# Upper Krust, where are you? [Immortal's Handbook]



## Anubis

Well, I'm finally back after not being able to find this place for a while because I was too stupid to look at the link on the old site to get to the new site.

I R so smart, S M R T . . .

Anyway, UK, wassup?  How's the work coming along?  Anythign major going on now that the Epc Level Handbook is finally out?

Especially CRs of creatures . . . Those Epic Monster, are their CRs okay, or should we use your formula to adjust them?

Any thoughts on a release date yet?

Hope to hear from you soon!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 

I saw your other thread in the General discussion Forum and had a feeling you might give a shout out! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well, I'm finally back after not being able to find this place for a while because I was too stupid to look at the link on the old site to get to the new site.
> 
> I R so smart, S M R T . . .*




Ah well - nothing to beat yourself up over mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, UK, wassup?  How's the work coming along?*




Going great! You're gonna love this! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anythign major going on now that the Epc Level Handbook is finally out?*




I don't yet have that book (another week here I think), but if the Epic Level Handbook enters the SRD at the same time as Deities & Demigods then I may use one or two ideas from it - but likely nothing major.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Especially CRs of creatures . . . Those Epic Monster, are their CRs okay, or should we use your formula to adjust them?*




Better to be safe than sorry! Like I said I don't have the book yet but from what I know there should be nothing in that book higher than CR44. It should only take a minute to check a monsters CR anyway...wheres the harm in that.

By the way I take it you saw the article I wrote on Challenge Ratings in Asgard magazine Issue #6!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Any thoughts on a release date yet?*




I will be ready with the first section as soon as Deities & Demigods enters the SRD. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hope to hear from you soon! *




Here I am!


----------



## Anubis

Glad to hear you're doing well, and also glad that the Immortal's Handbook is one step closer to completion.  I saw the article in Asgard, very cool, you did well.

As for the ELH . . . Whoa . . . It's totally awesome . . .

I hope D&D hits the SRD soon along with the ELH!

I'm still working on gettin gmy book published . . . It's so damn hard!  Ugh!

Anyway, I'm glad to be back ,and glad to hear everything's cool with you!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Glad to hear you're doing well, and also glad that the Immortal's Handbook is one step closer to completion.*




Me too! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I saw the article in Asgard, very cool, you did well.*




A lot of it was stuff I had already mentioned here in the boards, but it was nice to see it condensed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for the ELH . . . Whoa . . . It's totally awesome . . .*




Glad to hear it! I have been looking forward to that book for ages! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hope D&D hits the SRD soon along with the ELH!*




I hope so too! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm still working on getting my book published . . . It's so damn hard!  Ugh!*




Keep trying! Never give up!

Although you are in a more difficult situation than me - lot tougher to get fantasy novels published than game material I would imagine!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I'm glad to be back ,and glad to hear everything's cool with you! *




Glad to have you back.

I'll be sure and inform everyone here on the boards when the time comes.


----------



## S'mon

Hey Craig, what do you think of my Mage/Force Armor magic item idea?  I just couldn't bear the thought of Thrin flouncing around in wimpy bracers instead of Full Plate!

On the downside, today I bit the bullet and decided to 'level down' the epic level characters in my multiverse by applying your CR mod rules to their levels - I've been unhappy for a long time at the thought of Doomstar being 519th level in 3e, it's a totally different kettle of fish from 1e.  I applied as follows:

1-20 levels convert 1-1
21-40 converts 1-2
41-80 converts 1-4
81-160 converts 1-8
161-320 converts 1-16
321-640 converts 1-32

Doing this, Doomstar works out at only 66th level, but I'll boost his stats to compensate, so that the actual power level is about the same as in 1e - roughly 50% stronger than a pantheon-head deity.  Eg I think he should have about 1320 hp in 3e which is 20 hp/die, implying CON around 41 (+ item boosts).  Thrin converts to just 40 levels (!!), but as a lesser god gets 20 Outsider hit dice in addition, following DDG, so he's 60hd.  His 25 STR's +14 dmg equates to STR 38 in 3e.

I think higher-stats, lower-levels is more in keeping with the 3e approach and the ELH.  Thoughts?


----------



## S'mon

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Doing this, Doomstar works out at only 66th level, but I'll boost his stats to compensate, so that the actual power level is about the same as in 1e - roughly 50% stronger than a pantheon-head deity.   *




Although in 1e Doomstar had about 560 hp, a pantheon head deity on home plane had 800, but Doomstar could do around 1000hp damage with a single magical attack.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hey Craig, what do you think of my Mage/Force Armor magic item idea?*




There definately needs to be something along those lines for 3rd Ed. Though I have had a few ideas myself - see my reply in that thread.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I just couldn't bear the thought of Thrin flouncing around in wimpy bracers instead of Full Plate!*




I actually created a Salient Divine Ability just so Thrin...*cough*...I mean all gods could wear armour without penalty. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *On the downside, today I bit the bullet and decided to 'level down' the epic level characters in my multiverse by applying your CR mod rules to their levels*




I don't know if thats such a good idea, I think the WotC conversion method may be adequate.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *- I've been unhappy for a long time at the thought of Doomstar being 519th level in 3e, it's a totally different kettle of fish from 1e.  I applied as follows:
> 
> 1-20 levels convert 1-1
> 21-40 converts 1-2
> 41-80 converts 1-4
> 81-160 converts 1-8
> 161-320 converts 1-16
> 321-640 converts 1-32*




Obviously Doomstar is a bit of a campaign problem child but I think you may want to leave his conversion up to me. 

The main problem I am having after the level spread between Wiz and Psi classes:

519th-level
260 Wizard; 259 Psion (divided by 3) = 86
260 + 86 = 346th-level character (Wizard 173/Psion 173) = CR60 (equal to a 'weak' Overgod).

Zeus, by contrast, is CR49.

...is that he should supposedly have the wealth of a 346th-level character (4.142 Billion GP). This entitles him to a number of unbelievable options even at the exhorbitant prices I have in the IH. Though he may have trouble meeting the XP costs to create them!

His natural ability scores were pretty crap as I recall. He should end up with:

Original Ability Score + 15 (average stat increase through levelling) + 5 (inherant bonus for wishes) + Magic Items (with his wealth this could be where things get tricky, though remember he won't have any bonuses in an Anti-Magic Field)



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Doing this, Doomstar works out at only 66th level, but I'll boost his stats to compensate, so that the actual power level is about the same as in 1e - roughly 50% stronger than a pantheon-head deity. *




Well the problem here is that I don't think you will be able to compensate (certainly not within the laws of the game).



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Eg I think he should have about 1320 hp in 3e which is 20 hp/die, implying CON around 41 (+ item boosts).*




Zeus has 1550 hp in 3rd Ed. (about an extra 400 when he rages) 

At 346th-level he will have about 866hp  + CON.

Con 30 = 4326hp (which I could live with as his natural hp)

However you would think Doomstar will put the majority of his ability score bonuses into INT and CHA (for Psions). So his CON may be in the 20's

Con 50 = 7786hp

Con 70 = 11,246hp

etc.

Doomstar; I think; would be capable of making items that could boost his ability scores by +58 

Cost 33.64 million GP
However, costing 1.34 million XP to him - so he might not be able to meet that cost (thats about 4 levels lost per item created; I'm not sure if you can expend levels to make items). If not he would be limited to ability score enhancement of about +28.

The high XP costs are the reasons most 'artifacts' are of Divine origins - since they can expend WP to make them.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Thrin converts to just 40 levels (!!),*




Actually Thrin would convert to level 44 but I still don't think thats going to 'cut the mustard' for me! 

With the exception of Quetzalcoatl; Thrin was higher level than any deity in 1st Ed. He converts to 80th-level using the WotC conversion rules, which seemingly balances him perfectly with D&Dg 3rd Ed. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *but as a lesser god gets 20 Outsider hit dice in addition, following DDG, so he's 60hd.*




Actually he doesn't get the Outsider HD because hes an ascended mortal.

I'll bring you over D&Dg in a few weeks and you can 'give it a butchers'. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *His 25 STR's +14 dmg equates to STR 38 in 3e.*




Let me worry about things like that! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I think higher-stats, lower-levels is more in keeping with the 3e approach and the ELH.  Thoughts? *




Not a good idea.


----------



## S'mon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Let me worry about things like that!
> 
> 
> Not a good idea. *




Hi Craig - well, I'll see what you come up with in the IH.  My concept of Doomstar was always somewhat 'eggshell armed with hammer' - he can do ridiculous amounts of damage but is not invulnerable.  I'm not sure how best to model this in 3e.  519th level in 3e seems a lot more powerful than in 1e, for instance.  Thrin would be 40th level if you apply the official multiclass conversion and then the CR limiter on top, I agree it may be too low, although as a lesser god Thrin was never the most powerful deity around - many greater gods were more powerful in a straight fight, mostly due to divine weapons doing lots of d10s damage (Thor at 10d10+ bonuses the ultimate example).

I still think some kind of level conversion for 20+ is needed, although the one I used may be too harsh.  Perhaps 1:2 for levels 21-60, 1:3 for levels 61-120, 1:4 for levels 121-200 etc would be better.


----------



## Gez

For the release date... Don't hold your breath, it's not going to be anytime soon.

First, WotC needs to open, read, match, and considerate 10000+ submissions.

_Then_, their intern will be able to go on to his first and foremost mission: works on the SRD. Since monsters and spells still aren't in (psionic powers description aren't even in the draft!), and given the hi speed of WotC for this kind of thing, we can expect the SRD to be finalised with the three core books and the psi ones in the early 2003.

_Then_ maybe they'll thought about convincing the "people with forked hair" at WotC and Hasbro that adding ELH and D&Dg to the SRD won't cause a bankrupcy nor even a little money loss.

And that's supposing they don't begin their SRD additions by some splatbook/Dragon Mag/FRCS/d20 modern/non-copyrighted parts of SW, WoT, etc.

I think the IH will be legaly able to be published next July, assuming the intern don't get fired.


----------



## S'mon

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hi Craig - well, I'll see what you come up with in the IH.  My concept of Doomstar was always somewhat 'eggshell armed with hammer' - he can do ridiculous amounts of damage but is not invulnerable.  I'm not sure how best to model this in 3e.  519th level in 3e seems a lot more powerful than in 1e, for instance.  Thrin would be 40th level if you apply the official multiclass conversion and then the CR limiter on top, I agree it may be too low, although as a lesser god Thrin was never the most powerful deity around - many greater gods were more powerful in a straight fight, mostly due to divine weapons doing lots of d10s damage (Thor at 10d10+ bonuses the ultimate example).
> 
> I still think some kind of level conversion for 20+ is needed, although the one I used may be too harsh.  Perhaps 1:2 for levels 21-60, 1:3 for levels 61-120, 1:4 for levels 121-200 etc would be better. *




Applying this seems to give good results - Thrin works out at 48th (or 58th if not given 1/3 of multiclass levels before conversion), Doomstar at 134th which would seem to be about the right power level.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hi Craig - well, I'll see what you come up with in the IH.*




Okay.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *My concept of Doomstar was always somewhat 'eggshell armed with hammer' - he can do ridiculous amounts of damage but is not invulnerable.*




Well he did beat Anu in one round on his home plane!

Incidently I have the 'double hit points on your home realm' (not plane) rule in effect - explained in the IH.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure how best to model this in 3e.  519th level in 3e seems a lot more powerful than in 1e, for instance.*




Well he does convert (officially) to 346th. Although thats still pretty tough.

With a natural CON of 25 (before items) Doomstar would have 3288hp.

I anticipate a Pantheon Head (before items) will average about 2000hp (4000hp in their home plane)

Incidently I advocate Pantheon Heads having up to 80 levels rather than the 70 in D&Dg.

It may also be appropriate to give Doomstar negative levels for creating some of his magic items, since the XP costs are likely to be high.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Thrin would be 40th level if you apply the official multiclass conversion and then the CR limiter on top, *




So Thrin loses out more by virtue of being converted twice!? I don't see that making sense.

On levels alone (not power) Thrin was second toughest deity in Legends & Lore. Using the official conversion method this balance is pretty much maintained.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I agree it may be too low, although as a lesser god Thrin was never the most powerful deity around - many greater gods were more powerful in a straight fight, *




Many!? Thor; Zeus; Odin; Mabelode...maybe Surtur...allegedly Vanya.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *mostly due to divine weapons doing lots of d10s damage (Thor at 10d10+ bonuses the ultimate example).*




Higher rank war deities will do more damage with Salient Divine Abilities like Divine Weapon Specialisation.

Thor typically does more damage now than in 1st Ed. even though Mjolnir only delivers 4d8 base damage (I say 4d6 as it happens, by virtue of it being 2 tons)



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I still think some kind of level conversion for 20+ is needed, although the one I used may be too harsh.  Perhaps 1:2 for levels 21-60, 1:3 for levels 61-120, 1:4 for levels 121-200 etc would be better. *




The problem as I see it is that you are changing the rules just to fit Doomstar. Instead of changing Doomstar just to fit the rules.

Sort of like bringing the mountain to Mohammed...etc.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *For the release date... Don't hold your breath, it's not going to be anytime soon.
> 
> First, WotC needs to open, read, match, and considerate 10000+ submissions.
> 
> Then, their intern will be able to go on to his first and foremost mission: works on the SRD. Since monsters and spells still aren't in (psionic powers description aren't even in the draft!), and given the hi speed of WotC for this kind of thing, we can expect the SRD to be finalised with the three core books and the psi ones in the early 2003.
> 
> Then maybe they'll thought about convincing the "people with forked hair" at WotC and Hasbro that adding ELH and D&Dg to the SRD won't cause a bankrupcy nor even a little money loss.
> 
> And that's supposing they don't begin their SRD additions by some splatbook/Dragon Mag/FRCS/d20 modern/non-copyrighted parts of SW, WoT, etc.
> 
> I think the IH will be legaly able to be published next July, assuming the intern don't get fired. *




Don't frighten me like that mate!

Think positive!


----------



## S'mon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well he does convert (officially) to 346th. Although thats still pretty tough.
> *




Where do you get 346th from, given that he was single-classed 519th in 1e?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Where do you get 346th from, given that he was single-classed 519th in 1e? *




You are forgetting that he was also a master Psionicist. 

In 3rd Ed. that means he should have Psion levels.

I divided his levels (approx.) in two - to represent the Wiz/Psi split...

...and then divided his secondary class by three (as per WotC conversion rules).

Then I simply reassigned a 50/50 split.


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Gez mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't frighten me like that mate!
> 
> Think positive! *




Sorry, I let my natural pessimism appears once again.

Bah ! In such a worst case scenario, you could try to paraphrase and rename things so that it's compatible with D&Dg without ever referencing it, no ? 

You introduce concepts such as "Special Divine Abilities" (with some clones of D&Dg's SDA phrased and named differently) and "Divine Rating"; in two or three pages most of it could be condensed. That would be far from exhaustive, but who care ? People would know to use D&Dg even if it's never referenced. Only the stuff from D&Dg that would actually be used in an example deity would be paraphrased.

That would be a bit hypocritic, but hypcrisy is how mankind succeed in getting along without too much feuds.


On a more technical note, how will  portfolios correlate with DR, SDA and domains ?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Sorry, I let my natural pessimism appears once again.*




Don't let it happen again! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Bah ! In such a worst case scenario, you could try to paraphrase and rename things so that it's compatible with D&Dg without ever referencing it, no ?*




I probably (?) wouldn't need D&Dg to enter the SRD before I could release the Magic; Monster or Realm/Adventure sections!? Although for the sake of continuity I really need the Worship Rules released first.

However, it would be a major pain in the butt to rework the Divinity parts of the Worship section...again. 

That said, I have reworked (for the better obviously), a number of minor mechanics from D&Dg (about a dozen SDAs etc.). 

I also suggest a few changes to the Greater God class in particular. 

I am toying with the idea of suggesting all deities in D&Dg be reduced 3 Divine Ranks except the 'true' Greater Gods...?

I don't like the idea of non-pantheon heads being Greater Gods (with the possible exceptions of Boccob, Pelor and Nerull).

I mean what was the point of introducing the Intermediate God class in the first place if it wasn't to seperate the 'true' Greater Gods (Pantheon Heads) from merely 'Gods'!?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *You introduce concepts such as "Special Divine Abilities" (with some clones of D&Dg's SDA phrased and named differently)*




True, but its going to be a total chore redoing the basics of the 100 SDAs they have in the book. Not something I want to do.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *and "Divine Rating"; in two or three pages most of it could be condensed. That would be far from exhaustive, but who care ?*




Divine Rank could easily be done away with - changing it for Divine Status.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *People would know to use D&Dg even if it's never referenced. Only the stuff from D&Dg that would actually be used in an example deity would be paraphrased.
> 
> That would be a bit hypocritic, but hypcrisy is how mankind succeed in getting along without too much feuds.*




I wouldn't be happy making such changes though.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *On a more technical note, how will portfolios correlate with DR, SDA and domains ? *




Portfolios are now more closely tied with Domains.


----------



## Anubis

What about the fact that since Deities and Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook aren't true Core Rulebooks, they may not even ever appear in the SRD?

I have a bad feeling that they won't show up, ever, in the SRD.

Considering how slow things have been getting ito the SRD, that makes it highly unlikely to see the Immortal's Handbook anytime in the next two or three years . . .


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What about the fact that since Deities and Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook aren't true Core Rulebooks, they may not even ever appear in the SRD?*




Well I have been told by WotC management that they _will_!

Obviously the Submission contest has thrown an unorthodox element into the WotC schedule. Otherwise I believe we would have seen D&Dg in the SRD by now.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have a bad feeling that they won't show up, ever, in the SRD.*




I don't entertain negative thoughts! 

...see what you have started Gez... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Considering how slow things have been getting ito the SRD, that makes it highly unlikely to see the Immortal's Handbook anytime in the next two or three years . . .  *




Have a little faith Anubis!


----------



## poilbrun

Hi U_K, hope you're doing well!

Don't you consider doing as you once thought of doing: publishing it without reference to D&Dg and then, once D&Dg enters the SRD, publish an update to make both books compatible? That would solve the problem of having to wait for D&Dg to enter the SRD, and it might get you some feedback and enable you to tweak some things before working on the final version that would be sent to prints...

Anyway, I'm pretty eager to see the book, so I cross my fingers that D&Dg will enter the SRD soon...


----------



## Upper_Krust

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Hi U_K, hope you're doing well!*




Hi poil brun mate! 

Any chance you will be making it to Gencon UK mate? 

Almost certainly be the first public glimpse of the IH - even though I may not be able to sell it. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Don't you consider doing as you once thought of doing: publishing it without reference to D&Dg and then, once D&Dg enters the SRD, publish an update to make both books compatible?*




If I thought D&Dg wasn't going to enter the SRD sometime in the next 3 months I _might_ consider such a move.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *That would solve the problem of having to wait for D&Dg to enter the SRD, and it might get you some feedback and enable you to tweak some things before working on the final version that would be sent to prints...*




The only obstacle I can see (other than a bit of terminology) are the Divinity Templates and Salient Divine Abilities.

SDAs would be the major annoyance (since no matter what you do it could end up like you were copying them) - though to be honest the more I think about it the more I could probably pull it off.

A lot of my own ideas have changed since D&Dg came out, not because of what was in that book, but rather just that I have had a few months extra to work on things. 

The actual worship points mechanics are now only two pages long (and half of that is examples) - its that simple! Naturally there is a lot more enabling you to flesh out 'Faiths' in as much detail as your campaign requires. But it goes some way to showing how quick and easy things are. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I'm pretty eager to see the book, so I cross my fingers that D&Dg will enter the SRD soon... *




Thanks mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

I have been doing some restructuring of the Greater God rank - I was never really happy with the spread of power in Deities & Demigods.

Essentially I propose that only Pantheon Heads (with perhaps one or two exceptions) should be actual Greater Gods. 

Essentially all deities (except for Pantheon Heads) should have their Divine Rank reduced by 3.

eg. Thor (DR 18) becomes a DR15 Intermediate God.

For *Average* Deity Levels I propose:

Hero-deity 20-29
Demigod 30-39
Lesser God 40-59
Intermediate God 60-79
Greater God 80-119

A secondary effect of this is that we can now easily calculate Arch-Devil/Demon Prince Divine Rank.

*Demons*

As such Demogorgon works out at 50HD and Divine Rank 8. Kostchtchie 24HD and Divine Rank 0 etc.

Obviously a few need a kick up the backside Lolth (obviously - if you are converting her from 1st Ed.); Orcus; Yeenoghu and Baphomet.

Lolth hp x3 196 = 49HD Divine Rank 8
Orcus hp x1.5 180 = 45HD Divine Rank 7
Yeenoghu hp x1.5 150 = 37HD Divine Rank 4
Baphomet hp x1.5 159 = 39HD Divine Rank 5

Okay, why do we multiply the hit points of the above, but not the rest. Simple. We know that Lolth and Orcus are both Demon Monarchs (on the same level as Demogorgon; Graz'zt etc.); likewise we know that Baphomet and Yeenoghu are Demon Princes.

Whats the differences between Demon Monarchs and Princes. 

Demon Monarchs control multiple layers and have subservient Demon Princes amongst their retinue (Yeenoghu is subservient to Graz'zt).

A Demon Prince rules at least one complete layer of the Abyss but has no other Princes subservient to them (although they could have Demon Lords in their retinue).

So Demon Monarchs are Lesser Gods and Demon Princes are Demigods. 

The 666 Demon Lords are equivalent to Hero-deities.

*Devils*

A similar parallel exists amongst the Arch Devils. 

Asmodeus; Mephistopheles and Baalzebul are Lesser Gods because the have subservient Arch-devils beneath them! If you recall the factions presented in 1st Ed. Manual of the Planes.

Other Arch-Devils (Dispater; Belial) are Demigods.
Dispater 36HD Divine Rank 4.
Belial 38HD Divine Rank 5.

The 99 Dukes of Hell are all Hero-deities.

*Daemons*

The Daemons are slightly similar. Anthraxus (the Overdaemon) is 58HD/DR10 leads the Diseased Eight (Demigods).

The 33 Daemon Masters are all Hero-deities.

Obviously every campaign can have its own ideas on cosmology but as an Open Cosmology this seems to make the most sense.

The reason I never hit on it before was because of Deities & Demigods flawed power sharing (which I was trying to emulate) and improper use of the Greater God status.

