Anabstercorian probably still has that furnace hot and ready...


----------



## Anabstercorian

Fieari said:
			
		

> Careful U_K, Anabstercorian probably still has that furnace hot and ready...




Every day I don't have the Immortals Handbook, I incinerate your dog.

edit: That's two dogs.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

Okay I just have two and a half pages to change/edit/fix and we are all done. I could probably get them finished within 2-3 hours except for the fact that I am so tired I can't concentrate properly and I have been hunched over this computer so long my back feels like Sub-Zero just ripped my spine out. So I am just going to bed and come at things with a fresh pair of eyes in the morning.

I tried to update my website with this news and the cover image, but unfortunately the webspace provider has seen fit to take the control panel offline for repairs. I think it should be back up again by tomorrow though *fingers crossed*.   

http://www.mammothdata.com/CustomerService.html


----------



## Anabstercorian

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hey all!
> 
> Okay I just have two and a half pages to change/edit/fix and we are all done. I could probably get them finished within 2-3 hours except for the fact that I am so tired I can't concentrate properly and I have been hunched over this computer so long my back feels like Sub-Zero just ripped my spine out. So I am just going to bed and come at things with a fresh pair of eyes in the morning.
> 
> I tried to update my website with this news and the cover image, but unfortunately the webspace provider has seen fit to take the control panel offline for repairs. I think it should be back up again by tomorrow though *fingers crossed*.
> 
> http://www.mammothdata.com/CustomerService.html





I'm not surprised.  The reason I'm not surprised is because you suck at meeting deadlines.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I think that UK dwells on a plane with a substantially slower time rate than ours.  So what is "tomorrow" for him is "next week" for us.  This explains much of the tardiness.

Not all of it, though.


----------



## Alzrius

It's now been about twenty hours since U_K said he'd need to sleep and 2-3 hours on top of that...even if the website can't be updated, the online stores should be working fine. Is there any reason why this isn't done yet?


----------



## DDM

Anabstercorian, I'm with you too. 

Do you have cats, UK ?
Since Anabstercorian is taking the dogs, I could use your cats.
Especially since your main web site seems to be down. 

Edit: now it works... 1st time in 2 days.. I knew I had to say something bad about it somewhere to obtain some results. heheheheee


----------



## Anabstercorian

I'm actually kind of worried about UK now.  Usually by this time he's shown up to defend his honor, but there's been neither peep nor pout from him.  Does anyone know if he's not okay or somesuch?


----------



## Knight Otu

Maybe he resolved to not return online until the book's finished?


----------



## Upper_Krust

FINISHED

Who's ya daddy now be-@tches!

Okay enough frivolity, I was unavoidably away from the computer most of Friday and Saturday so even though there was only a few hours left to do it still took two days.   

But its done now. So listen up, heres the plan of attack.

Its midnight here now and I still can't update my website, and I am not going to sort out ENWorld shop and RPGNow tonight, I'm ruddy knackered. However this presents an opportunity to run it past all those who purchased the unofficial release. If any of you (who purchased the unofficial version) email me tonight (within the next 60 minutes lets say) I will send you the zipped version of the pdf (amazingly only 1.5 meg). If you can spot any flaws within the next 12 hours or so email me back and I will fix the pdf - then add the bookmarks for what is essentially the final version. Then I will start a new thread here at ENWorld (posting all the details of how to buy), update my website (if I am able), and sort out the ENWorld Shop and RPGNow stuff.

So if there are any regulars out there, email me now.

Anyone who didn't purchase the unofficial release, the pdf will be on sale tomorrow. I apologise for the inconvenience.


----------



## Alzrius

*BOOYEAH!!!*

Email sent!   Congratulations to you U_K! A lot of people said you'd never do it, but you did it! You da man!


----------



## Anabstercorian

Ah, and just when I needed the Nexus Dragon, too.   Everybody, when you get the document, make a post, and I'll work out a collective proof-reading plan - dole out who proofreads what, and so forth.

Okay, under Amidah, you reference his 'casater' level.  A minor typo, but easy to fix.  Thought I'd mention.

I really like your fix for the force golem.  Makes a lot of sense and well defined.