One last point: I advocate the rule whereby beings of a certain Divine Rank gain their immunities against those of lower rank to be changed to mean lower status instead.

ie. Demogorgon is Divine Rank 8 and Graz'zt is Divine Rank 7. However, because they are both Lesser Gods each should be able to bypass the others Divine Immunities. Although obviously as Tanar'ri  they still have those innate immunities.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi poil brun mate!
> 
> Any chance you will be making it to Gencon UK mate?
> 
> Almost certainly be the first public glimpse of the IH - even though I may not be able to sell it. *



I really wish I'll be able to pull it off, at least one of the three days. Unfortunately, the cost is quite high since I'd have to pay the train or plane as well as the cost for Gen Con. I'll see if I have the funds needed!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi poil brun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I really wish I'll be able to pull it off, at least one of the three days.*




It would be great to see you there and say hello in person! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Unfortunately, the cost is quite high since I'd have to pay the train or plane as well as the cost for Gen Con.*




I know exactly what you mean mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I'll see if I have the funds needed!  *




I hope you can go - but if not there is always next year mate!


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, all! 



> I also suggest a few changes to the Greater God class in particular.
> 
> I am toying with the idea of suggesting all deities in D&Dg be reduced 3 Divine Ranks except the 'true' Greater Gods...?
> 
> I don't like the idea of non-pantheon heads being Greater Gods (with the possible exceptions of Boccob, Pelor and Nerull).



For a tight pantheon, as described in D&DG, this would make sense, but not really for loose pantheons, which is the default assumption in "standard D&D". Personally, I would be against such a general statement.
Even in some tight pantheons, it wouldn't really fit, for example the greek (sorry, Olympian ) pantheon: Zeus, Poseidon and Hades should propably be nearly equal in power, as they all had the same chance to become the pantheon head. Of course, Zeus should be the most powerful among the three.



> I mean what was the point of introducing the Intermediate God class in the first place if it wasn't to seperate the 'true' Greater Gods (Pantheon Heads) from merely 'Gods'!?



I'd argue that it is about the concepts that the gods represent. Some gods represent "Greater" concepts, and are thus Greater Gods. Some gods represent several "Intermediate" concept, and are also greater gods. If they just represent a few Intermediate concepts, the are Intemediate gods. This goes down to "Lesser" and "Demi" concepts, and up to (using your Divine Ranks) "Elder" concepts and "Over" concepts, and possibly "Temporal" (lacking a better name) for Time Lords. (Though I cannot really come up with a name for the concepts that Entities represent - maybe "True" or "Essential" concepts?)

Do any of my above words actually make sense? 



> For Average Deity Levels I propose:
> 
> Hero-deity 20-29
> Demigod 30-39
> Lesser God 40-59
> Intermediate God 60-79
> Greater God 80-119



I suppose this is with the 20 Outsider HD?
It seems similar to the average levels I have toyed with for the gods:
In addition to the 20 Outsider HD, I'd give gods the following class levels:
Demigod: 20
Lesser God: 40
Intermdiate God:60
Greater God: 80
Pantheon Head: +10 above the normal average.

It would seem that my averages are on the high side in your system?

On a side note - I have toyed with the idea of making all gods Paragons (as I don't have the ELH yet, I don't know how much overlap there is, but it doesn't seem too much). Would that be a good idea?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, all! *




Hi Knight Otu mate!  



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *For a tight pantheon, as described in D&DG, this would make sense, but not really for loose pantheons, which is the default assumption in "standard D&D". Personally, I would be against such a general statement.*




I agree which was why I mentioned that Boccob; Nerull and Pelor would be notable exemptions.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Even in some tight pantheons, it wouldn't really fit, for example the greek (sorry, Olympian ) pantheon: Zeus, Poseidon and Hades should propably be nearly equal in power, as they all had the same chance to become the pantheon head. Of course, Zeus should be the most powerful among the three.*




I don't know about Poseidon and Hades - they are not in a position to contest power with Zeus. I would say DR15 for both.

Osiris, or a being that is known to rule the Pantheon at some point (Tezcatlipoca or Marduk) would be the only such Greater Gods that weren't Pantheon Heads as I can see. Likewise the Hindu trinity (Brahma; Shiva and Vishnu) would be Greater Gods, and I am sure there would be others.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I'd argue that it is about the concepts that the gods represent. Some gods represent "Greater" concepts, and are thus Greater Gods. Some gods represent several "Intermediate" concept, and are also greater gods. If they just represent a few Intermediate concepts, the are Intemediate gods. This goes down to "Lesser" and "Demi" concepts, and up to (using your Divine Ranks) "Elder" concepts and "Over" concepts, and possibly "Temporal" (lacking a better name) for Time Lords. (Though I cannot really come up with a name for the concepts that Entities represent - maybe "True" or "Essential" concepts?)
> 
> Do any of my above words actually make sense? *






As I see it though 'personalities' are more individual than concept orientated. 

ie. Thor is not the epitome of Thunder, but rather a larger than life character with his own agenda and goals.

Its not until Elder or Overdeity status that the concept begins to take over the individual and from that point on the goals and the concept are interchangeable.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I suppose this is with the 20 Outsider HD?*




Yes. Including HD.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *It seems similar to the average levels I have toyed with for the gods:
> In addition to the 20 Outsider HD, I'd give gods the following class levels:
> Demigod: 20
> Lesser God: 40
> Intermdiate God:60
> Greater God: 80
> Pantheon Head: +10 above the normal average.*




Even though such figures are mere averages I just prefer a system that comfortably scales.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *It would seem that my averages are on the high side in your system?*




My averages are:

Hero-deity 25th
Demigod 35th
Lesser God 50th
Intermediate God 70th
Greater God 100th

So your averages are on the low side.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *On a side note - I have toyed with the idea of making all gods Paragons (as I don't have the ELH yet, I don't know how much overlap there is, but it doesn't seem too much). Would that be a good idea? *




Are all gods Paragons though!? I don't think so.

I don't have the ELH yet myself so I am not totally sure about the idea.


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings people!

It has been a while, but I thought I should drop in anyhow (-:

I was just reading through the last entries in this thread, and I was wondering: Will you include new salient abilities for Overgods and Entities and the like? An example of the power of such an ability would be interesting to see...

Applying the Paragon Template to all gods is not a good idea in my opinion! The power level of a creature using that template is far greater than what is implied in the ELH. The bonus hit points, max hit points and such will be even more prominent at higher levels, although the power level relatively (its CR-modifier) will be less.

I also believe that some SDAs should be modified so that immunities are not present, only great resistance. For example the one that makes a deity immune to different effects, but especially those that don't grant a mortal a saving throw, for example Life and Death. How is a mortal to defeat a god if he has no chance of surviving? (Divine Splendor)

At first glance I also thought that giving wizards spontaneous casting ability also was unbalancing, but as sorcerers have charisma as their primary ability, that's not so any longer.


----------



## Upper_Krust

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings people!*




Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *It has been a while, but I thought I should drop in anyhow (-:*




Great to see you! Hope you are keeping well!?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I was just reading through the last entries in this thread, and I was wondering: Will you include new salient abilities for Overgods and Entities and the like?*




Yes and no.

I have about 50 new Salient Divine Abilities but they still represent the standard divine powers.

The _really powerful_ abilities are the Esoteric Divine Powers.

These are (near) infinite abilities. Technically any deity can gain them (I won't go into details about how right now though). 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *An example of the power of such an ability would be interesting to see...*




Lets see...without trying to give anything away:

In Norse mythology Odins Spear Gungnir never missed (that would be an example of an esoteric power in a weapon; specifically the "Unerring" special ability).

There are so many interesting ideas that I really don't want to spoil the surprises.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Applying the Paragon Template to all gods is not a good idea in my opinion! The power level of a creature using that template is far greater than what is implied in the ELH. The bonus hit points, max hit points and such will be even more prominent at higher levels, although the power level relatively (its CR-modifier) will be less.*




I agree.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I also believe that some SDAs should be modified so that immunities are not present, only great resistance. For example the one that makes a deity immune to different effects, but especially those that don't grant a mortal a saving throw, for example Life and Death. How is a mortal to defeat a god if he has no chance of surviving? (Divine Splendor)*




I have redesigned about 15 Salient Divine Abilities in D&Dg. Off hand I know 'Splendor' is one of them, possibly Life and Death, I'll have to check.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *At first glance I also thought that giving wizards spontaneous casting ability also was unbalancing, but as sorcerers have charisma as their primary ability, that's not so any longer. *




Okay.

Do you have the Epic Level Handbook yet Eä mate?


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...see what you have started Gez... *




I am the ravager ! Mwahahah  !





Hum...


Soooorry !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Are all gods Paragons though!? I don't think so.*




It depends on the Pantheon used. In a D&D pantheon, with deicide, mortals becoming gods, and all that business; no. They are individuals who _may_ be paragon, but that ain't necessary. However, Moradin may be seen as a paragon dwarf, Kurtulmak as a paragon Kobold, Bahamut as a paragon Dragon, etc.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I'd argue that it is about the concepts that the gods represent. Some gods represent "Greater" concepts, and are thus Greater Gods. Some gods represent several "Intermediate" concept, and are also greater gods. If they just represent a few Intermediate concepts, the are Intemediate gods. This goes down to "Lesser" and "Demi" concepts, and up to (using your Divine Ranks) "Elder" concepts and "Over" concepts, and possibly "Temporal" (lacking a better name) for Time Lords. (Though I cannot really come up with a name for the concepts that Entities represent - maybe "True" or "Essential" concepts?)[/B]




This reminds me somewhat of what I've heard of a strange RPG, called "_Nobilis_", in which you play "low-level deities" under the order of broader, more powerful ones. I havn't read it, but it seemed a bit weird.




> _Originally posted by Eä_
> * At first glance I also thought that giving wizards spontaneous casting ability also was unbalancing, but as sorcerers have charisma as their primary ability, that's not so any longer.*




I'm missing one step of the logic here...


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings again!

Three posts in a day! I am improving upon myself (-;

Yes, I am keeping well...I'm currently improving my mathematics skills, especially in probability theory and statistics, which actually is fun... I have created some systems which are simpler to use when you are throwing an enormous amount of dice (although you need a calculator to use them (-; ) I hope everyone here is keeping well, as well (-:

Ahh, yes, I have received the Epic Level Handbook now, and to be frank, I think the book gives us exactly the information we need... There are some minor bugs in the book, like Psionics, which is overpowered currently (considering that if you use the Improved Metapsionic feat, you will be able to enhance psionics using only one power point extra, and thus scaling better than wizards' spells)
Personally I like the Epic Spellcasting system. The only thing with that is that you need a magic item which gives you approximatelly the same bonus as your level to make sure that the saving throws are not left behind. This is a minor issue, which is easiliy fixed. And altogether I love this idea.
Epic Monsters: I don't care that much about monsters, but I like the templates, the force dragons and the mercanes. I think I will be playing one just to check it out sometime.
One thing that bothers me, though, is that many of the SDA in D&Dg and the Epic Feats overlap, not even requiring them as prerequisites. This may lead to tons of "wasted" feats, but I guess it would be easy to free feat slots as well, using Wish or something similar. I'm thinnking especially on Improved Spell Capacity and Divine Spellcasting.

Overall, I like the book very much, although it takes plenty of time creating "real" epic characters.


One thing that bothers me is that skill points and intelligence isn't retroactive! The book keeping is terrible when creating high level characters, and I advocate house ruling when assigning skill points. Or else it takes too much time for the DM in my opinion...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I am the ravager ! Mwahahah  !*








			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *This reminds me somewhat of what I've heard of a strange RPG, called "Nobilis", in which you play "low-level deities" under the order of broader, more powerful ones. I havn't read it, but it seemed a bit weird. *




You mean theres a deity-centric RPG out there I don't yet own!?

I'll have to check that out.

For those that revere the Primal Order (no pun intended) my copy of that arrived last week (almost 7 weeks after I had made the actual purchase on ebay).


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings all!

Nice to see that the thread is living again (-:

You all should see the movie "Army of Darkness" it's one of the funniest films of that genre I have seen!



> Originally posted by Eä
> At first glance I also thought that giving wizards spontaneous casting ability also was unbalancing, but as sorcerers have charisma as their primary ability, that's not so any longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by Gez
> I'm missing one step of the logic here...
Click to expand...



The point is that with the SDA that gives Wizards spontaneous casting of every spell in the spell list, may seem overpowered, giving that Sorcerers only have access to some of them, while the now have all. However, many of the SDAs base the efficiency off charisma, which powers up the Sorcerer, which again does not make them obsolete.

UK, you should perhaps take a look on my example of abuse of the system in the rules forum to know what a character of Doomstars level potentially may do, giving him a narrow feat selection.


----------



## Upper_Krust

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings again!*




Hello again mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Three posts in a day! I am improving upon myself (-;*




Be careful...before you know it you will have over 1000 posts.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Yes, I am keeping well...*




Glad to hear it! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I'm currently improving my mathematics skills,*




You mean to say you don't know everything about math already!? 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *especially in probability theory and statistics, which actually is fun...*




I'll take your word for it! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I have created some systems which are simpler to use when you are throwing an enormous amount of dice (although you need a calculator to use them (-; )*




Maybe there will be an electronic version of 4th Edition on a datapad...with built in calculator. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I hope everyone here is keeping well, as well (-:*




I am doing pretty good thanks for asking! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Ahh, yes, I have received the Epic Level Handbook now,*




DOH! 

I'm such a doofus, yet again I am going to be the last one here to pick up a product. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *and to be frank, I think the book gives us exactly the information we need...*




Glad to hear it!



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *There are some minor bugs in the book, like Psionics, which is overpowered currently (considering that if you use the Improved Metapsionic feat, you will be able to enhance psionics using only one power point extra, and thus scaling better than wizards' spells)*




Okay.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Personally I like the Epic Spellcasting system.*




I have to admit I am intrigued by this myself.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *The only thing with that is that you need a magic item which gives you approximately the same bonus as your level to make sure that the saving throws are not left behind. This is a minor issue, which is easily fixed. And altogether I love this idea.*




I'll have to check this out. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Epic Monsters: I don't care that much about monsters, but I like the templates, the force dragons and the mercanes. I think I will be playing one just to check it out sometime.*




What do you mean you don't care about the monsters!?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *One thing that bothers me, though, is that many of the SDA in D&Dg and the Epic Feats overlap, not even requiring them as prerequisites. This may lead to tons of "wasted" feats, but I guess it would be easy to free feat slots as well, using Wish or something similar. I'm thinking especially on Improved Spell Capacity and Divine Spellcasting.*




I don't see why not.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Overall, I like the book very much, although it takes plenty of time creating "real" epic characters.*




I'm looking forward to it even more.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *One thing that bothers me is that skill points and intelligence isn't retroactive! The book keeping is terrible when creating high level characters, and I advocate house ruling when assigning skill points. Or else it takes too much time for the DM in my opinion... *




Yes, that seems a bit confusing.


----------



## Upper_Krust

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings all!*




Hello mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Nice to see that the thread is living again (-:*




I'll be a bit more comfortable discussing the matter when I get the work released.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *You all should see the movie "Army of Darkness" it's one of the funniest films of that genre I have seen!*




Army of Darkness is very good; its prequel "Evil Dead 2" is also in the same vein.

I went to see the Resident Evil movie two weeks ago and I thought that was very well done. The zombies were excellent. Great atmpshere.

Last week I saw "Goldmember: Austin Powers 3". Very funny - certainly the best of that particular trilogy.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *UK, you should perhaps take a look on my example of abuse of the system in the rules forum to know what a character of Doomstars level potentially may do, giving him a narrow feat selection. *




I will mate...and if you find any problems/loopholes you think need sorting at high levels be sure and let me know.


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You mean theres a deity-centric RPG out there I don't yet own!?*




Well, I first thought it was a (french-speaking) swiss game; but after a quick investigation on 2d0's site, I found it was just a translation of a previous game in English.

Written by R.Sean Borgstrom, author in several White Wolf products, Nobilis has been published first in 1999 by Pharos Press before being sold to Hogshead Publishing.

Each Nobilis rules over an aspect of creation, more-or-less broad (death, freedom, cat, beer, time, animal, fridge...) and has the duty to make that aspect of creation flourish and to protect it against antagonistic Nobilis; and against sort of demons whose purpose is to destroy creation piece-by-piece; and I've used lots of "and" in that sentence.

This should give you enough clue to investigate on your own.


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, all! 

Ok, I admit that the Paragon thing was another of my silly ideas .



> So your averages are on the low side.



Don't forget that I have not added the Outsider HD to the numbers, and that I have no Quasisdeity listed. Unless I lost all of my math skills, that should end up higher than your averages. 



> As I see it though 'personalities' are more individual than concept orientated.
> 
> ie. Thor is not the epitome of Thunder, but rather a larger than life character with his own agenda and goals.
> 
> Its not until Elder or Overdeity status that the concept begins to take over the individual and from that point on the goals and the concept are
> interchangeable.



Of course it is more personality oriented. That is why I said "represent" instead of "embody". 
Also, I'd argue that most greater gods from greek, norse and egyptian mythology (at least those statted in D&DG) don't actually represent Greater concepts, but Intermediate concepts at best, as they are not really focused on one thing. Greater Gods like Boccob or Taiia, however, do embody one (Magic for Boccob) or two (Creation and Destruction for Taiia) Greater concepts. Two Greater concepts should propably be the maximum for greater gods (and the same would go for Elder concepts and Elder gods, etc.).



> This reminds me somewhat of what I've heard of a strange RPG, called "Nobilis", in which you play "low-level deities" under the order of broader, more
> powerful ones. I havn't read it, but it seemed a bit weird.



The name sounds familiar, but I haven't actually read it.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Well, I first thought it was a (french-speaking) swiss game; but after a quick investigation on 2d0's site, I found it was just a translation of a previous game in English.
> 
> Written by R.Sean Borgstrom, author in several White Wolf products, Nobilis has been published first in 1999 by Pharos Press before being sold to Hogshead Publishing.
> 
> Each Nobilis rules over an aspect of creation, more-or-less broad (death, freedom, cat, beer, time, animal, fridge...) and has the duty to make that aspect of creation and protect it against antagonistic Nobilis; and against sort of demons whose purpose is to destroy creation piece-by-piece.
> 
> This should give you enough clue to investigate on your own. *




I checked out a few things (I must say I do like the covers) including some reviews and it looks interesting. Certainly more useful than 'Amber'.


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Gez mate! *




Hello !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *(I must say I do like the covers)*




That one ? 





Me too. Clean, sober. Pretty statue.


Oh well, I guess the emptiness of this "bump" is badly hidden.


----------



## -Eä-

*CR modifier for Divine Templates*

Greetings people!


The week that is coming I and a couple of friends of mine are running a duel scenario. 1 on 1, 2 on 2, a group entering a God's stronghold and such, just for fun. 

For that I need the CR modifiers for for divine templates, so that the CR of the God is approximately correct and such. I know you had a system for this. Can you direct me or copy the text into this thread, Craig?


----------



## Blacksad

In Asgard 6

DR 0 = +8 ECL
per additional DR: +4 ECL


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Thanks Blacksad for jumping in. 

Ea mate did you ever get to see my Challenge Ratings article in Asgard Magazine #6?

http://www.d20reviews.com/Natural20/asgard.html

...oh and Gez mate; yep that one.


----------



## Knight Otu

Just a small bump.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I hope you can go - but if not there is always next year mate!  *



I finally should be able to come... either with a bunch of friends from my gamaing club, or only with my girlfriend, but I should be there on Saturday!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi poil brun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I finally should be able to come... either with a bunch of friends from my gamaing club, or only with my girlfriend, but I should be there on Saturday! *




WOW! FANTASTIC NEWS MATE! 

Look forward to meeting you!

...be sure and let Zander know.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...be sure and let Zander know.  *



I will probably look stupid, but who's Zander?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I will probably look stupid, but who's Zander?  *




I thought he had already emailed you..? Anyway:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17937


----------



## The Serge

Hello, folks...

U_K!  Have you seen the discussion on the WotC Board about Asmodeus and Orcus and their stats for BoVD?  Just was curious as to your thoughts.

Will your _Immortal Handbook_ have stats for gods and god-like entities of your own creation?  If so, will you also have alternative stats for the likes of Arch-fiends and "Arch-Celestials?"


----------



## Upper_Krust

The Serge said:
			
		

> *Hello, folks...*




Hello mate! 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *U_K!  Have you seen the discussion on the WotC Board about Asmodeus and Orcus and their stats for BoVD?*




I saw the Orcus one earlier, just checked and replied to the Asmodeus one.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Just was curious as to your thoughts.*




For a non-epic, non-divine version of Asmodeus I suppose it is pretty good. Though of course Asmodeus should be both 'epic' and 'divine' by my reckoning so he is looking a bit anaemic.

Its a half decent 'Monster Manual' type version though for those who don't have either D&DG or the ELH.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Will your Immortal Handbook have stats for gods and god-like entities of your own creation?*




Yes. Although I am not sure how many I will be able to fit in.

At the very least in Section One (Apotheosis) there will be four Iconic Deity PCs and four examples to explain powers above Greater God (Elder God, Overgod, Entity, Time Lord)

If I get the opportunity to do a fifth Section I hope to detail a lot more deities. Possibly an entire Pantheon.

Incidently I have a relatively large cosmology section that gives a great overview of everything and outlines a number of original Pantheon ideas. As well as a sizeable amount of Pantheon threats: Characters; Monsters; Items; Races; Places etc.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *If so, will you also have alternative stats for the likes of Arch-fiends and "Arch-Celestials?" *




I have the 'Arch-Celestials' detailed in the Monster Section. But unlike Arch-Fiends they are generic rather than individuals, since the forces of good are less selfish by nature.


----------



## poilbrun

Hey Eä, if you're reading this, here's a thread that might have some appeal to you : http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20474


----------



## Necropolis

hi
upper krust i am new here
can you give me some information on your book like list of contents and when it's going to be realesed ?
and if you can howmuch it will cost and if you are going toput it on the www.rpgnow.com website 

p.s. are you going to create archangels and new liches and things like  that ? 
maybe higher level spells liek 10th level and mybe 11th and 12th level ?

thanks


----------



## Anubis

Hey yo UK!

How ya' doing?

Anyway, I have a question.  I know that you are giving gods of different ranks minimum and maximum levels, but I'm a bit confused.

My wizard is about to become a god, and is the Level 40-50 range at the moment.  Does this mean that when she becomes a god, she automatically becomes a Lesser God, or does she lose her extra levels?

Could you explain that part of the system, how it relates to Divine Ranks she should start with, and post the table for determining this?  Not that I'm asking for a lot of spoilers, but although D&D is good, it lacks any detail about how to become a god and how to advance in power as a god, so I was hoping you could enlighten\ me.

For instance, in addition to the above, how many SDAs should she start with, what DR, and so on and so forth?

Thanks!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *hi upper krust*




Hi there! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *i am new here*




Well its always nice to meet new people! I hope you enjoy your time on these boards; there are a lot of great people herein! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *can you give me some information on your book like list of contents*




Sure. Here is a brief overview of the sections. 

*Section 1: Faith*
Rules for Worship & Faiths
Iconic Deities
Divinity Templates
Sample Deities
Over 40 Portfolios detailed
Over 40 new Salient Divine Abilities
Over 40 new Esoteric Divine Abilities
Cosmology
Rules for Pantheons
Types of Pantheons

*Section 2: Magic*
New types of Magic
Over 40 new spells
Rules for Artifact Creation
New types of Artifacts
Over 30 new Weapon Special Abilities 
Over 30 new Armour Special Abilities
Over 40 new Miscellaneous Artifacts

*Section 3: Monsters*
Rules for Monster Creation
Rules for Divine Retinues
Over 40 new Monsters & Templates
Updated Challenge Rating Rules & Addended CRs

*Section 4: Campaigns*
Rules for Realm Creation
New types of Realms
Sample Divine Realms
Campaign Advice Section
Two Introductory Adventures
Threatening Individuals

There may also be a fifth section which would be a sample Pantheon.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *and when it's going to be realesed ?*




I am currently dependant on WotC updating D&Dg into the SRD. It looks like the earliest that will happen is September.

I could have the initial section ready within a week of that happening. 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *and if you can how much it will cost*




The first pdf section (at least 64 pages) will (probably) be $6.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *and if you are going to put it on the www.rpgnow.com website*




Thats the plan for the pdf version.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *p.s. are you going to create archangels and new liches and things like  that ?*




Already have! 

I have the upper echelons of the angelic ranks detailed (the ones above Solars) and I also have lots of new undead to frighten even deities, including a template that you put on top of Demiliches. 

There are some 49 monsters in the book (monster section), although 3 or 4 of those I may use in a free web enhancement or preview. 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *maybe higher level spells liek 10th level and mybe 11th and 12th level ?*




I have over 40 such spells.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *thanks *




Anytime mate - I appreciate the interest!


----------



## Buddha the DM

I am looking forward to your book as well.


----------



## Crothian

How many 64 pg pdf's is this going to be in?  

I think this is one of the most highly waited for pdf's ever, or slightly below Monte's stuff.  Any fear that the expectations are going to be to high?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hey yo UK!*




Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How ya' doing?*




I'm doing great thanks for asking! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I have a question.*




Okay, fire away!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I know that you are giving gods of different ranks minimum and maximum levels, but I'm a bit confused.*




Those are merely for NPC averages. 

I also use Hit Dice to determine the Divine Rank of Outsiders whose power is not primarily derived from worshipers (like the Demon Princes and Archdevils) and vice versa.

But not PCs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My wizard is about to become a god, and is the Level 40-50 range at the moment.  Does this mean that when she becomes a god, she automatically becomes a Lesser God, or does she lose her extra levels?*




No, and no.

Divinity has nothing to do with PC levels.

A typical NPC Lesser God should be between 40-59 Levels/Hit Dice. But my own character, Thrin, is an 80th-level Lesser God.

However PCs derive their divine status from worship points. Worship points are determined through events.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Could you explain that part of the system, how it relates to Divine Ranks she should start with, and post the table for determining this?  Not that I'm asking for a lot of spoilers, but although D&D is good, it lacks any detail about how to become a god and how to advance in power as a god, so I was hoping you could enlighten me.*




This is actually the whole crux of the system - so forgive me if I don't reveal it herein. 

I will say that the amount of worship points gained is determined through Events/Deeds which are subsequently modified by certain factors.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For instance, in addition to the above, how many SDAs should she start with, what DR, and so on and so forth?*




Worship points determine your Divine Rank (like experience points determine level).

Once you know Divine Rank you gain Salient Divine Abilities exactly as outlined in Deities & Demigods. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Thanks! *




Sorry I couldn't reveal more.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *I am looking forward to your book as well.  *




Thanks.

Hello Crothian matey!  



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> *How many 64 pg pdf's is this going to be in?*




Section 1: Worship = 64 pages (at least)
Section 2: Magic = 48 pages
Section 3: Monsters = 64 pages
Section 4: Campaigns = 48 pages

Section 1 should be about $6
Sections 2 & 4 should be about $4.50
Section 3 may be $7.50 (since its going to require lots more artwork)



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> *I think this is one of the most highly waited for pdf's ever, or slightly below Monte's stuff.*




I think Monte gets the lion share of all pdf sales - I would be happy to hang onto his coat tails in that respect.

Hes the d20 designer I respect the most - though for the record I do a better Asmodeus than his version in the Book of Vile Darkness!  



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> *Any fear that the expectations are going to be to high?*




No. It will be the definitive Immortals work.

The only thing that annoys me is that currently the art budget is zero; which effectively means I have to do the art for the pdf. As an artist I am okay, but it galls me that a book like Deities & Demigods gets amazing art even though the content was severely lacking. 

If the pdfs do well hopefully the publisher will determine there is enough impetus to warrant a professional artist (even if it is to remain B&W). Though would many bother since by then I would have already illustrated the whole thing!?  

So if I have any reservations its that my art won't do the work justice.


----------



## Crothian

Who's the publisher?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again mate! 



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> *Who's the publisher? *




No deal has been signed so it would not be proper for me to divulge who just yet.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Once you know Divine Rank you gain Salient Divine Abilities exactly as outlined in Deities & Demigods.
> *




My problem with this is that D&D doesn't tell how to gain SDA, and seems to have no real system, randomly assigning them all.  For instance, how many does a new god start with?  That's nowhere in the book, nor is any system for gaining SDAs . . .

So how would I do that?  Would that much be revealable about how to gain SDAs, as in how many per divine rank, etc.?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My problem with this is that D&D doesn't tell how to gain SDA,*




True to an extent. It does tell you when you gain SDAs - it just doesn't tell you how to gain Divine Ranks...to get SDAs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and seems to have no real system, randomly assigning them all.*




Actually, pg. 32 under the heading "Salient Divine Abilities":

A salient divine ability is like a feat - it gives a deity new capabilities or improves one that the deity already has. *As noted earlier a deity has one salient divine ability for each divine rank the deity has plus additional salient divine abilities reflecting its status: Demigods recieve one bonus ability, lesser deities recieve two bonus abilities; intermediate deities receive three and greater deities receive five.*"



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For instance, how many does a new god start with?*




A Hero-deity has none.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's nowhere in the book, nor is any system for gaining SDAs . . .*




D&Dg page 32.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So how would I do that?*




Gain Worship Points (as per the Immortals Handbook)
Worship Points give you Divine Ranks.
Divine Ranks give you Salient Divine Abilities.

Simple as that.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Would that much be revealable about how to gain SDAs, as in how many per divine rank, etc.? *




DR0 = 0 SDA

DR1 = 2
DR2 = 3
DR3 = 4
DR4 = 5
DR5 = 6

DR6 = 8
DR7 = 9
DR8 = 10
DR9 = 11
DR10 = 12

DR11 = 14
DR12 = 15
DR13 = 16
DR14 = 17
DR15 = 18

DR16 = 21
DR17 = 22
DR18 = 23
DR19 = 24
DR20 = 25

For the record:

Elder Gods DR+7
Overgods  DR+10
Entities DR+13


----------



## The Serge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hes the d20 designer I respect the most - though for the record I do a better Asmodeus than his version in the Book of Vile Darkness!
> [/B]




Really?  When do we get to see this gem?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Serge mate! 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Really?  When do we get to see this gem? *




Well I may include it as one of the sample deities. The Elder God, Overgod, Entity and Time Lord examples are a necessity since no one knows what they are like.

I may also include a Greater God example since my own treatment of greater gods is slightly different. This would be Wotan - since that lets me rework Odin without actually reworking him.

So I may include samples for the other measures of power, although I don't want to step on the toes of the Iconics characters.

One option would be to use Ahriman as the Overgod example, then you can simply determine Asmodeus stats from that (Asmodeus would be the Avatar of the Avatar in that case). 

But I had another deity in mind for that example and I am not convinced (at the moment) if Ahriman is best served as an Overgod anyway?


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

Hi Upper Krust! I finally got Deities and Demigods as my birthday gift, along with ELH and I rather agree with you that there should be only one Greater God per pantheon. I decided to rework The Greek Pantheon a bit, I found it annoying that half of Deities there has Divine Rank of 15.

Zeus, Divine Rank 17(hit dice 100), I dropped him despite your suggestions to leave Pantheon heads as they are, for I think that alliance between, let`s say Hades and Poseidon, should be able to threaten Zeus.
Poseidon and Hades, DVR 15, HD of 85( as rulers of kingdoms of water and earth).
Hera, Athena, DVR 14, HD of 80 Hera is The Queen Of Gods and Athena has the broadest portfolio in Pantheon.
Apollo, DVR 13, HD of 75, important and vast portfolios.
Aphrodite, Ares,  DVR 12, HD 70, Love and War are important portfolios.
Hermes, Demeter, DVR 11, HD 65, both are likely to be commonly worshipped by those that depend upon them( Hermes: thieves and merchants, Demeter: farmers).
Arthemis, DVR 10, HD 60, Hunting and Childbith are rather Lesser than Intermediate concepts.
Dionisos, DVR 9, mostly worshipped by his dedicated followers
Hecate, DVR 8, HD 50, not even an Olympian Deity.
Hestia, DVR 7, HD 45.
Tyche, DVR 6, HD 40
Hercules, DVR 5, HD 40
Pan, DVR 4, HD 37
Nike, DVR 3, HD 35

Do you think that this is more logical than Deities and Demigods version( I have used your Hit Dice averages corresponding to Divine Rank). And by the way, Upper Krust, what is your opinion on ELH? I personally like it, though some Epic Spells seem a bit underpowered compared to their DC( unless you give every epic spellcaster magic items with bonuses to Spellcraft).


----------



## The Serge

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Serge mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Well I may include it as one of the sample deities. The Elder God, Overgod, Entity and Time Lord examples are a necessity since no one knows what they are like.
> 
> I may also include a Greater God example since my own treatment of greater gods is slightly different. This would be Wotan - since that lets me rework Odin without actually reworking him.
> 
> So I may include samples for the other measures of power, although I don't want to step on the toes of the Iconics characters.
> 
> One option would be to use Ahriman as the Overgod example, then you can simply determine Asmodeus stats from that (Asmodeus would be the Avatar of the Avatar in that case).
> 
> But I had another deity in mind for that example and I am not convinced (at the moment) if Ahriman is best served as an Overgod anyway? *




If he's not an Overgod, how would you rank Ahriman?  Personally (and I'm being entirely selfish), I think Ahriman would be an excellent choice since I am curious to see _your_Asmodeus.

Who else were you thinking of?  Not the entity that created both Ahura Mazda and Ahriman (in some Zoroasterinian myths, I think Ormazd created the two and, although he's more "neutral" than good, he wants "good" to win...).  Surely, he's higher than that, right?

Gaia or Uranus.  I've always seen the two of them as greater than the Olympians (not necessarily Uranus as Chronus castrated him ).


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> 
> 
> True to an extent. It does tell you when you gain SDAs - it just doesn't tell you how to gain Divine Ranks...to get SDAs.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, pg. 32 under the heading "Salient Divine Abilities":
> 
> A salient divine ability is like a feat - it gives a deity new capabilities or improves one that the deity already has. As noted earlier a deity has one salient divine ability for each divine rank the deity has plus additional salient divine abilities reflecting its status: Demigods recieve one bonus ability, lesser deities recieve two bonus abilities; intermediate deities receive three and greater deities receive five."
> 
> 
> 
> A Hero-deity has none.
> 
> 
> 
> D&Dg page 32.
> 
> 
> 
> Gain Worship Points (as per the Immortals Handbook)
> Worship Points give you Divine Ranks.
> Divine Ranks give you Salient Divine Abilities.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> DR0 = 0 SDA
> 
> DR1 = 2
> DR2 = 3
> DR3 = 4
> DR4 = 5
> DR5 = 6
> 
> DR6 = 8
> DR7 = 9
> DR8 = 10
> DR9 = 11
> DR10 = 12
> 
> DR11 = 14
> DR12 = 15
> DR13 = 16
> DR14 = 17
> DR15 = 18
> 
> DR16 = 21
> DR17 = 22
> DR18 = 23
> DR19 = 24
> DR20 = 25
> 
> For the record:
> 
> Elder Gods DR+7
> Overgods  DR+10
> Entities DR+13 *




WOW!  I didn't see that when I was reading through the book before!  I kept searching and searching and just couldn't find it before!

Thanks for pointing out where it is for me!  You're the best!

Unfortunately, I now have one more question, this one more from my DM . . . How do you handle ability score increases for deities?  I KNOW D&D doesn't cover this one, although if it doesn, merely point me to the right page.

How many ability score points does one get upon achieving godhood, and how often does he or she gain points?  Once I have this, I think I can finally ascend to godhood.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Melkor said:
			
		

> *Hi Upper Krust!*




Hi Melkor mate! 

Hope you have been keeping well mate!?



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *I finally got Deities and Demigods as my birthday gift,*




Happy Birthday mate! 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *along with ELH*




DOH! Someone else with the ELH while I sit here floundering (I should have it by Saturday at the latest - or so I have been told).



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *and I rather agree with you that there should be only one Greater God per pantheon.*




As a general rule yes.

Though I could see Pantheons ruled by twin gods, or some other sort of cabal that would permit more than one. However, in cases with more than one Greater God in a Pantheon they will be relatively weaker than a monarch that is unchallenged.

ie. I would give Greater Gods in a Pantheon a total of 4 Divine Ranks above 15.

eg. 
- Odin DR19
- Zeus DR17, Poseidon DR16, Hades DR16.
- Ahriman DR17, Ormazd DR17
- Ra DR18, Osiris DR16.
- Brahma DR17, Vishnu DR16, Shiva DR16.

It was stupid of TSR to introduce the Intermediate Status then not use it properly.



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *I decided to rework The Greek Pantheon a bit, I found it annoying that half of Deities there has Divine Rank of 15.*




Deities & Demigods is a bit of a mess. Personally I hate the way pretty much all the deities have the same HD/Levels (with a few exceptions).



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Zeus, Divine Rank 17(hit dice 100), I dropped him despite your suggestions to leave Pantheon heads as they are, for I think that alliance between, let`s say Hades and Poseidon, should be able to threaten Zeus.
> Poseidon and Hades, DVR 15, HD of 85( as rulers of kingdoms of water and earth).*




I would elevate Poseidon and Hades to DR16 if you are going to lower Zeus.

Though personally I prefer Zeus at DR19, but I just like him up there with Odin. 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Hera, Athena, DVR 14, HD of 80 Hera is The Queen Of Gods and Athena has the broadest portfolio in Pantheon.
> 
> Apollo, DVR 13, HD of 75, important and vast portfolios.
> 
> Aphrodite, Ares,  DVR 12, HD 70, Love and War are important portfolios.
> 
> Hermes, Demeter, DVR 11, HD 65, both are likely to be commonly worshipped by those that depend upon them( Hermes: thieves and merchants, Demeter: farmers).
> 
> Arthemis, DVR 10, HD 60, Hunting and Childbirth are rather Lesser than Intermediate concepts.
> 
> Dionisos, DVR 9, mostly worshipped by his dedicated followers
> 
> Hecate, DVR 8, HD 50, not even an Olympian Deity.
> 
> Hestia, DVR 7, HD 45.
> 
> Tyche, DVR 6, HD 40
> 
> Hercules, DVR 5, HD 40
> 
> Pan, DVR 4, HD 37
> 
> Nike, DVR 3, HD 35*




As a general rule I would drop every deity in D&Dg by 3 DR with the exceptions of Pantheon Heads (or those you want to be Greater Gods) and Demigods.



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Do you think that this is more logical than Deities and Demigods version *




Anything is more logical than that! 

You went up a bit high on the intermediate and greater deities (my suggested averages are).

DR11 60-63 HD
DR12 64-67 HD
DR13 68-71 HD
DR14 72-75 HD
DR15 76-79 HD

DR16 80-87 HD
DR17 88-95 HD
DR18 96-103 HD
DR19 104-111 HD
DR20 112-119 HD

DR21 120-127 HD

DR26 160-175 HD

DR31 240-255 HD

DR36 320-351 HD



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *(I have used your Hit Dice averages corresponding to Divine Rank).*




Appreciate the love mate! 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *And by the way, Upper Krust, what is your opinion on ELH?*




I'll let you know when I get it! 

From what I know a number of the Challenge Ratings could use my touch. 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *I personally like it, though some Epic Spells seem a bit underpowered compared to their DC( unless you give every epic spellcaster magic items with bonuses to Spellcraft). *




The Epic Spell section is one of the areas I am most looking forward too.

Incidently I have an idea to determine Pantheon Size. A Pantheon has as many members as its ruler has Divine Ranks (not counting Hero-deities). Greater Gods don't count towards this.

eg. Odin DR19 means the Norse Pantheon could have 19 other deities under his leadership.

This actually works quite well - older deities that have faded away become Hero-deities (Einheriar, Valkyries etc.).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Serge mate! 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *If he's not an Overgod, how would you rank Ahriman? *




Maybe as a Divine Rank 17 Greater God with his brother Ormazd at the same level of power? The two ruling the Persian Pantheon.

The Persian Pantheon is a bit of a bastard though. I'm just not totally convinced yet one way or the other.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Personally (and I'm being entirely selfish), I think Ahriman would be an excellent choice since I am curious to see yourAsmodeus.*








			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Who else were you thinking of?*




I wanted one 'Uber-deity' from each of the Egyptian; Greek and Norse Pantheons to 'feed off' D&Dg material.

eg. Surtur is a Norse Elder God.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Not the entity that created both Ahura Mazda and Ahriman (in some Zoroasterinian myths, I think Ormazd created the two and, although he's more "neutral" than good, he wants "good" to win...).  Surely, he's higher than that, right?*




Zurvan/Eternity is mentioned, but isn't the 'Entity' example I am using.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Gaia or Uranus.  I've always seen the two of them as greater than the Olympians (not necessarily Uranus as Chronus castrated him ). *




Well Gaia is an Avatar of...


----------



## Anubis

On a somewhat unrelated note, as this question is about epic characters more than gods, how much equipment should epic PC and epic NPCs start with?

The ELH only goes up to Level 40, and there is absolutely NO system for getting the numbers they come up with.

Here is the table for PCs:

21: 975,000
22: 1,200,000
23: 1,500,000
24: 1,800,000
25: 2,100,000
26: 2,500,000
27: 2,900,000
28: 3,300,000
29: 3,800,000
30: 4,300,000
31: 4,900,000
32: 5,600,000
33: 6,300,000
34: 7,000,000
35: 7,900,000
36: 8,800,000
37: 9,900,000
38: 11,000,000
39: 12,300,000
40: 13,600,000

See?  NO system WHATSOEVER!  Just random numbers!

Here is the NPC table, which only goes to Level 30:

21: 240,000
22: 265,000
23: 290,000
24: 320,000
25: 350,000
26: 390,000
27: 430,000
28: 470,000
29: 520,000
30: 570,000

This time, however, the book DOES tell what to do about higher levels, saying "If you're creating an NPC of higher than 30th level, simply continue the progression, increasing the treasure value by about 10% from the previous level."

That's good, but my problem here is that these NPCs are SEVERELY underpowered.  There is NO WAY a Level 30 NPC could compete with a Level 30 PC using this table, so it's obviously broken.  (The obvious solution is to simply use the PC table for both PCs and NPCs.)

Anyway, would you suggest the +10% per level to PCs as well, or do you have some better system that would work out better?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis! 

I have my reply to your earlier post ready (about Ability Scores) - but I want to work on it - I had a few new ideas just there now.

Incidently I think I have a solution to the PC wealth tables.

Try:

Level x Level x Level x Level x 5 GP

...?

Anyway...think its time I got my dinner.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *WOW!  I didn't see that when I was reading through the book before!  I kept searching and searching and just couldn't find it before!
> 
> Thanks for pointing out where it is for me!  You're the best!*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Unfortunately, I now have one more question,*




Sure, fire away! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *this one more from my DM . . .*




Hello Anubis' DM! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How do you handle ability score increases for deities?  I KNOW D&D doesn't cover this one, although if it does, merely point me to the right page.*




No, it doesn't cover this.

I suggest:

+6 Divine Bonus to Every Ability Score

+5 Inherant Bonus to Every Ability Score (Unless already benefitted from wishes etc.)

eg. If you have already raised Strength with 2 wishes you only get +3 more to strength.

You still gain your +1 bonus per 4 Class Levels

Also you gain +1 bonus per Divine Rank

So 20th-level Fighter
Str 18 +6 (24) +5 (29) then another +5 from 20 Class Levels (34)
Dex 16 +6 (22) +5 (27)
Con 16 +6 (22) +5 (27)
Int 11 +6 (17) +5 (22)
Wis 13 +6 (19) +5 (24)
Cha 11 +6 (17) +5 (22)

An optional idea is to allow the +6 Divine Bonus to be spread by removing two and adding one to other scores.

eg. The fighter may want to put +12 Divine Bonus into Strength. This means he only gains +4 Divine Bonus to every other score. 

Str 18 +12 (30) +5 (35) then another +5 from 20 Class Levels (40)
Dex 16 + 4 (20) +5 (25)
Con 16 + 4 (20) +5 (25)
Int 11 +4 (15) +5 (20)
Wis 13 +4 (17) +5 (22)
Cha 11 +4 (15) +5 (20)

This way a deity like Bhagtru (of the Orcs) can pump more into Strength and not have to worry about improving silly things like Intelligence! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How many ability score points does one get upon achieving godhood, and how often does he or she gain points?*




Class Levels continue as before. +1 (total) per 4 Levels

You also gain +1 (total) per Divine Rank.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Once I have this, I think I can finally ascend to godhood. *






The reason I delayed this post was that I wanted to check on the Solar. As I see it now the Solar is NOT a Hero-deity until it actually gains the above increase to ability scores.