Diamond Golem's cascading slam: I'd change from "A successful save halts all current cascading damage." to "A successful save prevents damage and ends the effect," but that's just nitpicky.

Re: Echoing weapon.  I'm not totally sure that weapon enchantment is wise - it takes the absurd situation of the Bag of Snails that 3.5 took pains to remove and makes it even worse.  On the other hand, +25 is a lot.  I'll leave it to your expertise to determine.
(Actually, scratch that - there's no way any of the snails will survive the first hit, so this isn't something that can be conveniently arranged.  Your foes will just have to have the sense to fight you one-on-one, or die horrifically.)

Re: Cometary Dragon: *BAD KRUST.* Any version of Seventh Sense that involves replaying rounds is a pain in the ass and you should be able to do better.  Save it for the print version, though.

Re: Quintessence Elemental: I maintain that the wording on Soul Mastery is vague.  Let's say you've got a Quintessence Elemental and Zeus fighting against a Quintessence Elemental and Hades.  Zeus and Hades attack each other - do they get their Divine bonuses?
Still, nice job with Schism, that clarified a lot.


----------



## Zoatebix

Crud - I missed the email window by *that* much.  Congrats, UK!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Okay guys, I am off to bed, if any other people who bought the unofficial version email me I will send them a copy in about 8-9 hours time (9-10am my time). I'll be looking for the feedback before 6pm my time tomorrow. G'night all.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Crud - I missed the email window by *that* much.  Congrats, UK!




email me mate!


----------



## Eridanis

I feel a great disturbance in the Force. Like several hundred gamers cried out in happiness, then were silent until they could dig out their credit cards.

Mine's at the ready!


----------



## Fieari

Just sent off my email.  I guess I'll get it in the morning.  Can't wait!


----------



## historian

U_K -- I'll send you an e-mail from my AOL account copying my work address, from which I e-mailed you earlier in the week.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Okay I slept in an hour longer than I planned. I am in the process of sending it to historian and fieari. I also sent it to Zoatebix last night even though I didn't get an email from you mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Just to let you know that I updated the website with the cover image. Yes it appears I can now update my website...clearly all the stars are falling into the proper alignment at just the right time!


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> ...clearly all the stars are falling into the proper alignment at just the right time!




The forces of DUKC are, as we speak, rallying for a last-ditch attempt to delay the release of the IH.  Be warned!


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  

The beta rocks!  

I like the subtle variations in the design parameters (those that I mentioned in my e-mail) of some of the higher powered stuff.  Aside from making it easier to stat, I feel like it has the effect of balancing certain artifacts (like the Akalich's Robes for instance).

You were also right about the Neutronium Golem and First Choir being a "tad" tougher.  

Bear in mind I've only scanned the material, but the only ability(s) that I didn't fully wrap my head aroung were the Nexus Dragon's "Luck" and "Unknowing" abilities.  My question here related to the math.  As I read them, these abilities would be more powerful in younger as opposed to older dragons.

This is probably a reflection of my reading comprehension moreso than anything else though.  

Great work dude, and I'm sure all the posters here will appreciate the dedications!


----------



## Fieari

Copyedit Nitpicks as I read:

--Amidah Section--

*Alabaster description: "They led an unholy crusade that eventually even embroiled several deities. Alabasters first taste for god-slaying."  This should be one sentence, not two.  Try using a semicolon instead of a period.

(I -love- the Three Weapon Fighting Style feat chain, by the way.  Awesome.)

*Typo: "Omnicompetant (Ex): Alabaster know all skills and have maximum ranks in all skills."  Should be "knows".

*Steel Hydra: "Powers: This weapon has a +88 everdancing, sonic blast longsword" should be, "This weapon _is_ a +88..." etc.  You could also put a period after "sonic blast longsword" instead of the comma, then begin the next peice of information about the sword as a new sentence, and it might read better to add the definite article before each new ability described ("It always acts..., it doubles the..., and upon scoring a...")

*Were-sword: "...both the opponents and the wielders." should be "...both the opponent's and the wielder's."

(The Undersword is wicked, by the way.  Very cool!)