Even D&Dg is confused on the issue of whether Quasi-deities gain ability score increases (Valkyries do have them and Einheriar don't).

So the Solar (Hero-deity) would have:

Str: 39 (equal to a Storm Giants*)
Dex: 31
Con: 31
Int: 34
Wis: 36
Cha: 36

*As per 1st Ed. coincidently.

The Solars CR becomes 23 (standard) and 26 (Hero-deity)


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, all! 

Anubis: The PC wealth table actually goes up by 10% by level, too, rounded to the nearest 10,000. I'm pretty sure something along this line is said in the Epic Adventures chapter.

Upper_Krust: I'm still not fully convinced that there should be one greater god per pantheon, though I do agree that the D&DG overdoes it (both in terms of the number of Greater Gods and the similarity of total levels of the gods. There should be greater diversity). I like the idea of using the pantheon head's DvR to determine pantheon size, though! 
(We could really run wild with those Divine Ranks, using the portfolio (or concepts) of the gods to determine their DvR! )


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, all! *




Hi Knight Otu mate! 

Apolgies for the slow response. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Anubis: The PC wealth table actually goes up by 10% by level, too, rounded to the nearest 10,000. I'm pretty sure something along this line is said in the Epic Adventures chapter.*




Two more days and I'll either have the book or strangle my supplier! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust: I'm still not fully convinced that there should be one greater god per pantheon,*




Well I outlined above how you could have have more than one in some cases.

I did some poking around and Pantheons should have (on average) about 5 Billion WP (or just shy of that).



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *though I do agree that the D&DG overdoes it (both in terms of the number of Greater Gods and the similarity of total levels of the gods. There should be greater diversity).*




The deities were very poorly handled all round in that book.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I like the idea of using the pantheon head's DvR to determine pantheon size, though! *




Just a simple idea to try and balance Pantheons for those important all out Pantheon Wars! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *(We could really run wild with those Divine Ranks, using the portfolio (or concepts) of the gods to determine their DvR! ) *




Not sure I follow you mate?


----------



## Anubis

Speaking of portfolios, how many does a new deity start with, and how does a deity gain new portfolios as he or she gains power?

I know this was covered before, but I can't remember . . . Thus far, my ascended character is DR 2 and has two portfolios only.  Is that right?  Should she have more?  Less?

Thanks for your time, UK!

Also, has anyone else noticed that if an Ascended Epic Level Character of near equal levels to any of the D&D deities ever got into a fight with any of those deities, almost regardless of DR, the Ascended Epic Level Character would likely win mainly due to the sheer power of the ELH stuff?

My DR 2 Xun Huo, goddess of magic and knowledge, is teaming up with a few other newbie gods, and we're planning on ousting both the Greyhawk AND Forgotten Realms pantheons . . .

(They're the only pantheons left because the Epic Level CHARACTER (NOT deity), Level 150 Vampire "Quickly" (named thus for his tendancies to QUICKLY kill you in a fight), wiped out every other pantheon single-handedly . . . (It WAS funny how I fought him once at about Level 14, I was young and stupid, tried to stuff him in a Bag of Holding and toss him into a Portable Hole . . . Unfortunately, him having 80 Levels in Wizard and all, of course he had a clone waiting . . . Those two Quickened Disintegrates were a bitch!)

By the way, unfortunately for all, he IS a god now . . . Hehehe . . . Thankfully, he's also our tactician . . . Those pantheons are SO dead . . .

The in-game reason for this is because we feel the "old-school" gods (read: ones without ELH stuff) were too weak and had outlived their usefulness, so we're gonna take their worshippers and their Divine Ranks and their lives.  The real-life reason is that my DM wants to "clean the slate" because he only wants original gods in his world now.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Speaking of portfolios, how many does a new deity start with, and how does a deity gain new portfolios as he or she gains power?*




I suggest that the deity begin with two (one chosen by the DM the other by the player).

You have to use Salient Divine Ability slots to gain more (Portfolios are now closely tied to Domains).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I know this was covered before, but I can't remember . . . Thus far, my ascended character is DR 2 and has two portfolios only.  Is that right?  Should she have more?  Less?*




I suggest starting with two. 

D&Dg suggests starting with three.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Thanks for your time, UK!*




Anytime mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, has anyone else noticed that if an Ascended Epic Level Character of near equal levels to any of the D&D deities ever got into a fight with any of those deities, almost regardless of DR, the Ascended Epic Level Character would likely win mainly due to the sheer power of the ELH stuff?*




There is no way a deity should ever get beaten by an epic character of the same level - divinity gives you too much additional power.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My DR 2 Xun Huo, goddess of magic and knowledge, is teaming up with a few other newbie gods, and we're planning on ousting both the Greyhawk AND Forgotten Realms pantheons . . .
> 
> (They're the only pantheons left because the Epic Level CHARACTER (NOT deity), Level 150 Vampire "Quickly" (named thus for his tendancies to QUICKLY kill you in a fight), wiped out every other pantheon single-handedly . . . (It WAS funny how I fought him once at about Level 14, I was young and stupid, tried to stuff him in a Bag of Holding and toss him into a Portable Hole . . . Unfortunately, him having 80 Levels in Wizard and all, of course he had a clone waiting . . . Those two Quickened Disintegrates were a bitch!)
> 
> By the way, unfortunately for all, he IS a god now . . . Hehehe . . . Thankfully, he's also our tactician . . . Those pantheons are SO dead . . .
> 
> The in-game reason for this is because we feel the "old-school" gods (read: ones without ELH stuff) were too weak and had outlived their usefulness, so we're gonna take their worshippers and their Divine Ranks and their lives.  The real-life reason is that my DM wants to "clean the slate" because he only wants original gods in his world now. *




Killing a god is easy if you have the firepower (Doomstar killed Anu on his home plane with a Magic Missile spell).

But killing a Pantheon is another matter entirely. Considering you have about 20 deities to face, hundreds of hero-deities, hundreds of champions, thousands of servants and millions of worshippers.

But have fun!


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *There is no way a deity should ever get beaten by an epic character of the same level - divinity gives you too much additional power. *




Well, once you read the ELH, you'll see why Epic Level Characters could beat the deities of equal level into bloody pulps.  Lots of good  there.  POWER . . . 





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Killing a god is easy if you have the firepower (Doomstar killed Anu on his home plane with a Magic Missile spell). *




Magic MIssile?  What'd he do, Empower Spell up to a 70th level spell?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *But killing a Pantheon is another matter entirely. Considering you have about 20 deities to face, hundreds of hero-deities, hundreds of champions, thousands of servants and millions of worshippers.
> 
> But have fun!  *




Yeah, that's the fun of it!  It'll take strategy, that's for sure . . . But with Quickly on our side, all of them together don't have enough firepower to stop us!


----------



## Knight Otu

(posting from my uncle's PC)

Hi, all! 



> Two more days and I'll either have the book or strangle my supplier!



Wouldn't that mean that you'd never get the book?



> Not sure I follow you mate



I was refering to my "Concepts" idea I posted earlier in this thread, though somewhat expanded. Say you have a god that represents two Greater concepts, which may be the equivalent of 9 DvR, and no other concepts, this god is DvR 18.
Of course, I was mostly joking, so it may be better for our all sanity if we just ignore this idea. 



> Well, once you read the ELH, you'll see why Epic Level Characters could beat the deities of equal level into bloody pulps.



Well, I disagree, and I do have the ELH.
You may want to read this thread on the WotC boards: http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=222;t=000399


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well, once you read the ELH, you'll see why Epic Level Characters could beat the deities of equal level into bloody pulps.  Lots of good  there.  POWER . . .  *




I could never see a 70th-level epic character defeating Zeus! It just won't happen!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Magic MIssile?  What'd he do, Empower Spell up to a 70th level spell? *




Remember this wasn't 3rd Ed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yeah, that's the fun of it!  It'll take strategy, that's for sure . . . But with Quickly on our side, all of them together don't have enough firepower to stop us! *




Obviously I am not privvy to all the campaign details but it would seem logical (under the circumstances) to assume that Pantheons faced with a threat like Quickly & Co. would join forces. You don't live for thousands of years just to roll over and die. As soon as Quickly's intentions became clear multiple Pantheons would side with each other to preserve the _status quo_.

Doomstar was almost caught in a similar position. Though he was a bit more circumspect knowing that while he could defeat most gods individually he would be vulnerable if they attacked _en masse_. So after his initial assault (Killing Anu, then later Marduk) he established his terms, drawing a line in the sand so to speak. So there is something of a Cold War between the Gods and Doomstar over the world of Ea (our main campaign world).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *(posting from my uncle's PC)*




Hi, all! 

Hello Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Wouldn't that mean that you'd never get the book?*




I never got it today - though I have been told it has arrived and by Monday it will be in the store. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I was refering to my "Concepts" idea I posted earlier in this thread, though somewhat expanded. Say you have a god that represents two Greater concepts, which may be the equivalent of 9 DvR, and no other concepts, this god is DvR 18.
> 
> Of course, I was mostly joking, so it may be better for our all sanity if we just ignore this idea. *




Actually I have an idea very similar to this, related to Portfolios.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Addendum*

Actually I made a mistake in the Ability Score assignment for Divinity.

It should be:

+10 Divine Bonus to EACH ability score

+5 Inherant Bonus to EACH ability score (doesn't stack with previous inherant bonuses)

+1 Divine Bonus TOTAL per Divine Rank

+1/4 Class Levels (as always)

So:

eg. Duke of Hell (Huge Pit Fiend Quasi-deity)

21HD (410hp)
STR: 48
DEX: 26
CON: 40
INT: 35
WIS: 35
CHA: 31

eg. Solar (Large Quasi-deity)

22HD (363hp)
STR: 43
DEX: 35
CON: 35
INT: 38
WIS: 40
CHA: 40

eg. Bahamuts Bodyguards (7 in total)
(Colossal Great Wyrm Gold Dragon Quasi-deities)

41HD (1045hp)
STR: 62
DEX: 25
CON: 48
INT: 47
WIS: 48
CHA: 47


----------



## Impeesa

Refresh my memory... what happens to a god who loses all of their worshippers save for a few hundred devotees? With the impending release of d20 Modern (and with any luck, the IH ), I have suddenly become taken with the idea of a campaign in which the players are old gods (Norse, Greek, etc.) in a modern day setting. Something like this comic, except that this party of gods would primarily be concerned with fending off boredom, other less scrupulous gods who have also survived this long, and the curious eyes of certain mortals (they're still gods, but far from invincible). 

Maybe I'm just crazy.

--Impeesa--


----------



## Buddha the DM

*Re: Addendum*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Actually I made a mistake in the Ability Score assignment for Divinity.
> 
> It should be:
> 
> +10 Divine Bonus to EACH ability score
> 
> +5 Inherant Bonus to EACH ability score (doesn't stack with previous inherant bonuses)
> 
> +1 Divine Bonus TOTAL per Divine Rank
> *




So this supercedes the information that you gave me previously? That information having been the following:

+6 Divine Bonus to Ability Scores
+5 Inherent Bonus to Ability Scores (check against existing inherent bonuses)
+21 floating ability score points (assign as desired)
+1 point / Divine Rank (assign as desired; in this you get 0 extra points)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Refresh my memory... what happens to a god who loses all of their worshippers save for a few hundred devotees?*




Well it sort of depends on the balance between worship and siphoned energy.

But unless the deity encounters a worship points vacuum (siphoned energy takes WP total to negatives) I would allow the deity to sustain itself at Quasi-deity status.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *With the impending release of d20 Modern*




I am looking forward to this book myself.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *(and with any luck, the IH ),*








			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *I have suddenly become taken with the idea of a campaign in which the players are old gods (Norse, Greek, etc.) in a modern day setting. Something like this comic, except that this party of gods would primarily be concerned with fending off boredom, other less scrupulous gods who have also survived this long, and the curious eyes of certain mortals (they're still gods, but far from invincible).
> 
> Maybe I'm just crazy. *




Sounds interesting.

A little bit like Highlander. 

We had a similar adventure on Earth 2020 (the Cyberpunk world). The main thing to remember is to make technological weapons a credible threat to deities.

Looking at CoC d20 the damages for the weapons there are a little weak against deities. So it will be interesting to see how d20 Modern handles things.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Addendum*

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *So this supercedes the information that you gave me previously? That information having been the following:
> 
> +6 Divine Bonus to Ability Scores
> +5 Inherent Bonus to Ability Scores (check against existing inherent bonuses)
> +21 floating ability score points (assign as desired)
> +1 point / Divine Rank (assign as desired; in this you get 0 extra points) *




At the moment I am tinkering around with a number of ideas so I will likely have multiple methods in the book.

The Divine Array is: 40*, 28, 25, 24, 24, 24.

*WotCs Rich Redman posted that the first attribute should be 35. Which means they are handing out +1 ability score bonus per 4 Outsider HD in that book, and you're not meant to gain ability score bonuses for Hit Dice as far as I know!?

The problem with the divine array is manifold:

- It doesn't explain what happens to beings who already have superior scores (eg. Great Wyrm Dragon). These beings should not be punished for divinity. Nor should they be limited to certain scores to let weaker beings 'catch up'.

- It also doesn't allow for divine fallibilities; beings like Bahgtru; Hercules and Thor should not have Einstein level intellect.

- It does'nt allow you to mold the abilities to your requirements. 

The best method is:

+63 Divine Bonus (TOTAL) as you see fit.
+5 Inherant Bonus to EACH ability score.
+1 Divine Bonus (TOTAL) per Divine Rank.
+1 Bonus per 4 Class Levels.

However, its actually beneficial to 'shore up' your weaknesses, or at the very least keep them comparative.

Also its going to be quicker and easier for DMs if its +10 Divine Bonus to EACH ability score.

If we examine Bahamuts strength hes actually relatively weak. He has Str 53, but he gains +32 Str for his Colossal Size. So hes only Str 21 really. Similarly, Dex 18 and Con 23. So already he has 3 scores under the minimum of the Divine Array.


----------



## Buddha the DM

I see. WotC should've noted the benefits for Divine Ascension in D&Dg if only in a sidebar.


----------



## Anubis

WHOA WHOA WHOA!

Dammit, right when I finally had my Xun Huo finish, you change the rules on me.  So it's +10 instead of +6?  I guess that's okay, although it just makes me even more powerful.

Anyway, what is this crap about Divine Array and 35 and whatever?  When my character ascended, I just kept her with the stats she already had, and then added the bonuses you had spoken about.  Did I do it wrong?

What's up with all that?  It's confusing . . .


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *I see. WotC should've noted the benefits for Divine Ascension in D&Dg if only in a sidebar. *




I agree - I should have all their mistakes/omissions addended in the IH.


----------



## Anubis

*Xun Huo*

Here she is, my goddess, Xun Huo!



*Xun Huo*
_Goddess of the Arcane, Lady Sorceress, Mana Warlord_
Demigod
Symbol: Crossed staves on top of an eye with a katana going through the middle
Home Plane: Prime Plane
Alignment: Neutral
Portfolio: Magic, Knowledge
Worshippers: Wizards, sorcerers, philosophers, sages, politicians, tacticians, artisans
Cleric Alignments: CN, LN, N, NG, NE
Domains: Magic, Knowledge, War
Favored Weapon: Katana

*Xun Huo, Goddess of Magic:* Female Demigod Wiz40; DvR 2; CR 34; Medium-Size Outsider; HD 40d4+680; hp 840; Init +17; Spd 60 ft.; AC 51 (touch 49, flat-footed 38); Atk +58/+53 melee (1d10+15/19-20/x2 crit, katana) or +70 ranged (1d8+15/19-20/x2 crit, light crossbow); SA Domain powers, salient divine abilities, spell-like abilities; SQ Summon familiar (toad), immunities, DR 37/+4, fire resistance 22, godly realm, teleport without error at will, familiar (felines), divine aura 20 ft. (DC 26); SR 50; AL N; SV Fort +60, Ref +56, Will +60; Str 30, Dex 30 (36), Con 32 (44), Int 37 (49), Wis 32, Cha 26 (38). 5'5", 121 lb., Com 85.

_Skills and Feats:_ Concentration +102, Craft (weaponsmithing +66, Gather Information +27, Knowledge (politics) +64, Knowledge (war) +64, Knowledge (arcana) +104, Spellcraft +104, Knowledge (planes) +57, Iaijutsu Focus +72, Tumble +71, Jump +26, Balance +29, Diplomacy +28; Scribe Scroll, Improved Initiative, Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana), Weapon Focus (katana), Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, Quicken Spell, Forge Ring, Energy Substitution (acid), Energy Admixture (acid), Improved Spell Capacity, Spell Mastery, Epic Spellcasting, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, Improved Metamagic, Improved Metamagic, Improved Metamagic, Forge Epic Ring, Magical Artisan (forge epic ring), Efficient Item Creation (forge epic ring), Enhance Spell, Multispell, Intensify Spell.

_Salient Divine Abilities:_ Arcane Mastery, Divine Spellcasting, Divine Blast.

_Possessions:_ Souldrinker Blade {Souldrinker Katana}, Light Crossbow +10 of Acidic Splash, 50 Crossbow Bolts +5, Robe of Protection {Robe of Armor +10, Resistance +5}, Xun Huo's Outfit, Heward's Handy Haverack, Portable Hole, Rod of the Epic Spellcaster, Staff of Rapid Barrage (50), Brooch of Dumb Luck +20 {+20 luck bonus to saves}, Martial Vest +20 {+20 luck bonus to attack}, Headband of Epic Intellect +12, Boots of Swiftness, Bracers of Epic Health +12, Cloak of Epic Charisma +12, Ring of Elemental Immunity (sonic), Spikard {described below}. 328,970 gp, 5 sp. Load: 40 lbs.

_Epic Spells:_ Peripety, Epic Mage Armor, Destroy {descibed below}, Mass Frog, Verdigris, Superb Dispelling, Explodet {descibed below}, Epic Counterspell, Epic Spell Reflection, Hellball, Kinetic Control.

_Spell Prepared (4/9/9/9/8/8/8/8/7/7/7/7/5/5/5/5/3/3/3/3):_ [Base DC 27]; 0--Daze (4); 1--Magic Missile (9); 2--Magic Missile [Empower] (9); 3--Fireball (3), Slow (3), Vampiric Touch (3); 4--Fireball [Maximize] (4), Vampiric Touch [Maximize] (4); 5--Cone of Cold (4), Fireball [Enhance, Maximize] (4); 6--Disintegrate (8); 7--Finger of Death (2), Fireball [Enhance, Energy Admixture (acid), Maximize, Empower] (3), Cone of Cold [Enhance, Maximize] (3); 8--Cone of Cold [Enhance, Energy Admixture (acid), Maximize] (2), Fireball [Enhance, Energy Admixure (acid), Maximize, Empower x2] (3), Horrid Wilting (2); 9--Horrid Wilting [Maximize] (3), Meteor Swarm (4); 10--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize] (2), Meteor Swarm [Maximize] (3), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x5] (2); 11--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower] (2), Magic Missile [Maximize, Empower x9] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x6] (3); 12--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x2] (2), Magic Missile [Maximize, Empower x10] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x7] (2); 13--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x3] (2), Meteor Swarm [Intensify] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x8] (2); 14--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x4] (3), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] (2); 15--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x5] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x10] (3); 16--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x6] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] (1); 17--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x7] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x12] (2); 18--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x8] (2), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x13] (1); 19--Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] (1), Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x14] (2); Epic--Destroy (4), Epic Mage Armor (1), Explodet (2), Kinetic Control (3).

*Spikard:* SR 50, +5 resistance bonus to save, +5 deflection bonus to AC, "Haste" continuous, "Fly" continuous, Spellcraft +40, Knowledge (arcana) +40, Concentration +40, Iaijutsu Focus +40, Tumble +40. GP Value: 1,360,000.

*Destroy:*
	Transmutation
	Spellcraft DC: 49
	Components: V, S
	Casting Time: 1 action
	Range: 12,000 ft.
	Target: One creature, or up to a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter
	Duration: Instantaneous
	Saving Throw: Fortitude half
	Spell Resistance: Yes
	To Develop: 441,000 gp; 9 days; 17,640 XP.  Seed: destroy (DC 29).  Factor: 1-action casting time (+20 DC).

	The target of this spell explodes, taking 20d6 points of damage.  If the target is reduced to -10 hit points or less (or a construct, object, or undead is reduced to 0 hit points), it is utterly destroyed as if disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust.

*Explodet:*
	Transmutation
	Spellcraft DC: 69
	Components: V, S
	Casting Time: 1 action
	Range: 12,000 ft.
	Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
	Duration: Instantaneous
	Saving Throw: Fortitude half
	Spell Resistance: Yes
	To Develop: 621,000 gp; 13 days; 24,840 XP.  Seed: destroy (DC 29).  Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), change target to area of 20-ft. spread (+10 DC), increase damage die to d8 (+10 DC).

	This spell causes a massive explosion, dealing 20d8 points of damage to everything within the area.  Those reduced to -10 hit points or less (or constructs, objects, or undead reduced to 0 hit points) are utterly destroyed as if disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust.



Xun Huo (pronounced Sun Hu-Oh) was played from Level 10.  She got to where she is using all current rules, and she even has the suggested amount of wealth as per the ELH, which in this case is 13,600,000 gp.  I also incorporation UK's CR system as shown in Asgard 6, and used UK's form of divine ascension for things such as ability scores and such.

Whatcha think, people?  UK, I'd especially like to hear your opinion of her, as she would not be without your help.  THIS is why I said Epic Level Deities could beat normal Deities as in the D&Dg no problem.  Just as she is she has nearly as much power as Boccob!

Her first target will be Orcus . . . After that, probably Tiamat and then Bahamut . . .


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *WHOA WHOA WHOA!*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Dammit, right when I finally had my Xun Huo finish, you change the rules on me.  So it's +10 instead of +6? *




Remember a few posts ago when I mentioned I already had the ability score post typed, I actually had that at +10 at that stage, but I changed it when I saw how badass Pit Fiend and Solars become. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I guess that's okay, although it just makes me even more powerful.*




Thats the spirit! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, what is this crap about Divine Array and 35 and whatever?*




The Divine Array is the (albeit unofficial) explanation from Rich Redman (co-writer of Deities & Demigods) for what happens to ability scores after Divine Ascension.

Technically it has its problems (some of which I outlined earlier).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *When my character ascended, I just kept her with the stats she already had, and then added the bonuses you had spoken about.  Did I do it wrong?
> 
> What's up with all that?  It's confusing . . . *




No I had a temporary change of heart when I saw the stats for the Pit Fiend Quasi-deity. But you have to stand by your convictions.

Typical Human Ability Scores

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

After Divine Ascension (& 20 class levels)

30 (35), 29, 28, 27, 25, 23

Typical Pit Fiend Ability Scores

25, 13, 21, 20, 20, 16

After Divine Ascension +20HD (& Huge Size Increase)

48 (40), 28 (26), 36 (40), 35, 35, 31

WOTC Divine Array 

40, 28, 25, 24, 24, 24


----------



## Impeesa

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well it sort of depends on the balance between worship and siphoned energy.
> 
> But unless the deity encounters a worship points vacuum (siphoned energy takes WP total to negatives) I would allow the deity to sustain itself at Quasi-deity status.
> *




Siphoned energy being, what, sort of a 'divine upkeep'? 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Sounds interesting.
> 
> A little bit like Highlander.
> 
> We had a similar adventure on Earth 2020 (the Cyberpunk world). The main thing to remember is to make technological weapons a credible threat to deities.
> 
> Looking at CoC d20 the damages for the weapons there are a little weak against deities. So it will be interesting to see how d20 Modern handles things. *




Heh, if they've let things get out of hand enough that they're being shot at, they deserve it. 

Ooooh.. what if a war got going... and the PC's discovered that other immortals were behind it or at least involved at some level. As things heated up, both in the war at large and the hidden war of the gods, people would start dying, and it would all play into the prophecies of Ragnarok.  Hehe.. I really should run this sometime.. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Xun Huo*

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here she is, my goddess, Xun Huo!*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Xun Huo (pronounced Sun Hu-Oh) was played from Level 10.*




Excellent. Thats the way to do it! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *She got to where she is using all current rules, and she even has the suggested amount of wealth as per the ELH, which in this case is 13,600,000 gp.*




Okay. She has a lot of Epic items. Did she gain them through adventure or create them herself?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I also incorporated UK's CR system as shown in Asgard 6,*




I may have undercalculated the Quasi-deity template. It could be +14 ECL rather than +8 (though the additional Divine Ranks are still +4 ECL each)

So your character would be ECL 62/CR 35

Running more tests now. The reason for this change is that I now have a new method of calculating the effect of ability score increases.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and used UK's form of divine ascension for things such as ability scores and such.*




Also she between 1 and 1.5 million WP.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Whatcha think, people?  UK, I'd especially like to hear your opinion of her, as she would not be without your help.*




Very nice indeed. Though I probably need the ELH to more accurately assess things.

Though watch your tail in an Anti-Magic Field! 

In fact I would be very interested to she a brief resume of her in an AMF.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *THIS is why I said Epic Level Deities could beat normal Deities as in the D&Dg no problem.  Just as she is she has nearly as much power as Boccob!*




The main difference is the high propensity for Epic Magic Items. Something that even epic NPCs generally won't have in such high numbers.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Her first target will be Orcus . . . After that, probably Tiamat and then Bahamut . . . *




I presume you mean the BoVD Orcus and the D&Dg Bahamut and Tiamat?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Siphoned energy being, what, sort of a 'divine upkeep'? *




You gain faith (energy) from worship.

You also have a siphoned (energy) figure. This occurs when you expend worship points for creation (etc.) which makes the siphoned figure negative. You can add to the siphoned energy; in a number of ways, notably by killing other deities (akin to Highlanders 'Quickening').

Faith (energy) + Siphoned (energy) = Divinity

Siphoned (energy) has no effect on the number of worshippers.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Heh, if they've let things get out of hand enough that they're being shot at, they deserve it. *




Things inevitably do get out of hand though! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Ooooh.. what if a war got going... and the PC's discovered that other immortals were behind it or at least involved at some level. As things heated up, both in the war at large and the hidden war of the gods, people would start dying, and it would all play into the prophecies of Ragnarok.  Hehe.. I really should run this sometime.. *




Perhaps Microsoft are really the Sons of Surtur!


----------



## Anubis

Just to make sure I got Xun Huo right . . . You take the normal ability scores, +5 inherent bonus to each, and then +10 for becoming a god, correct?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember a few posts ago when I mentioned I already had the ability score post typed, I actually had that at +10 at that stage, but I changed it when I saw how badass Pit Fiend and Solars become.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the spirit!
> 
> 
> 
> The Divine Array is the (albeit unofficial) explanation from Rich Redman (co-writer of Deities & Demigods) for what happens to ability scores after Divine Ascension.
> 
> Technically it has its problems (some of which I outlined earlier).
> 
> 
> 
> No I had a temporary change of heart when I saw the stats for the Pit Fiend Quasi-deity. But you have to stand by your convictions.
> 
> Typical Human Ability Scores
> 
> 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
> 
> After Divine Ascension (& 20 class levels)
> 
> 30 (35), 29, 28, 27, 25, 23
> 
> Typical Pit Fiend Ability Scores
> 
> 25, 13, 21, 20, 20, 16
> 
> After Divine Ascension +20HD (& Huge Size Increase)
> 
> 48 (40), 28 (26), 36 (40), 35, 35, 31
> 
> WOTC Divine Array
> 
> 40, 28, 25, 24, 24, 24 *




I still don't understand the Divine Array thing.  What is it about?  How does it work?


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Xun Huo*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Okay. She has a lot of Epic items. Did she gain them through adventure or create them herself? *




That's complicated.  You see, when I originally went to Epic Levels, we were using the GenCon handout still.  Thus, when the ELH came out, I basically had to completely remake her in order to adjust for the REAL Epic Level Rules.

As it is, I created the character from the previous level, took the 13,600,000 gp, and then "bought" all the items as her the DMG.  Items that could be created cost 70% of the normal cost, etc.  We just decided on the number of Epic Spells as a function of Kowledge (arcana) divided by 10.  All extras I paid for from the money.

So basically, I originally did it all through adventuring, but had to "update" her for the ELH since I used the outdated rules from the handout.

Also, I had to take into account your stuff as well, UK.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Also she between 1 and 1.5 million WP. *




You tease!  Grrr . . .  I can't use them until I get your book, dood!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Though watch your tail in an Anti-Magic Field!
> 
> In fact I would be very interested to she a brief resume of her in an AMF. *




Ouch, she'd be screwed in an AMF . . . That's where most of her power comes from!  Then again, all the "wizard" gods would be screwed in an AMF . . .

Or not.  AMF only has a 10 ft. radius, so I'd stand back and Mordenkainen's Disjuction the candy ass who tried that.  (Note to self, memorize Mordenkainen's Disjuction multiple times.)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I presume you mean the BoVD Orcus and the D&Dg Bahamut and Tiamat? *




Orcus, no, I'm fighting the one that can be found on the EN World site.

As for Tiamat and Bahamut, yes, I'll be fighting their D&Dg selves.  I'd squash the ones from MOTP easily.  I'm still scared less about fighting Prismatic Dragons, though.


----------



## Buddha the DM

Here is a link to my Divine Ascension - House Rules .. I intend to use these until something more concrete comes out. Please note that the sample deity is still being worked on, but is nearly completed.

*Upper_Krust:* I'd appreciate any feedback that you'd care to give.


----------



## Anubis

Whoa!  I'd say the requirements are WAY too strict.  None of the deities in D&Dg fulfill any of the requirements they would've needed to become deities under your system, and the requirements also force players to waste feats on things they probably wouldn't otherwise get.

I'd say, at the very least, ditch all the requirements.  The rules we need are the ones governing divine ascension itself, such as how much of this do you gain, etc.


----------



## Anubis

*Xun Huo vs. Orcus*

Ouch!  This was an utter squash!

One on one, Xun Huo vs. Orcus, and it wasn't pretty.

Xun Huo crushed that little demon punk in three rounds.

Round 1: Xun Huo (always hasted) runs up, attacks using Iaijutsu Focus.  Orcus hastes himself and summons a balor.  Balor tries to full attack and misses.

Round 2: Xun Huo uses a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] to suck out ALL of the balor's power, killing it instantly, then casts Destroy on Orcus for 39 damage.  Orcus tries to attack and fails, then forgets Xun Huo is a GOD and tries energy drain, which also fails.

Round 3: Xun Huo casts a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x14] for over 800 damage, then casts a Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] to finish him off, obliterating him.

Xun Huo got 4000 XP.

This has proven two things: 1) Epic Level Gods are freaking awesome, 2) Metamagic Feats should not be allowed to stack on top of themselves.

Whatcha think, guys?  UK?


----------



## Anubis

*Request*

UK, could you please go read my thread I started on Empower Spell?

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21241

A lot of it is the same stuff I posted here, but I do have some more details examples over there, and some people will undoubtedly have replied over there by the time you get there.

I am asking you, seeing as you are so good with the rules, should stacking Empower Spell be allowed?  It obviously gives Wizards, Sorcerers, and sometimes even Clerics an INSANE amount of power to where NO Fighter of ANY level could defeat them!  Between Horrid Wilting and Vampiric Touch, Empower Spell is the most broken thing in the game!

Seriously, man, it's broken.  Empower Spell should not be allowed to be stacked on top of itself . . . EVER . . . Input?  Perhaps you'll add something about this to your book if there's room?

While we're on the subject of things broken, what is your stance on Harm/Heal?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Morning mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Just to make sure I got Xun Huo right . . . You take the normal ability scores, +5 inherent bonus to each, and then +10 for becoming a god, correct? *




Yes (at least thats my favourite method).

Remember Inherant bonuses (from previous wishes etc.) don't stack.

The Divine Bonus could be broken down into a +60 ability score bonus (TOTAL). But I think +10 per ability score is easier and more useful in the long run.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I still don't understand the Divine Array thing.  What is it about?  How does it work? *




With the Divine Array you get six set ability scores (which you can assign to any of your abilities). Its just like the Standard Array presented in the Dungeon Masters Guide (pg. 20).

Divine Array: 40, 28, 25, 24, 24, 24

eg. Using the Divine Array perhaps Xun Huo could have...

Str 24, Dex 28, Con 24, Int 40, Wis 25, Cha 24.

You still gain your bonus for class levels, and for Divine Rank.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Just wanted to let you know that I have to go out here*. I have read the rest of the posts and naturally I will get round to answering them when I get back. 

*and pick up the ELH (finally) among other things.

See you later!


----------



## Buddha the DM

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Whoa!  I'd say the requirements are WAY too strict.  None of the deities in D&Dg fulfill any of the requirements they would've needed to become deities under your system, and the requirements also force players to waste feats on things they probably wouldn't otherwise get.
> 
> I'd say, at the very least, ditch all the requirements.  The rules we need are the ones governing divine ascension itself, such as how much of this do you gain, etc. *




My house rules are for players that want to go for Divine Ascension, and not the gods that have already been published in the books. Besides how are these requirements too strict? Most everyone that I have talked to online has thought that they were reasonable.

For those of you that can't go to, or won't go to, my page the requirements that I have listed for divine ascension are:

Class Level of 15+ in two or more classes, or a Class Level of 30+ in one class (at least one class should have spellcasting or psionic abilities); Epic Leadership; Extended Life Span; Knowledge (Religon: Sponsor’s Pantheon) 15+ ranks, and 10+ ranks in a skill related to a portfolio aspect that you want; Sponsorship by a Deity of Divine Rank 10+ with a portfolio aspect that you want.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Xun Huo*

Hi Anubis mate! 

Don't ask about the Epic Level Handbook... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's complicated.  You see, when I originally went to Epic Levels, we were using the GenCon handout still.  Thus, when the ELH came out, I basically had to completely remake her in order to adjust for the REAL Epic Level Rules.
> 
> As it is, I created the character from the previous level, took the 13,600,000 gp, and then "bought" all the items as her the DMG.  Items that could be created cost 70% of the normal cost, etc.  We just decided on the number of Epic Spells as a function of Kowledge (arcana) divided by 10.  All extras I paid for from the money.
> 
> So basically, I originally did it all through adventuring, but had to "update" her for the ELH since I used the outdated rules from the handout.*




I would be circumspect about throwing around too many Epic Items. NPCs won't have many; so generally that means the player has to make them which of course costs XP as well as GP.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, I had to take into account your stuff as well, UK.*




Okay. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You tease!  Grrr . . .  I can't use them until I get your book, dood!*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ouch, she'd be screwed in an AMF . . . That's where most of her power comes from!*




Absolutely.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Then again, all the "wizard" gods would be screwed in an AMF . . .*




The trick is not to get caught in one.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Or not.  AMF only has a 10 ft. radius, so I'd stand back and Mordenkainen's Disjuction the candy ass who tried that.  (Note to self, memorize Mordenkainen's Disjuction multiple times.)*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Orcus, no, I'm fighting the one that can be found on the EN World site.*




That Orcus is CR33. Your character is CR38 (under my revised CR rules).

My version of Orcus is CR42 incidently.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for Tiamat and Bahamut, yes, I'll be fighting their D&Dg selves.  I'd squash the ones from MOTP easily.  I'm still scared ****less about fighting Prismatic Dragons, though. *




Bahamut and Tiamat are tougher than a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (even though they really should have the proper ability score increases from Divinity)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Here is a link to my Divine Ascension - House Rules ..
> 
> I intend to use these until something more concrete comes out.
> 
> Please note that the sample deity is still being worked on, but is nearly completed.*




Okay.



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust: I'd appreciate any feedback that you'd care to give. *




Sure.

Well, firstly, I'm not too hot on your Suggested Requirements.

For Divine Rank 0 I suggest 20th-level minimum HD/Levels.

Spellcasting/Psionic class prerequisites would seem to rule out Hercules _et al._

The Epic Feats do seem a bit picky. I wouldn't see an Assassin God necessarily taking Epic Leadership. Extended Lifespan immediately becomes void once you gain Quasi-deity status, so thats a bit of a waste. The Knowledge (Religion) seems to infer that all deities must have a sponsor, something I don't think should be a hard rule.

Also, Quasi-deities don't gain maximum hit points (until Divine Rank 1)

You forgot a few of the Divine Immunities: Acid, Cold, Electricity.

I did like the Magic Items, Quasi-deities (NPCs) generally won't have more than one artifact in their possession (I see this as the Spellcraft Ring in this case). But I would generally let them fill their slots with any non-artifact/non-epic item in the DMG.

One other point is that I am not sure if the deities Deflection Bonus to AC should stack with a Ring of Protection (since both are SU).

I still can't comment too much on epic matters since that book still isn't in my possession.


----------



## Buddha the DM

My god on that page doesn't have those immunities (electricity, cold, and acid) because the book says that a god of DvR 1 or higher has them, and he is only DvR 0.

Are my house rules totally useless and no good then?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ouch!  This was an utter squash!*




As I would have easily predicted, given the CRs of both participants.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *One on one, Xun Huo vs. Orcus, and it wasn't pretty.*




Well Orcus ain't no pin up! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Xun Huo crushed that little demon punk in three rounds.
> 
> Round 1: Xun Huo (always hasted) runs up, attacks using Iaijutsu Focus.  Orcus hastes himself and summons a balor.  Balor tries to full attack and misses.
> 
> Round 2: Xun Huo uses a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x11] to suck out ALL of the balor's power, killing it instantly, then casts Destroy on Orcus for 39 damage.  Orcus tries to attack and fails, then forgets Xun Huo is a GOD and tries energy drain, which also fails.
> 
> Round 3: Xun Huo casts a Vampiric Touch [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x14] for over 800 damage, then casts a Horrid Wilting [Enhance, Maximize, Empower x9] to finish him off, obliterating him.
> 
> Xun Huo got 4000 XP.
> 
> This has proven two things: 1) Epic Level Gods are freaking awesome, 2) Metamagic Feats should not be allowed to stack on top of themselves.
> 
> Whatcha think, guys?  UK? *




I don't see you catching Orcus on his own too often. 

Also whats to say Orcus wasn't hasted as well!?

Seemingly, summoning Undead (x3 33rd-level Wizard (1), Cleric (1), Psionicist (1) Demiliches*) would be a better move.

*and a 1HD skeleton who just dances about since it can't really affect proceedings.

If you let Orcus get to melee range he should have upped an AMF then introduced you to his tail poison.

Of course you would have been in serious trouble had you attempted such an affront to my version of Orcus!


----------



## kreynolds

*Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This has proven two things: 1) Epic Level Gods are freaking awesome, 2) Metamagic Feats should not be allowed to stack on top of themselves. *




Actually, your example proved only *one* thing; "Never use a really bad example as the basis of your argument". Or was it "Never rub another man's rhubarb"? I can never remember which one.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *My god on that page doesn't have those immunities (electricity, cold, and acid) because the book says that a god of DvR 1 or higher has them, and he is only DvR 0.*




Every Quasi-deity in D&Dg has those abilities.



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Are my house rules totally useless and no good then? *




To quote Anubis: WHOA WHOA WHOA!

Stop right there! We don't use defeatist talk in this thread! 

Think positive! There is no useless, only degrees of usefulness.

That said, its difficult for me to give an opinion on this without saying what I would do (as per the IH). 

Perhaps a slightly scaled down version of your suggested requirements would be very useful in outlining how a character might become the 'Chosen of' a god. Since many of your ideas would seem a lot more relevant in that capacity:

- Epic Leadership
- Extended Life Span
- Knowledge (Religion)

I can see all the above being poignant for 'Chosen of' characters.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Request*

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, could you please go read my thread I started on Empower Spell?
> 
> http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21241*




Just did.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A lot of it is the same stuff I posted here, but I do have some more details examples over there, and some people will undoubtedly have replied over there by the time you get there.*




Do you want me to post there as well? 

I saw someone who questioned the wisdom of your characters CR, so I may stop by for todays edification. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I am asking you, seeing as you are so good with the rules, should stacking Empower Spell be allowed?  It obviously gives Wizards, Sorcerers, and sometimes even Clerics an INSANE amount of power to where NO Fighter of ANY level could defeat them!  Between Horrid Wilting and Vampiric Touch, Empower Spell is the most broken thing in the game!*




The problem (as far as I know, and take into account I don't have the ELH yet) is not the Empower Spell Metamagic Feat but rather the Improved Metamagic Feat - its totally insane.

In fact I actually started a thread about 9 months ago about Improved Metamagic where I outlined how broken it was - of course back then no one paid much attention since the ELH was still almost a year away at that point.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Seriously, man, it's broken.  Empower Spell should not be allowed to be stacked on top of itself . . . EVER . . . Input?  Perhaps you'll add something about this to your book if there's room?*




I'll certainly nuke the Improved Metamagic Feat (provided the ELH goes SRD)



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *While we're on the subject of things broken, what is your stance on Harm/Heal? *




It should allow a Fort save.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Xun Huo*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *That Orcus is CR33. Your character is CR38 (under my revised CR rules).
> 
> My version of Orcus is CR42 incidently. *




Huh?  I used the stuff yoiu had in Asgard 6 to calculate Orcus's CR, and it was only 31.  Also, using the stuff in Asgard 6, Xun Huo was CR 34.

Orcus: HD 50 = ECL 36, 16 SA and SQ = ECL 8, ECL 44 = CR 31
Xun Huo: Level 40 = ECL 40, DvR 2 = ECL 16, ECL 56 = CR 34

Of course, that doesn't take into account the new Deity ECL if you decide that's best after testing, although I think 8 would be enough . . .

I don't suppose you could post your full Orcus here for me to duel?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Bahamut and Tiamat are tougher than a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (even though they really should have the proper ability score increases from Divinity) *




I dunno . . . Those two seem weak in comparison . . . The Prismatic Dragons have SR, DR, and HP so high that Bahamut and Tiamat couldn't even hit them . . .


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Huh?  I used the stuff you had in Asgard 6 to calculate Orcus's CR, and it was only 31.
> 
> Orcus: HD 50 = ECL 36, 16 SA and SQ = ECL 8, ECL 44 = CR 31*




Orcus is 50HD, but he has 40 integrated character levels. 

40 levels = ECL 40
10HD Outsider = ECL 7
16 SA & SQ = ECL 8

Total 55 ECL = CR 33



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, using the stuff in Asgard 6, Xun Huo was CR 34.
> 
> Xun Huo: Level 40 = ECL 40, DvR 2 = ECL 16, ECL 56 = CR 34*




This is correct. However as you ascertained I have a few new ideas regarding deity ECL/CR.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Of course, that doesn't take into account the new Deity ECL if you decide that's best after testing, although I think 8 would be enough . . .*




The standard 1st-level Fighter in the DMG, given Quasi-deity power could beat the standard 15th-level version!

Consider the following changes quasi-official (no pun intended):

Quasi-deity: ECL +14
Divine Rank 1: ECL +24
Each subsquent Divine Rank: ECL +4



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I don't suppose you could post your full Orcus here for me to duel?*




I technically don't have a full Orcus, as such, to post.

However, I favour 45HD; Divine Rank 7; Str 48; Dex 26; Con 38; Int 35; Wis 40; Cha 34. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I dunno . . . Those two seem weak in comparison . . . The Prismatic Dragons have SR, DR, and HP so high that Bahamut and Tiamat couldn't even hit them . . . *




There is a thread about this on the WotC boards that goes into more detail on the matter:

http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=222;t=000399


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!
> 
> 
> 
> As I would have easily predicted, given the CRs of both participants.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Orcus ain't no pin up!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you catching Orcus on his own too often.
> 
> Also whats to say Orcus wasn't hasted as well!?
> 
> Seemingly, summoning Undead (x3 33rd-level Wizard (1), Cleric (1), Psionicist (1) Demiliches*) would be a better move.
> 
> *and a 1HD skeleton who just dances about since it can't really affect proceedings.
> 
> If you let Orcus get to melee range he should have upped an AMF then introduced you to his tail poison.
> 
> Of course you would have been in serious trouble had you attempted such an affront to my version of Orcus!  *




He was hasted, that was his first action.

Technically, though, since I won initiative, I could have killed him in one hit with my Horrid Wilting that did 1300+ damage.  Also, his tail poison would have been useless because the DC was below my Fort save and I no longer fail on 1, so it couldn't have worked.