*"The amidah template does not stack with the Paragon template instead overlapping."  this is awkward.  Try "The amidah template overlaps with the Paragon template instead of stacking."

*"Tha amidah always have maximum hit points per Hit Die."  should be "The amidah always has..."

*"The amidahs speed increases..." should be "The amidah's speed increases..."

*"Amidah can only be struck..." might be better as "The amidah can only be struck..."


----------



## Zoatebix

Fieari said:
			
		

> Copyedit Nitpicks as I read:
> 
> --Amidah Section--
> 
> *Alabaster description: "They led an unholy crusade that eventually even embroiled several deities. Alabasters first taste for god-slaying."  This should be one sentence, not two.  Try using a semicolon instead of a period.




Assuming you cut-pasted that sentence from the book, we should have a possessive in "Alabaster's first taste for god-slaying," too.

I'm downloading now!


----------



## DDM

Well, when everything will be ready, after "beta-teXting" ^_^, let me know, UK.
Oh, and by the way, remember that's just a START. There's a nice full book of Immortal Rules to do next.


----------



## Alzrius

I didn't put this in my errata, but I'm a tad bit concerned that you may be using some WotC IP, U_K. The "Glance at the Kosmos" calls the seventh dimension the "Far Realm." The Platinum dragon entry says they live in the "Twin Paradises." More than one place mentions "ultrodaemons." To the best of my knowledge, these names aren't OGC, and I'm not certain you could make a case that they're too general to be IP either.

Just my worrying.

EDIT: Further errata; Platinum dragon, page 70: In the breath weapon line, it refers to the first breath weapon as "divine somic damage" instead of "divine sonic damage" at one point. Also, it doesn't list how much healing the iatric breath weapon does.


----------



## Zoatebix

Because of family obligations, I'm really not in a position to go through stuff with a computer assisted fine-toothed comb, but I started.  Here's what I've found:

pdf page 3 

Consider a comma "For supplemental material, visit the Immortals Handbook website"

There are two instances of "System *Refence* Document" instead of "Reference" in the legal stuff.

That's one page down!

It's fabulous, U_K!  I really enjoy it.  Here's to its success and to rest of the IH series.

Cheers!
-George


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

Okay I am starting to fix all the mistakes now, so if you have any errata you have found email/post as soon as possible. I'd rather not air my dirty laundry in public but I appreciate the help so no big deal either way I guess.

Glad you guys are liking it so far, a few things I am not entirely happy with (mostly regarding the really powerful stuff) and as I mentioned before I am not totally certain about CRs above 200, I'll probably take another look at them tonight.

Regarding product identity.

I will change Ultrodaemon to Ultradaemon, hopefully that is sufficiently different to Ultroloth.

I will remove Twin Paradises.

I did a google search there and there was nothing about WotC's Far Realm on the first page at least. I think I only refer to it a few times and my Far Realm is the dimension of thought, named as such because its farthest away lower dimension from the Prime Material Plane. I suppose I could change it to the Far Place, do you guys think thats necessary?

One problem with the Amidah/Alabaster entry was the lack of space, I mean I easily could have filled another page but I wanted to keep the 96 page format. So I would have loved to better describe Alabasters six major artifacts (and detail all special abilities they have*), their histories and so forth, but I just didn't have the room. 

*Appearing in the Grimoire among many, many more. 

Glad you like the Undersword Fieari, I am not sure which of his six weapons is my favourite, maybe Godsend.


----------



## Fieari

A couple more I found.

*"A cometary dragons senses" should be "A cometary dragon's senses"

*"A cometary dragon decides its time for it to die" should be "A cometary dragon decides it's time for it to die"

*"Constructs created from diamond should be treated as if
vulnerable to critical hits." please rephrase this to "Constructs created from diamond are not immune to critical hits."

*"The world is invaded by an army of hollow diamond golems, within each..." change comma to a period.

By the way, would you mind if I statted up Maladric (the 68th level Sorcerer Akalich) who wants to merge with an ioun golem and post it on the NPC Wiki?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 

I appreciate the help but I just wanted to post my errata of your errata. 