I'm getting an idea.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, your example proved only one thing; "Never use a really bad example as the basis of your argument". Or was it "Never rub another man's rhubarb"? I can never remember which one. *




How is it a bad example?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> With the Divine Array you get six set ability scores (which you can assign to any of your abilities). Its just like the Standard Array presented in the Dungeon Masters Guide (pg. 20).
> 
> Divine Array: 40, 28, 25, 24, 24, 24
> 
> eg. Using the Divine Array perhaps Xun Huo could have...
> 
> Str 24, Dex 28, Con 24, Int 40, Wis 25, Cha 24.
> 
> You still gain your bonus for class levels, and for Divine Rank. *




So I'd have to replace my stats and set them to certain points?  I'll go with your way, even though it gives more power.  That Divine Array is just plain silly.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Request*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *It should allow a Fort save. *




Save, eh?  Wouldn't a Will save be better to keep in line with the other spells in that category, and so that Heal can actually work on undead?  (They automatically make Fort saves against anything that doesn't destroy.)

Also, would it be a save for half damage, a certain amount, what?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Orcus is 50HD, but he has 40 integrated character levels.
> 
> 40 levels = ECL 40
> 10HD Outsider = ECL 7
> 16 SA & SQ = ECL 8
> 
> Total 55 ECL = CR 33
> *






I see!  The "effective caster levels" count as actual levels for determining ECL, right?  Gotcha.





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> This is correct. However as you ascertained I have a few new ideas regarding deity ECL/CR.
> 
> The standard 1st-level Fighter in the DMG, given Quasi-deity power could beat the standard 15th-level version!
> *






I usually agree with you, but I think I must disagree on this point.  I don't think there is ANY way a Level 1 Dv0 could defeat a Level 15.  What powers does that Quasi-Deity have that could really hurt the Fighter?  The Fighter is likely to kill the Quasi-Deity in a single hit!





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Consider the following changes quasi-official (no pun intended):
> 
> Quasi-deity: ECL +14
> Divine Rank 1: ECL +24
> Each subsquent Divine Rank: ECL +4
> *






Hmmm . . . That seems to give the deities a bit too much credit . . .

Perhaps you should consider:

Quasi-Deity (DvR 0): ECL +10
Demigod (DvR 1): ECL +20
ECL +4 per each subsequent DvR

That would the dities on pretty strict levels while not giving them too much credit, and I think anything above Level 10 would obliterate a Level 1 DvR 0 Quasi-Deity.  Also remember that CR is based on four characters, not one.

On top of that, it gives a set ECL +20 for each Divine Class (Demigod, Lesser Deity, etc.)


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Request*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Just did.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to post there as well?
> 
> I saw someone who questioned the wisdom of your characters CR, so I may stop by for todays edification.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem (as far as I know, and take into account I don't have the ELH yet) is not the Empower Spell Metamagic Feat but rather the Improved Metamagic Feat - its totally insane.
> 
> In fact I actually started a thread about 9 months ago about Improved Metamagic where I outlined how broken it was - of course back then no one paid much attention since the ELH was still almost a year away at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll certainly nuke the Improved Metamagic Feat (provided the ELH goes SRD)
> 
> 
> 
> It should allow a Fort save. *




Even without Improved Metamagic, Empower Spell is only +2 Spell Levels, so it doesn't have much effect.  The amount of power is still ridiculously insane.  All Improved Metamagic does is make feats like Energy Admixture, Intensify Spell, Enhance Spell, Quicken Spell, and Multispell useful.  They are pretty much useless without Improved Metamagic because they're all but unusuble until EXTREMELY high levels.

Empower Spell is still ridiculously strong without Improved Metamagic.  Also add Enlarge Spell to the ridiculous power category when it's stacked, because that would allow Horrid Wilting to obliterate entire armies!


----------



## kreynolds

*Re: Re: Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How is it a bad example? *




I take it you haven't read the thread lately?


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I take it you haven't read the thread lately? *




I post on it quite a bit.  How is it a bad example?

Seriously, tell me.  How is it a bad example?  Explain.  I'm willing to listen.


----------



## Buddha the DM

> From Deities & Demigods:
> *Energy Immunity:* Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to electricity, cold, and acid, even if the attacker is a deity of higher divine rank.




Quasi-Deities, of which Gaedynn Aengrilor in one, are Divine Rank 0 according to page 25 of Deities & Demigods.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *He was hasted, that was his first action.*




As someone in the other thread pointed out a Balor is going to be ineffective against a protagonist who deems themselves powerful enough to take on Orcus.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Technically, though, since I won initiative, I could have killed him in one hit with my Horrid Wilting that did 1300+ damage.*




That sounds like a better example.

How did you work that damage out?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, his tail poison would have been useless because the DC was below my Fort save and I no longer fail on 1, so it couldn't have worked.*




Your Fort Save in an AMF is going to be way lower than that DC save.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm getting an idea. *




?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So I'd have to replace my stats and set them to certain points?  I'll go with your way, even though it gives more power.  That Divine Array is just plain silly. *




Yep.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Save, eh? Wouldn't a Will save be better to keep in line with the other spells in that category, and so that Heal can actually work on undead? (They automatically make Fort saves against anything that doesn't destroy.)
> 
> Also, would it be a save for half damage, a certain amount, what?*




I'll look into it and get back to you.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I see!  The "effective caster levels" count as actual levels for determining ECL, right?  Gotcha.*




Yep.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I usually agree with you, but I think I must disagree on this point.  I don't think there is ANY way a Level 1 Dv0 could defeat a Level 15.  What powers does that Quasi-Deity have that could really hurt the Fighter?  The Fighter is likely to kill the Quasi-Deity in a single hit!*




Oh ye of little faith. 

Have you looked at the 1st-level Fighter and the 15th-level Fighter? +3 weapon vs. DR35/+4



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hmmm . . . That seems to give the deities a bit too much credit . . .
> 
> Perhaps you should consider:
> 
> Quasi-Deity (DvR 0): ECL +10
> Demigod (DvR 1): ECL +20
> ECL +4 per each subsequent DvR
> 
> That would the deities on pretty strict levels while not giving them too much credit, and I think anything above Level 10 would obliterate a Level 1 DvR 0 Quasi-Deity.  Also remember that CR is based on four characters, not one.*




I don't agree. But I would be happy to discuss your evidence?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On top of that, it gives a set ECL +20 for each Divine Class (Demigod, Lesser Deity, etc.) *




I'm pretty happy with the revised mechanism. Though I'll continue to run some tests.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Re: Re: Request*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Even without Improved Metamagic, Empower Spell is only +2 Spell Levels, so it doesn't have much effect.*




Actually I think it has a significant effect.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The amount of power is still ridiculously insane.*




Maybe. But damage is going to be halved.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *All Improved Metamagic does is make feats like Energy Admixture, Intensify Spell, Enhance Spell, Quicken Spell, and Multispell useful.  They are pretty much useless without Improved Metamagic because they're all but unusuble until EXTREMELY high levels.*




Quicken Spell is certainly not useless.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Empower Spell is still ridiculously strong without Improved Metamagic.*




I think its pretty balanced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also add Enlarge Spell to the ridiculous power category when it's stacked, because that would allow Horrid Wilting to obliterate entire armies! *




Can Enlarge be stacked? Does it mention this in the ELH?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Quasi-Deities, of which Gaedynn Aengrilor in one, are Divine Rank 0 according to page 25 of Deities & Demigods. *




Firstly the confusion is mainly down to D&Dgs sloppiness.

However the proof is in the pudding.

1. All Quasi-deities in the book have those Immunities.

2. If we look under Immunities (page 26 actually).



			
				D&Dg said:
			
		

> *Deities of Rank 1 or higher are immune to electricity, cold and acid, even if the attacker is a deity of higher divine rank*




However, I believe what seems straightforward is actually WotC confusing themselves with a missprint. I proffer that it should read Divine Rank 0.

They start the next paragraph 'Deities of Rank 1 or higher...'. Now why start the second paragraph the same as the first it makes no sense whatsoever. Why use an entirely new paragraph. There is no logical reason why that needs two seperate paragraphs if they are both supposedly addressing Divine Rank 1.

3. Initial Divinity (Quasi-deity) is actually based on the Solar - who also has those Immunities.


----------



## Buddha the DM

Still the text reads Divine Rank 1 or higher, and not Divine Rank 0. Therefore a Quasi-Deity (DvR 0) does not have those abilities.

If WotC fixes this in an errata then I might be inclined to agree.

Besides how do you figure that Initial Divinity was based upon the Solar?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Still the text reads Divine Rank 1 or higher, and not Divine Rank 0. Therefore a Quasi-Deity (DvR 0) does not have those abilities.*




Yet all the Quasi-deity examples do.



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *If WotC fixes this in an errata then I might be inclined to agree.*




Thats certainly your prerogative.

However I am not waiting for WotC errata though. 

Just like I didn't with Challenge Ratings. Nor with the broken Annihilating Strike Salient Divine Ability. Nor with Harm. Nor with the idea that deities should function within Anti Magic. etc _ad infinitum_



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Besides how do you figure that Initial Divinity was based upon the Solar? *




Too many similarities to be a coincidence.


----------



## kreynolds

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I post on it quite a bit.  How is it a bad example?
> 
> Seriously, tell me.  How is it a bad example?  Explain.  I'm willing to listen. *




1) You are using house rules (to determine CRs, for example) from a "product" that hasn't even seen the light of day, and isn't even part of the core rules.

2) Keep reading the thread.

3) Throwing a 40th level character against a CR32 (roughly) creature is not what I would consider impressive, nor would I even consider it valid to your argument.

4) Keep reading the thread.

5) Even if the house rules you are using to determine CR supposedly "work", it doesn't matter in the slightest. You put forth an argument on the *D&D Rules* board, thus your entire argument is invalidated by the fact that you did not even use the core rules. I could easily prove that my 1st level commoner could wipe the floor with Orcus if I use house rules as well.

6) Keep reading the thread.

7) Make sure you understand how empower actually works before you put forth an argument in the attempt to debunk it.

8) Anything with an Intelligence greater than 5, that has the ability to teleport, will instantly "get outta dodge" at the first sign of an a$$ whoopin'.

9) Using the example of a God versus a Demon is just as effective as using a Balor against a Kobold. Don't bother. The outcome of the fight is predetermined.

10) Try not to base your "rules" argument on an article about CRs being "broken" that were published in a free PDF by the author of a product that hasn't even been released and completely conflicts with the published rules (no insult intended to "you know who").

11) Though the fact that you missed the vast difference in cost between a +40 skill bonus and a +30 skill bonus is small and unimportant in and off itself, it shows that you did not give your argument "your all". It is one of the many small flaws that has been pointed out.

12) I wasn't aware that Orcus exhisted in a campaign setting with Iaijutsu Focus.

13) In regards to the stacking of metamagic feats, the rules have already been set forth. In a rules discussion, Empower stacks. Period. There is no other argument here. It was designed to stack. It was meant to stack. It was written to stack. It was clarified to stack.

Other than that, your argument wasn't that bad.


----------



## Impeesa

kreynolds: Don't be knocking U_K's alternate CR system. All it means is that the higher a foe's level gets, the more it's true that level != CR.  i.e., a 20th level fighter is probably far too difficult a fight for a party of 5th level adventurers (being an EL +15 encounter), but a 115th level fighter is barely a fight to a party of 100th level adventurers despite still being, technically, EL +15. 

As for the example in question.... um... it's too late over here for me to try and figure out what anyone was thinking or what the problem was....  So I'll just direct your attention to the first paragraph, and point out that all of Krusty's thoughts on the messed-up-edness of the CR system at high levels really do make sense if you meditate long enough.

Stolen from the 2003 WotC catalog:
http://members.shaw.ca/parkerw/upcoming.jpg

--Impeesa--


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Xun Huo vs. Orcus*

Currently not sure if this will even work - I'm having some staccato internet problem.

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *kreynolds: Don't be knocking U_K's alternate CR system. All it means is that the higher a foe's level gets, the more it's true that level != CR.  i.e., a 20th level fighter is probably far too difficult a fight for a party of 5th level adventurers (being an EL +15 encounter), but a 115th level fighter is barely a fight to a party of 100th level adventurers despite still being, technically, EL +15. *




Don't worry mate. kreynolds wasn't challenging my rules*, just their validity in a 'straight up' D&D Rules discussion.

*Otherwise there would have been an Immortal Smackdown in progress. 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *As for the example in question.... um... it's too late over here for me to try and figure out what anyone was thinking or what the problem was....  So I'll just direct your attention to the first paragraph, and point out that all of Krusty's thoughts on the messed-up-edness of the CR system at high levels really do make sense if you meditate long enough.*




I still favour my revised CR rules. As mentioned above.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Stolen from the 2003 WotC catalog:
> http://members.shaw.ca/parkerw/upcoming.jpg
> *


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Test*

Having problems posting that message here.

Its over at the WotC boards:

http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=201;t=000431

Someone feel free to copy and paste the message here - I don't seem to be able to do so.


----------



## Anubis

Here is UK's post from the other board:

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Hi kreynolds mate!  

For the purposes of a D&D Rules discussion Anubis did indeed make the mistake of using a number of unofficial rules:

(My) Challenge Rating System
(My) Apotheosis System
(Creature Catalogue's) Orcus

Additionally the fight was already stacked in his favour anyway, and Orcus obviously wasn't having his best day.

Also given the propensity for Epic one hit kills, a fair fight (even CRs) probably wouldn't have shown much wrong with the Empower Spell Metamagic Feat.

A better example would have been two player characters one of which (the spellcaster) being 4 CR less than the other. Then still proving they were dead in one damaging spell.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
1) You are using house rules (to determine CRs, for example) from a "product" that hasn't even seen the light of day, and isn't even part of the core rules.

5) Even if the house rules you are using to determine CR supposedly "work", it doesn't matter in the slightest. You put forth an argument on the D&D Rules board, thus your entire argument is invalidated by the fact that you did not even use the core rules. I could easily prove that my 1st level commoner could wipe the floor with Orcus if I use house rules as well.

10) Try not to base your "rules" argument on an article about CRs being "broken" that were published in a free PDF by the author of a product that hasn't even been released and completely conflicts with the published rules (no insult intended to "you know who") .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you are really just treading the same water here I'll lump these together.

While naturally I agree that my CR system should not be used with regards D&D Rules discussions - it works infinitely better than WotCs methods at high levels: a point I have already proven as fact.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
(no insult intended to "you know who")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None taken mate.  


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
2) Keep reading the thread.

4) Keep reading the thread.

6) Keep reading the thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think once would have made the point mate. Be nice.  


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
3) Throwing a 40th level character against a CR32 (roughly) creature is not what I would consider impressive, nor would I even consider it valid to your argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In principle yes, however the difference between the two protagonists was only about 5 CR. Albeit stacked in Anubis' characters favour.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
7) Make sure you understand how empower actually works before you put forth an argument in the attempt to debunk it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people seem to be forgetting the use of Improved Metamagic, but I don't like addressing D&D Rules unless I have all the material at my disposal (I should get the ELH later today).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
8) Anything with an Intelligence greater than 5, that has the ability to teleport, will instantly "get outta dodge" at the first sign of an a$$ whoopin'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't imagine the 'gettin outa Dodge' approach is how WotC playtesters balance ideas and solve issues.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
9) Using the example of a God versus a Demon is just as effective as using a Balor against a Kobold. Don't bother. The outcome of the fight is predetermined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had already made this point to Anubis. I thought perhaps 3 33rd-level Demiliches (a Cleric, a Psionicist and a Wizard) would have been a more likely summons. 


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
11) Though the fact that you missed the vast difference in cost between a +40 skill bonus and a +30 skill bonus is small and unimportant in and off itself, it shows that you did not give your argument "your all". It is one of the many small flaws that has been pointed out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering the amount of errata WotC put forward I am sure you would volunteer Anubis the same courtesy.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
12) I wasn't aware that Orcus exhisted in a campaign setting with Iaijutsu Focus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems somewhat pedantic. You can't say that Orcus doesn't exist in such a campaign setting.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
13) In regards to the stacking of metamagic feats, the rules have already been set forth. In a rules discussion, Empower stacks. Period. There is no other argument here. It was designed to stack. It was meant to stack. It was written to stack. It was clarified to stack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I agree with your above point.

In a rules discussion a 100th-level character is (supposedly, according to WotC) equal to x16 92nd-level characters. Since I already proved this is utter nonsense it quoshes the WotC rule infallibility your above statement emphasised.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kreynolds 
Other than that, your argument wasn't that bad. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like a number of people in that thread I believe the problem stems from the Improved Metamagic Feat rather than the Empower Spell Metamagic Feat.

So in a roundabout way, Anubis was justified to address the point he did; he just went about it the wrong way for the purposes of a 'meat and potatoes' D&D Rules discussion.

[ August 20, 2002, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Upper_Krust ]

--------------------
"Stand fast at the Gates of Dis"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Belfast, Northern Ireland, U.K. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged  

The Serge7 
Member 
Member # 98081 



  posted August 20, 2002 06:27 AM                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Upper_Krust:
Sorry for the inconvenience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK... Isn't this supposed to be on an EN World thread?

--------------------
Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.


----------



## Buddha the DM

Where is your revised CR system U_K? Do you have one for ECL mods as well?


----------



## kreynolds

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *While naturally I agree that my CR system should not be used with regards D&D Rules discussions - it works infinitely better than WotCs methods at high levels: a point I have already proven as fact. *




And this make a difference...how? I never challenged your CR system. What I did do, however, is point out that a core rules argument based upon your rules is completely baseless. Sure, if we were talking about *Dungeons & Upper_Krust*, then it would apply. But, since we are talking about *Dungeons & Dragons*, well, that's a whole different story.

I didn't mean to imply that your system doesn't work, when in fact, I've never even looked at. But I don't need to either. I know that it doesn't follow the core rules, thus it is not a valid referrence in a rules discussion. That's all I meant.

I merely brought this up to point out why Anubis's argument was quickly and summarily debunked.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *None taken mate. *




Cool.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I think once would have made the point mate. *




Probably. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *In principle yes, however the difference between the two protagonists was only about 5 CR. Albeit stacked in Anubis' characters favour. *




Do you mean according to *your* CR rules? If so, see previous answers.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *A lot of people seem to be forgetting the use of Improved Metamagic *




Possibly. But that's a whole different discussion.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I can't imagine the 'gettin outa Dodge' approach is how WotC playtesters balance ideas and solve issues. *




Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Everyone has their bad days, when a fight just goes wrong. In the case of monsters, this bad day is usually the DM not quite being with it and not quite being in a strategic frame of mind. In any case, a creature that is having trouble in a fight will cut and run, and said creature would most assuredly cut and run when it is faced with an opponent 8 CRs higher than itself.

This isn't a playtesting issue. I pointed out the teleportation because the example was plainly rediculous. If any creature is faced with someone ludicrously more powerful than they are, and they can teleport, they will.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I had already made this point to Anubis. I thought perhaps 3 33rd-level Demiliches (a Cleric, a Psionicist and a Wizard) would have been a more likely summons. *




Perhaps.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Considering the amount of errata WotC put forward I am sure you would volunteer Anubis the same courtesy. *




Absolutely not. There was nothing errated in regards to skill bonuses. The ELH plainly states that any skill bonus of +31 or higher is an epic bonus, thus the cost of the bonus is multiplied by 10. There was no errata released. There was no errata required. It was correct in the printing. Why should I volunteer him courtesy in regards to errata when errata doesn't even apply in this situation.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *This seems somewhat pedantic. You can't say that Orcus doesn't exist in such a campaign setting. *




I just did. Orcus is not mentioned anywhere in OA or Rokugan. He doesn't exhist there unless you put him there. I was merely pointing this out.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *In a rules discussion a 100th-level character is (supposedly, according to WotC) equal to x16 92nd-level characters. Since I already proved this is utter nonsense it quoshes the WotC rule infallibility your above statement emphasised. *




I never said WotC rules were infallible. Not at all. Besides, that comment was in regards to Empower Spell, not CR. I doesn't matter if you if you think your rules are better, because bottom line, your rules don't apply to this discussion in any way shape or form. If your rules do in fact work better, then great, I hope to see them one day. So, it doesn't make the slightest difference what you did or didn't prove about the core rules. Anubis started a *rules* discussion, and your rules don't belong in such a discussion. Why? Because they're house rules. They may be good house rules, but they're house rules none-the-less. End of story.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *So in a roundabout way, Anubis was justified to address the point he did *




I never said he wasn't justified. I just said his argument was completely baseless in regards to the rules. It was fatally flawed from the very beginning.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *he just went about it the wrong way for the purposes of a 'meat and potatoes' D&D Rules discussion. *




Exactly.

P.S. This was a really pain of a post to reply to. Phew! That was a lot of work!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Thanks Anubis mate! 

That message simply would not post. I still don't understand it.

 

But at least we got that sorted out.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Where is your revised CR system U_K? *




You got the main crux of the change the other day.

Quasi-deity power is now +14 ECL

Divine Rank 1 (which incorporates Quasi-deity power) is now +24 ECL

All subsequent Divine Ranks are (still) +4 ECL.



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Do you have one for ECL mods as well? *




I'll consider one for the IH. But no hard and fast rule presents itself at the minute, and I am not going to tackle this matter on a case for case basis.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Buddha mate!
> 
> 
> 
> You got the main crux of the change the other day.
> 
> Quasi-deity power is now +14 ECL
> 
> Divine Rank 1 (which incorporates Quasi-deity power) is now +24 ECL
> 
> All subsequent Divine Ranks are (still) +4 ECL.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll consider one for the IH. But no hard and fast rule presents itself at the minute, and I am not going to tackle this matter on a case for case basis. *




I can help you there, UK.

Two characters of equal power are of equal CR, correct?

In that case, simply use your ECL system from your CR modifications for the ECL modifications!  Simple!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Useless machine or server won't let me post again. 

If you are reading this it must mean that the size of the post is a factor.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I can help you there, UK.
> 
> Two characters of equal power are of equal CR, correct?
> 
> In that case, simply use your ECL system from your CR modifications for the ECL modifications!  Simple! *




That bits easy but the point Buddha was making was that ECLs for player characters and non-player characters mean different things.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello mate!
> 
> 
> 
> That bits easy but the point Buddha was making was that ECLs for player characters and non-player characters mean different things. *




That's my point, though . . . MAKE THEM THE SAME.  It's easy, and it levels the playing field between PCs and NPCs!  That in turn adds challenge, especially at higher levels!

I've thought about the ECL subject long and hard, and have seen all the variations out there.  None of them make any sense, however.  Think about it:

Let's take the most popular example out there, the orge.  In the DMG, the ECL for an ogre is +5, even though the ogre's CR is 2.  Yet there have been rumors of an INCREASE in the ogre's ECL up to +8, which is just plain silly!

Consider for a moment that (at least on Levels 1-20) a creature of a certain CR is supposed to be a "challenge" (meaning that the fight will take up 25% of the party's resources) for four characters of a similar level.  That means that an ogre, at CR 2, is a "challenge" for four characters at Level 2.

Also consider, however, that characters of a certain level have a CR equal to their level, meaning a Level 2 character has a CR of 2.  This means that, effectively, one character of a certain level is a "challenge" for four characters of an equal level.

That would mean that a duel between two characters of equal power would exhaust both combatants, one being defeated and the other barely winning.  Reasonable enough.

Since a character's level equals its CR, why is it, then, that an ogre, at CR 2, which is suppose to be equal to a Level 2 character, is actually ECL +5, or even ECL +8?  That contradicts the standard in EVERY SINGLE WAY.

As such, a creature's ECL should, simply put, be the same as its CR.  Think about it: with an ECL of +5, an ogre would have to be Level 6 to have ANY levels.  Would an ogre be able to hold his own with four other Level 6 characters, however?  If you test this, you will quickly find that the ogre will get killed very quickly by challengers of CR 6, that any other Level 6 character could handle well enough.  Also, an ogre in a duel with a Level 5 character would get killed VERY quickly.  One fireball, one full attack, you have a dead ogre, whereas a duel between two Level 6 characters would be very close indeed.

That said, it is also easy to rule that the way you determine Epic CR as per your rules, is also the way you determine ECL!  That means if a creature is ECL +50 for purpoes of determining CR, then it is ECL +50 for purposed of determining level!

Test it, you'll see it works perfectly!  I have tried many different tests of this, and it has worked beautifully every single time!

That's something that you could put into the Immortal's Handbook, along with a comprehensive set of rules for determining ECL and CR, that would set your book as THE source for Divinity AND Epic gaming, along with making it THE single best source to find suitable "fixes" in the Core Rules!


----------



## kreynolds

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Since a character's level equals its CR, why is it, then, that an ogre, at CR 2, which is suppose to be equal to a Level 2 character, is actually ECL +5, or even ECL +8?  That contradicts the standard in EVERY SINGLE WAY. *




Anubis, the reason that an Ogre, at CR 2, has an ECL higher than it's CR is because an Ogre, at CR 2, is meant to be faced against a party of 4 players, all of them at 2nd level, thus a party level of 2. CRs assume that an average party, of four players, will be facing the monster. That's why they have higher ECLs.

Now, I have no doubt that an alternate CR system could be devised (not by me) that would represent a creature's CR on a one on one basis, thus making it equal to a character who's character level is as proportionately powerful to the creature. It would certainly make playing monsters easier.


----------



## Anubis

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anubis, the reason that an Ogre, at CR 2, has an ECL higher than it's CR is because an Ogre, at CR 2, is meant to be faced against a party of 4 players, all of them at 2nd level, thus a party level of 2. CRs assume that an average party, of four players, will be facing the monster. That's why they have higher ECLs.
> 
> Now, I have no doubt that an alternate CR system could be devised (not by me) that would represent a creature's CR on a one on one basis, thus making it equal to a character who's character level is as proportionately powerful to the creature. It would certainly make playing monsters easier.  *




What I'm saying is that the rules are ALREADY like that.

Read my explanation carefully.

If a Level 2 character is CR 2, and an ogre is CR 2, than an ogre is equal to a Level 2 character, and thus should be ECL 2, because ECL is a measure of character level.

See what I'm saying?

Basically:

Level 2 = CR 2
Ogre = CR 2
Level 2 = ECL 2

Level 2 = CR 2 = Ogre = ECL 2

Simple math.  The only question is, which rule is correct, the one in the DMG that states that Level 2 = CR 2, or the section that lists ECLs?

You know what my theory says.  Playtest it in a game, and you'll see that it works 100%.


----------



## kreynolds

Anubis said:
			
		

> *What I'm saying is that the rules are ALREADY like that. *




Not really. I'll explain below.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Level 2 = CR 2 = Ogre = ECL 2 *




Not exactly. One common oversight that some people suffer from is this: Your CR is a measure of your power, and your power is also affected by your resources. A standard core race PC at any particular level has a certain amount of resources available to it. These resources, measured in gold pieces, are what allow you to get weapons, magic items, spells, potions, tools, armor, etc. All of this gives you power, and that power is limited my your resources, and your resources are limited by your level.

A monster also has a certain amount of resources available to it, such as attacks, hit points, special attacks, special abilities, special qualities, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities, damage reduction, energy resistance, energy immunity, etc, etc. These resources are limited by the monster's CR.

Now, if you take a monster, which has a set amount of resources based upon it's CR, and make it a player character, you are effectively granting it even more resources to allow it to aquire weapons, magic items, spells, potions, tools, armor, etc. Thus, it's effective character level is increased due to the fact that it already has it's own resources.

So, presumably, an Ogre is ECL +5 because it starts with the resources equal to that of the average 5th level character. Now, where ECL breaks down is when you actually compare the monster to a PC of equal level. For instance, compare a young bronze dragon, which has an ECL of +17, to that of a 17th level character of any given class. Are they perfectly equal? Nope. They all have their different advantages and disadvantages, such as melee capabilities, ranged capabilities, magic capabilities, etc, etc.

However, the primary flaw of ECL is the fact that monsters were designed to exhist for but a few rounds, or minutes, at the most. Thus, their resources (such as attacks, hit points, special attacks, special abilities, special qualities, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities, damage reduction, energy resistance, energy immunity, etc) were geared for a specific purpose, such as melee combat, ranged combat, magical combat, swallowing opponents, grappling, etc, etc.

The core classes were designed, in theory, to be balanced with one another. Even though on class is more focused on a particular area than another class, they are balanced with one another. ECL is used to balance a monster PC with standard PCs, and with the game as a whole. ECL is used to balance a monster, as if it were a class in and off itself, with the other classes.

At least, that's the way it's supposed to work. But like I said, ECL isn't perfect, but neither does _level = CR = monster = ECL_.


----------



## Anubis

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not really. I'll explain below.
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. One common oversight that some people suffer from is this: Your CR is a measure of your power, and your power is also affected by your resources. A standard core race PC at any particular level has a certain amount of resources available to it. These resources, measured in gold pieces, are what allow you to get weapons, magic items, spells, potions, tools, armor, etc. All of this gives you power, and that power is limited my your resources, and your resources are limited by your level.
> 
> A monster also has a certain amount of resources available to it, such as attacks, hit points, special attacks, special abilities, special qualities, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities, damage reduction, energy resistance, energy immunity, etc, etc. These resources are limited by the monster's CR.
> 
> Now, if you take a monster, which has a set amount of resources based upon it's CR, and make it a player character, you are effectively granting it even more resources to allow it to aquire weapons, magic items, spells, potions, tools, armor, etc. Thus, it's effective character level is increased due to the fact that it already has it's own resources.
> 
> So, presumably, an Ogre is ECL +5 because it starts with the resources equal to that of the average 5th level character. Now, where ECL breaks down is when you actually compare the monster to a PC of equal level. For instance, compare a young bronze dragon, which has an ECL of +17, to that of a 17th level character of any given class. Are they perfectly equal? Nope. They all have their different advantages and disadvantages, such as melee capabilities, ranged capabilities, magic capabilities, etc, etc.
> 
> However, the primary flaw of ECL is the fact that monsters were designed to exhist for but a few rounds, or minutes, at the most. Thus, their resources (such as attacks, hit points, special attacks, special abilities, special qualities, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities, damage reduction, energy resistance, energy immunity, etc) were geared for a specific purpose, such as melee combat, ranged combat, magical combat, swallowing opponents, grappling, etc, etc.
> 
> The core classes were designed, in theory, to be balanced with one another. Even though on class is more focused on a particular area than another class, they are balanced with one another. ECL is used to balance a monster PC with standard PCs, and with the game as a whole. ECL is used to balance a monster, as if it were a class in and off itself, with the other classes.
> 
> At least, that's the way it's supposed to work. But like I said, ECL isn't perfect, but neither does level = CR = monster = ECL. *




I understand what you're saying, but you're overlooking one little point:

To use the Level = CR = Monster = ECL formula, you need to give wealth based on CLASS level as opposed to character level or ECL.  In other words, Make an ogre ECL 2, and if he comes into a Level 2 campaign, he only has the basic resources afforded the monster.  At Level 3, the monster would get starting money.  You get the idea.

Do that, and it balances.  Truly the problem lies with the development, but that is easily worked around as I have stated.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *And this make a difference...how? I never challenged your CR system. What I did do, however, is point out that a core rules argument based upon your rules is completely baseless. Sure, if we were talking about Dungeons & Upper_Krust, then it would apply. But, since we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons, well, that's a whole different story.*




I agree...again. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I didn't mean to imply that your system doesn't work, when in fact, I've never even looked at.*




Thats okay - its Epic/Immortal Level gaming ce


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Test*

Can I post this single line?

Then edit this post with a second line?

How about a third 
and fourth line?

Looks about ready to try a quote:



> Blah blah blah






			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *And this make a difference...how? I never challenged your CR system. What I did do, however, is point out that a core rules argument based upon your rules is completely baseless. Sure, if we were talking about Dungeons & Upper_Krust, then it would apply. But, since we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons, well, that's a whole different story.*


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *And this make a difference...how? I never challenged your CR system. What I did do, however, is point out that a core rules argument based upon your rules is completely baseless. Sure, if we were talking about Dungeons & Upper_Krust, then it would apply. But, since we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons, well, that's a whole different story.*




I agree...again. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I didn't mean to imply that your system doesn't work, when in fact, I've never even looked at.*




Thats okay - its Epic/Immortal Level gaming cen


----------



## Upper_Krust

Incidently when I get this problem sorted I will reddress the content of these tests with something meaningful.  (I'm at +4 lines)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21


----------



## kreynolds

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I understand what you're saying, but you're overlooking one little point: *




I didn't forget that at all. I even illustrated it in my previous post. *shrug*


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Announcement.*

Hi all! 

You boys play nice you hear! 

The high spot of today is that I now have the ELH. 

I'll try and respond to the current post backlog a bit later - its a bit sickening when you don't know if a message you type will post or not. So bear with me.

Added to that I will be away from my computer for a 9 days from Saturday 24th (as I head off to Gencon UK). I may be able to squeeze in some posts on S'mons computer now and again but don't expect too much.


----------



## Necropolis

hi
upper krust : can you give us please the realese date for your book ?
and not like maybe in september you know ike a real date
thanks


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *hi upper krust : can you give us please the realese date for your book ?
> and not like maybe in september you know ike a real date
> thanks *




Hi there! 

I wish I could, but as I have mentioned a few times I am sort of reliant on WotC updating the SRD (system reference document) to include Deities & Demigods.

When that happens I will be able to post non-speculative release dates.

I appreciate the interest! Sorry I can't be more forthcoming at this point.


----------



## Necropolis

hi again !
but can you tell me if they are going to do this in the near future like in a month or less ?
and what is the farest date that you will realese the book ?

again thanks


----------



## kreynolds

*Re: Announcement.*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!  *













hi


----------



## poilbrun

That was sooo childish!


----------



## kreynolds

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *That was sooo childish!  *




Wasn't it, though?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *hi again !
> but can you tell me if they are going to do this in the near future like in a month or less ?
> and what is the farest date that you will realese the book ?
> 
> again thanks *




Hello again Necropolis! 

Supposedly WotC have stated they will review and update the SRD as soon as the first round of the submission contest (end of August) is over. So the first section of the Immortals Handbook could be available in September if all goes to plan(?).

I don't contemplate worst case scenarios but I would hate to have to delay until October or November.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: lots of smiley faces*

If every one of those represented someone willing to buy the Immortals Handbook I would indeed have a lot to smile about.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Initial Impressions of the Epic Level Handbook*

Hi all! 

Okay I have had the book for a couple of hours now, so time for initial observations.

- Epic Class Extensions: straightforward
- Epic Prestige Classes: nothing particularly grabbing - but maybe I need to read over them a few times.
- Epic Skill Uses: straightforward
- Epic Feats: some interesting choices, though I am not sure about Improved Metamagic and Multispell.
- Epic Spells: I think the mechanics are great. The example spells are interesting.
- Epic Campaign Advice: I need to read this closer - 100 Epic Adventure ideas were good though.
- Epic Magic Items: Covers all the bases. More evolution than revolution. Thought the artifacts could have been much better.
- Epic Monsters: Overall good - though there were a few that were a bit flat but everyone has their favourites I imagine.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's my point, though . . . MAKE THEM THE SAME.  It's easy, and it levels the playing field between PCs and NPCs!  That in turn adds challenge, especially at higher levels!*




The problem is that the abilities of some monsters (eg. Troll regeneration) are more useful to PCs than NPCs.

I think this is the related article:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly11.html


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Can you smell what the Krust is cookin'!?*

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's something that you could put into the Immortal's Handbook, along with a comprehensive set of rules for determining ECL and CR, that would set your book as THE source for Divinity AND Epic gaming, along with making it THE single best source to find suitable "fixes" in the Core Rules! *




It will be THE source for Divinity and Epic Level gaming...


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello mate!
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the abilities of some monsters (eg. Troll regeneration) are more useful to PCs than NPCs.
> 
> I think this is the related article:
> 
> http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly11.html *




This, actually, does not change the fact that UK's rules for determining ECL in regards to CR would also provide good ECLs for PCs.

Download Asgard 6 and look at it.  With minimal tweaking it'd be perfect.

Yeah, CR doesn't work for SOME things.  For others, however, it works pretty darn well.


----------



## kreynolds

Anubis said:
			
		

> *This, actually, does not change the fact that UK's rules for determining ECL in regards to CR would also provide good ECLs for PCs. *




Anubis, I find it very strange, that when replying to U.K., you refer to him in the third person, as U.K. This kind of respect and admiration is rather distrubing, as it somewhat reminds me of the creepy as hell behavior that can be found in psycho-obsessive identity stealing stalkers. Are you feeling ok? You haven't been sifting through his trash or anything, have you?


----------



## Knight Otu

*Re: Initial Impressions of the Epic Level Handbook*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> Okay I have had the book for a couple of hours now, so time for initial observations.
> 
> - Epic Class Extensions: straightforward
> - Epic Prestige Classes: nothing particularly grabbing - but maybe I need to read over them a few times.
> - Epic Skill Uses: straightforward
> - Epic Feats: some interesting choices, though I am not sure about Improved Metamagic and Multispell.
> - Epic Spells: I think the mechanics are great. The example spells are interesting.
> - Epic Campaign Advice: I need to read this closer - 100 Epic Adventure ideas were good though.
> - Epic Magic Items: Covers all the bases. More evolution than revolution. Thought the artifacts could have been much better.
> - Epic Monsters: Overall good - though there were a few that were a bit flat but everyone has their favourites I imagine. *



Glad that you finally were able to get the book, Upper_Krust! 

Be careful with the Epic Spells. They are fun to create, fun to read, ... and riddled with errors!  One in particular is the question when the Permanency is applied. For me, it seems obvious that it is applied as the last factor before the mitigating factors, but the sample spells often do it differently.

Some seeds that may be useful or neccessary are missing (Magic Equipment, for example. I posted a possible version twice here on the boards, in the IC forum and the Rules forum).

There is no real way to create instantaneous spells, other that "ad hoc"ing it and hoping that the DM allows it.

But yes, it is a fun chapter, and I'm hoping to unleash my Rain of Jade upon the hordes of shdaowlands oni in the Rokugan IR. 

I like most of the monsters presented (I was quite shocked when I read the Xixecal - I have a very similar god planned for my homebrew (and I had already statted him, just for fun)!  ).

The abominations are quite interesting, and I would have wished to see a wolf-like abomination instead of the brachyurus.

I think some CRs may be in line with your CR method (before the recent adjustment).

The City of Union is nice, and despite the fears of other posters, has a different feel than Sigil. The sample epic adventure seems to be quite "hack and slay", and is possibly too hard for characters of the proposed level. It seemed more like "Introduce as many epic critters as possible in as few words as possible". I like the epic adventure from Dungeon Magazine better in that respect.


----------



## Anubis

*DOH!  I'm such a bubble-brain tonight . . .*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anubis, I find it very strange, that when replying to U.K., you refer to him in the third person, as U.K. This kind of respect and admiration is rather distrubing, as it somewhat reminds me of the creepy as hell behavior that can be found in psycho-obsessive identity stealing stalkers. Are you feeling ok? You haven't been sifting through his trash or anything, have you?   *




Whoops, that was unintentional . . . UK's posts are usually really long, so since the post was't long, since I don't usually look at the name of the poster when debating and brainstorming like this, I just replied like I would to anybody . . .  

Whoops . . . Sorry about that . . .  

Truth is, I do have complete repsect for UK, mainly because he';s like the only d20 developer who actually talks to us like normal people.  Well, he's the only one I know of.  Plus, the level of ability needed to create such high-end rules is staggering, and something I've waited years to see because TSR and WotC never got it right before, and they still don't.

The only person who could get more respect and admiration is someone who comes up with rules for rulership and war!  I know about Fields of Blood the Book of War from Eden Odyssey, but it's been delayed so many times I'm starting to think it won't ever come out.  It's the final piece of the puzzle . . .


----------



## Anubis

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anubis, I find it very strange, that when replying to U.K., you refer to him in the third person, as U.K. This kind of respect and admiration is rather distrubing, as it somewhat reminds me of the creepy as hell behavior that can be found in psycho-obsessive identity stealing stalkers. Are you feeling ok? You haven't been sifting through his trash or anything, have you?   *




ROTFLMAO

I'm okay, it was an honest mistake, ya?

I'm okay, really.  I just got caught up in the discussion is all.  It happens to the best of us.

I admit, though, that this is the first time I've ever replied to anyone besides my wife in the third-person, as opposed to referring to MYSELF in the third-person.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This, actually, does not change the fact that UK's rules for determining ECL in regards to CR would also provide good ECLs for PCs.
> 
> Download Asgard 6 and look at it.  With minimal tweaking it'd be perfect.
> 
> Yeah, CR doesn't work for SOME things.  For others, however, it works pretty darn well. *




I appreciate the love! 

Though I can see Montes point that abilities like teleport without error at will, or regeneration are far more useful in the hands of the PCs than NPCs.

However it is difficult to ascertain if it would have a major effect on CR for the purposes of individual encounters.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Easy Tiger.*

Hello mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Anubis, I find it very strange, that when replying to U.K., you refer to him in the third person, as U.K. This kind of respect and admiration is rather distrubing, as it somewhat reminds me of the creepy as hell behavior that can be found in psycho-obsessive identity stealing stalkers. Are you feeling ok? You haven't been sifting through his trash or anything, have you?   *




Perhaps I should change my pseudo-name to 'the artist formerly known as Upper_Krust'?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: DOH!  I'm such a bubble-brain tonight . . .*

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Truth is, I do have complete repsect for UK, mainly because he's like the only d20 developer who actually talks to us like normal people.  Well, he's the only one I know of. *




Thats probably because I am not technically a d20 developer just yet. 

Once I hit the big time it will all be hard drugs and fast women! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Plus, the level of ability needed to create such high-end rules is staggering, and something I've waited years to see because TSR and WotC never got it right before, and they still don't. *




I have been waiting years for such a book myself, so long in fact I thought I would write it myself.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Anubis said:
			
		

> *ROTFLMAO
> 
> I'm okay, it was an honest mistake, ya?
> 
> I'm okay, really.  I just got caught up in the discussion is all.  It happens to the best of us.
> 
> I admit, though, that this is the first time I've ever replied to anyone besides my wife in the third-person, as opposed to referring to MYSELF in the third-person.*




Hey! No big deal. Sometimes I even refer to myself in the third person. 

If my friends catch it they refer to it as a 'Krustality'. 

If ya smell-l-l-l-l...what the Krust...is...cookin!?


----------



## Blacksad

A thought just occured to me (something that happens once every century), and I have a question for you U_K:

Will the immortal handbook requires Deities&Demigods, or will it reprints the meaty content of D&De?


----------



## Ashardalon

Blacksad said:
			
		

> *A thought just occured to me (something that happens once every century), and I have a question for you U_K:
> 
> Will the immortal handbook requires Deities&Demigods, or will it reprints the meaty content of D&De? *



I'm sure that the book won't reprint mechanics from D&DG, but it will rewrite some things. But since it will be in the SRD by that time, you propably can find the "meat" there when it is released.

And I'm very happy about the ELH, quite a few goodies for great red wyrms like me in it. 

Do you have a few things planned for dragons, Upper_Krust?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Blacksad mate! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *A thought just occured to me (something that happens once every century), and I have a question for you U_K:
> 
> Will the immortal handbook requires Deities&Demigods, or will it reprints the meaty content of D&De? *




Well I won't be reprinting all the Salient Divine Abilities; though I have revised about a dozen and I do have a list of all SDAs telling if they are EX or SU. I also have about an extra 50 SDAs. Not to mention the more powerful stuff like EDAs; ODAs etc. 

I will have Divinity Templates that are a lot more user friendly than the list of Divine Characteristics in D&Dg though.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Ashardalon mate! 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *I'm sure that the book won't reprint mechanics from D&DG, but it will rewrite some things. But since it will be in the SRD by that time, you propably can find the "meat" there when it is released.*




Thanks for helping out! 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *And I'm very happy about the ELH, quite a few goodies for great red wyrms like me in it.
> 
> Do you have a few things planned for dragons, Upper_Krust?  *




Might do!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Initial Impressions of the Epic Level Handbook*

Hello mate! 

Not sure if I can post a reply this size, hence my reticence at answering this post. Hopefully that problems sorted itself?