- Alabasters CR is not 179, its 139. I know 117th-level + Vampire (+2) + Amidah (+60) is 179 "officially". But a 117th-level character is not CR 117 on its own. Also when you add full wealth on top of the Amidah CR bonus hes ECL 209.

- Alabasters Caster Level is 177th (117 + 60 luck bonus).

- The Akaliches Overshadow ability is instantaneous, hence no duration.

- The Robes of the Almighty will not make you more powerful than a Time Lord, they are multi-dimensional beings, as is the Supreme Being.

Okay, you basically have less than 30 minutes to post anymore errata. Otherwise your findings will have to wait until an updated version.

By the way, I would put the names of the people who helped here in credits (those that are not there already), but there is no room left to add anymore names, but you guys know I appreciate the help.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> By the way, would you mind if I statted up Maladric (the 68th level Sorcerer Akalich) who wants to merge with an ioun golem and post it on the NPC Wiki?




I don't mind at all, since you asked first, as long as you give me a credit. 

Oh and I have to be able to post a link on my website.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Okay I just updated my website with the details. The Bestiary will be available from 9am tomorrow morning.

I will send out the copies to those who bought the unofficial release first thing in the morning. I will create a new thread in the House Rules forum and I will set up sale from ENWorld Shop and RPGNow.


----------



## Alzrius

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I will create a new thread in the House Rules forum and I will set up sale from ENWorld Shop and RPGNow.




Hm, U_K, I don't think the House Rules forum is the appropriate place anymore. Now that it's a third-party product for sale to the general public, this'd be much more appropriate over in Publishers & Press Releases forum.

In regards to Alabaster, I can understand where you're coming from with how you get the CR (I don't necessarily agree, mostly because I haven't seen everything), but this leaves you essentially making a leap of logic in the product, without even mentioning that you're doing it. Basically, because no one knows how/why you're getting the altered CR, they'll probably tag that as an error. Also...are you really married to the page count? Because I cannot begin to tell you just how much I'd love to see expanded info on Alabaster and his swords - you can just get rid of the blank page after the front cover, since it's serving no purpose that I can see.

In regards to the IP, I'm sorry to see Twin Paradises go...my complete guess would be that you might be able to get away with it, but that's extremely iffy. "Ultradaemon" should be enough of a switch. In regards to "Far Realm"...you're right about that term appearing elsewhere, so I'm cautiously optimistic that you'd be able to let that one slide. Besides, "Far Place" sounds wussy anyway.   

And about our names not appearing in the credits...damn, I could have used the exposure!


----------



## historian

Hey U_K!  



> The Robes of the Almighty will not make you more powerful than a Time Lord, they are multi-dimensional beings, as is the Supreme Being.




I didn't have doubts about that mate.  

 

Congratulations on awesome work!


----------



## Alzrius

Is anyone else having problems with U_K's site? I'm getting the page to load, but the art and a lot of the formatting and updates are gone, and there's cascading text that appears to be advertizing for a porn site.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Looks fine to me.


----------



## devilish

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Is anyone else having problems with U_K's site? I'm getting the page to load, but the art and a lot of the formatting and updates are gone, and there's cascading text that appears to be advertizing for a porn site.




Yep -- I was just there (hoping for a link to rpgnow for IH) and it looks like
he's been hacked!


----------



## Eversius

Hahahahahahaha. I just had a good laugh at the "Immoral" Handbook website. What hell happened, U_K?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

All this is news to me, everything looked okay when I woke up this morning. Weird. 

Okay I'll be starting to send out copies in a few minutes time.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Yeah, it's official, your providers suck.  Go elsewhere, same place The Waking Lands went.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey guys! 

I just got things sorted out at ENWorld Game Store. See the link on the left of my post! 

Also I started a new thread here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=160446

So if moderators want to lock this one, go ahead.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's official, your providers suck.  Go elsewhere, same place The Waking Lands went.




At the moment I am too busy to change, and I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt - I can empathise with delays, problems and so forth.   

However if there are continued problems I doubt I would be renewing with them.

By the way if I get hacked again, someone take a screen grab of it, I missed it. I must say the hackers at least put some thought into it. Immoral Handbook - thats pretty cute.


----------