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Glad that you finally were able to get the book, Upper_Krust! *




Thanks! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Be careful with the Epic Spells. They are fun to create, fun to read, ... and riddled with errors!  One in particular is the question when the Permanency is applied. For me, it seems obvious that it is applied as the last factor before the mitigating factors, but the sample spells often do it differently.*




Yeah I have noticed a few possible problems.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Some seeds that may be useful or neccessary are missing (Magic Equipment, for example. I posted a possible version twice here on the boards, in the IC forum and the Rules forum).
> 
> There is no real way to create instantaneous spells, other that "ad hoc"ing it and hoping that the DM allows it.*




Interesting. I was looking for a way to reduce damage, its not in the book but seems easily adaptable.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *But yes, it is a fun chapter, and I'm hoping to unleash my Rain of Jade upon the hordes of shdaowlands oni in the Rokugan IR. *








			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I like most of the monsters presented (I was quite shocked when I read the Xixecal - I have a very similar god planned for my homebrew (and I had already statted him, just for fun)!  ).*




Xixecal reminds me of Ymir from Norse Mythology (specifically as he is detailed in The Mighty Thor).

Incidently I managed to pick up both the Infinity Gauntlet series and the Infinity War series (I already had Infinity Crusade) yesterday. They are all brilliant, especially Gauntlet. I do so love Cosmic Powerhouses. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The abominations are quite interesting, and I would have wished to see a wolf-like abomination instead of the brachyurus.*




If the ELH goes SRD expect two Abominations in the IH.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I think some CRs may be in line with your CR method (before the recent adjustment).*




The recent adjustment would only affect Abominations.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The City of Union is nice, and despite the fears of other posters, has a different feel than Sigil. The sample epic adventure seems to be quite "hack and slay", and is possibly too hard for characters of the proposed level. It seemed more like "Introduce as many epic critters as possible in as few words as possible". I like the epic adventure from Dungeon Magazine better in that respect. *




I haven't had time to read Union in detail yet.


----------



## Knight Otu

ODA's ? Obscure Divine Abilities? One step above even Esoteric Divine Abilities?

Your long post has landed savely. 

He, yes, Ashardalon is still around sometimes.

Maybe I should call for a dragon hunt to finish him off? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Na, not really. 



> If the ELH goes SRD expect two Abominations in the IH.



Need some starting points?  (Yes, I have begun to write a wolf-type abomination (actually three related ones))



> The recent adjustment would only affect Abominations.



Yes, I am aware of this.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *ODA's ? Obscure Divine Abilities?*




Nope...and I ain't talkin! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *One step above even Esoteric Divine Abilities?*




Yes. Of course who says ODAs are even the most powerful! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Your long post has landed safely. *




Yes the problem seems to have corrected itself (unless Morrus did something...?)



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *He, yes, Ashardalon is still around sometimes. *




I recognised him immediately! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Maybe I should call for a dragon hunt to finish him off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Na, not really.  *




He could be your villainous _alter-ego_! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Need some starting points?  (Yes, I have begun to write a wolf-type abomination (actually three related ones)) *




I want to distance myself as far from Epic Monster ideas as possible. Last time I checked there are no big wolf style beasties in the IH.

You could always assume the standard Brachyurus is Garm and the 135HD version is Fenris Wolf?


----------



## Knight Otu

> Nope...and I ain't talkin!



Come on, spill the secrets! 



> I want to distance myself as far from Epic Monster ideas as possible. Last time I checked there are no big wolf style beasties in the IH.



No problem.  It was meant mostly as a joke anyways. 



> You could always assume the standard Brachyurus is Garm and the 135HD version is Fenris Wolf?



As you know, I'm not really fond of the Brachyurus, and I think it's a shame to put any of the mythological wolf monsters into relation with them, especially Fenris.

And don't talk to much about Ashardalon, not everybody knows it (although they certainly can find it out).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Come on, spill the secrets! *




Nope! Even though this ones almost too big to sit on. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *No problem.  It was meant mostly as a joke anyways. *




I am always happy to listen to suggestions; though regarding monsters I already have more designed than I am going to use; so any ideas would have to impress me. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *As you know, I'm not really fond of the Brachyurus, and I think it's a shame to put any of the mythological wolf monsters into relation with them, especially Fenris.*




It seems like a tougher, magical version of the Legendary Animal. Not really much too it.


----------



## Anubis

*BUMP*


----------



## Upper_Krust

*The Krust has landed!*

Hi all! 

just wanted to let you know that I am now in London (I'm actually typing this from S'mons house as we speak) for GenconUK at the end of next week.

Not sure how often I will get to post over the next week or so, but I'll try and look in at least once a day. 

Aside from a healthy dose of roleplaying I hope to get the first section of the IH typed up for GenconUK, providing we can get the software installed okay and I get some quality typing up time over the next week.


----------



## Necropolis

hi upper krust  
i wanted to ask you those questions
1) are you going to create in the immortal handbook the most powerfull good creatures  angels and archangels  ?
2) if yes are you going to do them so a high level ( 14-17 ) paladin can become a angel and in higher levels ( 19-20 )  he can become an archangel so like that the powerfullevil wizards can transform to a lich a paladin can be eventually an archangels and do some good and fight against all the evils in the world ?
3)are you going to create all kind of liches ? ( i know that you said that you are working on a tamplete that you put on the demi-lich )
but i think that the demi-lich is not so fun to play he is imposible to play becuse that he is incorperal and he trevels to other worlds all the time and all that is left of his is just a pile of dust
so what that i am thinking is that  you can create a new kind of a lich that can be more powerfull then the demi-lich and more then the tampleate that you put on the demi-lich and that we can play with in the game world you know something very very very powerfull but that you can play and not just trevel all day long to other planes and that you can maybe rule the world some day you can do it very powerfull maybe like a minor god  or less

so what do you think ?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *hi upper krust *




Hi Necropolis mate! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *i wanted to ask you those questions*




Sure fire away! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *1) are you going to create in the immortal handbook the most powerfull good creatures  angels and archangels  ?*




Yes.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *2) if yes are you going to do them so a high level ( 14-17 ) paladin can become a angel and in higher levels ( 19-20 )  he can become an archangel so like that the powerfullevil wizards can transform to a lich a paladin can be eventually an archangels and do some good and fight against all the evils in the world ?*




Well I don't see why High Level Paladins who die in the service of their deity couldn't 'evolve' into celestials (of type dependant upon their level/CR). In fact this is one of the optional rules I advocate; whereupon a deity requires a spirit as powerful as the creature it hopes to create.

eg. To create a Solar (revised CR23) a deity would need a spirit of one of their followers who was also CR23 (Level 26).



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *3)are you going to create all kind of liches ? ( i know that you said that you are working on a tamplete that you put on the demi-lich )*




Thats right I do have the one template that adds on top of the demilich. But I haven't created any other 'liches'; though there are a number of undead and a few other undead templates.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *but i think that the demi-lich is not so fun to play he is imposible to play becuse that he is incorperal and he trevels to other worlds all the time and all that is left of his is just a pile of dust*




I agree the demilich is more an NPC figure than viable PC.

Incidently my template makes it even less corporeal. 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *so what that i am thinking is that  you can create a new kind of a lich that can be more powerfull then the demi-lich and more then the tampleate that you put on the demi-lich and that we can play with in the game world you know something very very very powerfull but that you can play and not just trevel all day long to other planes and that you can maybe rule the world some day you can do it very powerfull maybe like a minor god  or less
> 
> so what do you think ? *




Well I have a template called the Nosferatu which is to the vampire what the demilich is to the lich in terms of power - yet is still corporeal. So perhaps it is better suited to what you are looking for?


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Well I have a template called the Nosferatu which is to the vampire what the demilich is to the lich in terms of power - yet is still corporeal. So perhaps it is better suited to what you are looking for? *



You're sure you won't get any trouble about the name "Nosferatu"? I know White Wolf didn't invent it, but with them using the name in their RPG, I don't know if it'd be OK to use in another RPG...

BTW, I find it funny that questions about liches are asked by someone called Necropolis!


----------



## Anubis

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *
> You're sure you won't get any trouble about the name "Nosferatu"? I know White Wolf didn't invent it, but with them using the name in their RPG, I don't know if it'd be OK to use in another RPG...
> 
> BTW, I find it funny that questions about liches are asked by someone called Necropolis!  *




I can say with absolute certainty that there would be no trouble in using the term "Nosferatu".  It is not a fictional term; therefore, it is not subject to copyright laws.

"Nosferatu" has been around for a long time.  Not sure which language it finds it's origins in, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I know that it dates back to the old Transylvanian legends and such, as well as old OLD stuff about "vampires" long past.

No real proof of their existence, but also no proof denying their existence.  It's one of those "The truth is out there . . ." deals, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

I appreciate the concern guys but I think the word Nosferatu has been around for centuries and is therefore not subject to copyright.


----------



## poilbrun

I don't know a thing about copywriting material works, so at least I've learned something : non-fictional terms can't be copywrited!  I just wanted to be sure you were aware of the potential problem...


----------



## Virgil Sagecaster

What is the "SRD"? 
And why is it so important........


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I don't know a thing about copywriting material works, so at least I've learned something : non-fictional terms can't be copywrited!  I just wanted to be sure you were aware of the potential problem... *




Well Simon is a copyright lawyer so I think I am in safe hands.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi there! 



			
				Virgil Sagecaster said:
			
		

> *What is the "SRD"?
> And why is it so important........ *




The SRD is the "System Reference Document".

This represents the body of official Dungeons & Dragons material that d20 publishers (outside Wizards of the Coast) can draw upon.

eg. Before the Psionics Handbook entered the SRD no d20 publisher could use any of that material in their products - now they can.

Essentially I am waiting on Deities & Demigods entering the SRD so that I can draw upon some of the material in that book to use as a basis for some of my ideas and keep my work as compatible with Deities & Demigods as possible.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi poilbrun mate!
> 
> Well Simon is a copyright lawyer so I think I am in safe hands.  *



Didn't know that!


----------



## Virgil Sagecaster

> Hi there!



How's it going, Knowledge Bringer!

So basically its a waiting game for D&D to enter to the SRD so you can use/convert the matieral for your "Immortal Handbook"?

By the way, that brings up a couple of questions:
     How dose published material enter the SRD?
     Is the SRD the same as the "Open d20 Gaming License"?


----------



## Sollir Furryfoot

(Sorry for the small hijack)



> _Originally posted by Knight Otu_
> *But yes, it is a fun chapter, and I'm hoping to unleash my Rain of Jade upon the hordes of shdaowlands oni in the Rokugan IR *





Hey!  I heard that!!! 

*Bumps Knight Otu up on his list accordingly*  

Sollir, player of Daigotsu, Lord of the Shadowlands in the Rokugan IR


----------



## Knight Otu

Sollir Furryfoot said:
			
		

> *(Sorry for the small hijack)
> 
> *
> 
> Hey!  I heard that!!!
> 
> *Bumps Knight Otu up on his list accordingly*
> 
> Sollir, player of Daigotsu, Lord of the Shadowlands in the Rokugan IR [/B]




  

I thought I was on top of that list already after the reply to your e-mail?


----------



## Aloïsius

*stupid nitpicking*

Hello UK,
I just read in the D&D faq that god's stats were based after those of the Titan, not the Solar. So you were wrong  
(excuse me if this was already say elsewhere in this thread, I did not see it)


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: stupid nitpicking*

Hi Aloïsius mate! 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *Hello UK,
> I just read in the D&D faq that god's stats were based after those of the Titan, not the Solar. So you were wrong
> (excuse me if this was already say elsewhere in this thread, I did not see it) *




Well then whoever wrote the D&D faq doesn't know what they are talking about! 

Lets look at the evidence:

Quasi-deity

- Damage Reduction 35/+4; same as Solar
- Spell Resistance 32; same as Solar
- Immunity to Acid; same as Solar
- Immunity to Cold; same as Solar
- Immunity to Electricity; same as Solar
- Fire Resistance 20; same as Solar

The only thing the Titan seems to contribute is base Natural Armour 13.

Technically Solar Natural Armour seems to be an amalgam of Divine Natural Armour and Divine Deflection anyway (albeit one point out).

So the evidence is at least 6:1 in my favour.


----------



## The Serge

U_K!

Gadodel has posted a really interesting thread on the WotC DDG boards about "Why they shouldn't be gods," referring to the planar entities.

Thought you'd like to join in on what looks like may be a fun discussion.

I, too, saw that mention about Titans and thought that odd considering what the Solars look like.

However, it _was_ written by The Sage....

Your thoughts on the _Epic Level Handbook_?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Virgil Sagecaster said:
			
		

> * How's it going, Knowledge Bringer!*






Hey there Virgil! 



			
				Virgil Sagecaster said:
			
		

> * So basically its a waiting game for D&D to enter to the SRD so you can use/convert the matieral for your "Immortal Handbook"?*




Yes.



			
				Virgil Sagecaster said:
			
		

> * By the way, that brings up a couple of questions:*




Sure fire away.



			
				Virgil Sagecaster said:
			
		

> *  How dose published material enter the SRD?*




Wizards of the Coast officially update it.



			
				Virgil Sagecaster said:
			
		

> * Is the SRD the same as the "Open d20 Gaming License"? *




(as far as I know) The SRD is the body of material thats 'open'. The Open Gaming License is the legal contract.

Other publishers can make their work 'open' as well; I think parts of Relics & Rituals were 'open'. I am not sure if I will make the IH open or not...?


----------



## Upper_Krust

The Serge said:
			
		

> *U_K!*




Hey Serge mate! 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Gadodel has posted a really interesting thread on the WotC DDG boards about "Why they shouldn't be gods," referring to the planar entities.*




Thought you'd like to join in on what looks like may be a fun discussion.

I'll probably stop by later - though I may not join in until Monday. I can't imagine I am going to be posting much over the next 4 days.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *I, too, saw that mention about Titans and thought that odd considering what the Solars look like.*




I don't know how they extrapolated the quasi-deity from the titan!? It doesn't make sense!?



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *However, it was written by The Sage....*




I rest my case! 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Your thoughts on the Epic Level Handbook? *




Its better than Deities & Demigods.

I'll post a lengthier examination in the near future.


----------



## Anubis

Hey yo!  Wassup, UK?

I was just wondering . . . Are you gonna fix the rules for advancing monsters?  The current rules break down very VERY quickly . . .

Take, for example, the Athach.  HD 14, CR 7.  Now, by the advancement rules, if you bump it up to HD 28, it is then CR 9.  This, however, is utterly ridiculous.  I took a Level 9 party up against one of these things and they barely made it out alive, having to use nearly all of their resources!

Another good example is the Solar.  (Note: I am using UK's method of determining CR in this example, but the example is just as valid, if not more valid, using the original CR of the Solar.)  HD 22, CR 25.  Using the rules, bumping the Solar up to HD 44, it becomes CR 27.  Certainly you would agree that this is more than a wee bit ridiculous?

For those of you who want to argue about the Solar's CR, here it is for you.  HD 22, CR 19.  HD 44, CR 21.  Any questions?

For my final example, I will use Tarrasque.  (Note: I am once again using UK's method.)  HD 48, CR 24.  By the rules, advancing it to HD 96 would make it CR 26.  Anyone else have a problem with that?

For those of you wanting me to give another example using current rules, here's for you.  HD 48, CR 20.  HD 96, CR 22.  Any questions?

Basically, the more HD a creature has, the more broken the system gets.  The HD 28 Athach should be CR 13 MINIMUM.  The HD 44 Solar should be at least CR 30, and the HD 96 Tarrasque should be a bare minimum of CR 33.


----------



## Knight Otu

Anubis, I thouroughly agree. 

My temporary fix was increasing the CR for each number of hit dice the creature gained, based on type (say, 1 per each 2 outsider HD) and special abilities. I never tested it really, though. I think Upper_Krust's CR system applies to advanced creature's, too?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis and Knight Otu! 

Yes the current advancement rules are whacko.

I suggest using my CR system to determine advancement as well:

Tarrasque 48HD ECL29/CR24
Tarrasque 96HD ECL53/CR33

Solar 22HD ECL 27/CR23 (remember I changed it recently because I no longer consider them quasi-deities)
Solar 44HD ECL45/CR31


----------



## Aloïsius

*Re: Re: stupid nitpicking*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Aloïsius mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Well then whoever wrote the D&D faq doesn't know what they are talking about!
> 
> 
> So the evidence is at least 6:1 in my favour.  *




As always ... 
I did not check the MM immediatly after reading the faq, and when I did I was unable to log in to edit my post...

My brother (Gez) and me are still waiting (patiently ? ) the IH (he even bought D&D, faith and pantheon and, probably the ELH, just to be able to use it. May WotC hurry up ! When the IH will be available, I know someone who will have no excuse for not DMing a high level campaign


----------



## Aloïsius

*CR*

Oh, and UK, have you see in the thread about SKR rant this proposal : make CR adjustment like Armor Class (+5 natural, +2 dex) > (+1 high damage, -1 no ranged attack) ? Did you think it could be a usefull addition to your CR system ?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: stupid nitpicking*

Hi Aloïsius mate! 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *As always ...
> I did not check the MM immediatly after reading the faq, and when I did I was unable to log in to edit my post...*








			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *My brother (Gez)*




Wait a second...Gez is your brother!? How come I didn't know this before? Tell him I said hi!  



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *and me are still waiting (patiently ? ) the IH (he even bought D&D, faith and pantheon and, probably the ELH, just to be able to use it. *




Well I truly appreciate the support guys.



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *May WotC hurry up ! When the IH will be available, I know someone who will have no excuse for not DMing a high level campaign *




Absolutely. 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> * Oh, and UK, have you see in the thread about SKR rant this proposal :*




Yes I saw the thread, I replied to Ryan Dancey about my article in Asgard #6 and he emailed me back; congratulating me on it...which was nice! 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *make CR adjustment like Armor Class (+5 natural, +2 dex) > (+1 high damage, -1 no ranged attack) ? Did you think it could be a usefull addition to your CR system ? *




That is essentially how I do things anyway. Of course you can always think up more variables to throw at it than I have created.

Though I now have modifiers for NPC classes; adding ability scores; increasing size etc.

I think the moderators are going to shut this thread down shortly.


----------



## poilbrun

*Re: Re: stupid nitpicking*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I think the moderators are going to shut this thread down shortly. *



Not so sure, it seems several threads now are over 200 posts...

Take a look here!


----------



## Anubis

**BURP*bump*FART**

Oh, excuse me!


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Have you looked at the 1st-level Fighter and the 15th-level Fighter? +3 weapon vs. DR35/+4
> .
> .
> .
> I don't agree. But I would be happy to discuss your evidence?
> *




Alrighty then, happily.  ECL +10 means CR +10, making the DvR 0 Level 1 Fighter CR 11.  Although NPCs and PCS of the same level are the same CR, the PCs generally have more power.  By Level 11, most PC fighters (Level 11 PCs get 66000 gp of wealth on average) will have a +4 weapon and will thus kill the DvR 0 in a single hit.  Even without a +4 weapon, most fighters I know invest in Sure Striking early with their first weapon, so a Longsword +1 of Sure Striking means the end of that fight in favor of the Level 11 Fighter.

The fact that we are talking about CR, however, means we're talking about a PARTY of Level 11 characters, and there are any number of ways a party of that power could obliterate a Level 1 DvR 0.  The party cleric could cast a Maximized Searing Light that would certainly kill the deity in a single hit, I already showed that the fighter could do it, the roge with a weapon with Sure Striking could flank the deity and use Sneak Attack to kill him or her, and the wizard could use a Maximized Magic Missile to do the trick.

Is that sufficient?

As for DvR 1 being +20 ECL, I feel that any party would need Epic Power to stand against a deity with such abilities, because most of the deities' better abilities kick in at DvR 1, although good Initiative would still spell death for the deity even at lesser levels.

The real issue here is that Level 1 characters should not be deities under any circumstance.  Hell, I'd almost make being Epic Power (Level 21+) a requirement for becoming a deity.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Alrighty then, happily.  ECL +10 means CR +10, making the DvR 0 Level 1 Fighter CR 11.*




I understand your premise, I just didn't agree with it. 

I'm not pulling these figures out of thin air. I have a method behind my madness you know! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Although NPCs and PCS of the same level are the same CR, the PCs generally have more power.*




True but thats a constant. Probably to always give PCs that slight edge.

Also I advocate wealth be adjudicated by ECL rather than simply HD/Level.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By Level 11, most PC fighters (Level 11 PCs get 66000 gp of wealth on average) will have a +4 weapon and will thus kill the DvR 0 in a single hit.*




Not according to the DMGs 'typical' NPCs.

As a good rule of thumb I would say divide character level by four and round down to find weapon enhancement bonus.

Though perhaps dividing by three is closer to 'typical' campaigns.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Even without a +4 weapon, most fighters I know invest in Sure Striking early with their first weapon, so a Longsword +1 of Sure Striking means the end of that fight in favor of the Level 11 Fighter.*




Sure Striking is certainly a possibility, though hardly _de rigeur_. Its not even a core rulebook ability.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The fact that we are talking about CR, however, means we're talking about a PARTY of Level 11 characters, and there are any number of ways a party of that power could obliterate a Level 1 DvR 0.*




Given prior knowledge of their target; time to plan; and the appropriate access to magic items, possibly.

Remember the Quasi-deity will be smarter than the party and more wise than the party. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The party cleric could cast a Maximized Searing Light that would certainly kill the deity in a single hit,*




Which almost certainly wouldn't penetrate the deities Spell Resistance.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I already showed that the fighter could do it, *




Well you proffered an example: heavily weighed in favour of the PCs who somehow already know they are fighting a Quasi-deity (and have planned accordingly), rather than a typical character.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *the rogue with a weapon with Sure Striking could flank the deity and use Sneak Attack to kill him or her,*




Any enemy can be beaten with the right information; planning and equipment. But this will of course affect the CR of the encounter.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and the wizard could use a Maximized Magic Missile to do the trick.*




Likely won't pass Spell Resistance even with the Spell Penetration Feat.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Is that sufficient?*




Nope.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for DvR 1 being +20 ECL,*




Well I think +24 ECL myself. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I feel that any party would need Epic Power to stand against a deity with such abilities, because most of the deities' better abilities kick in at DvR 1, although good Initiative would still spell death for the deity even at lesser levels.*




Well a party of x4 18th-level characters would rate a 50/50 chance against a 1st-level Fighter Demigod if we adhere strictly to the system. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The real issue here is that Level 1 characters should not be deities under any circumstance.*




I agree. Though the real issue is trying to gauge and measure the power of divinity.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hell, I'd almost make being Epic Power (Level 21+) a requirement for becoming a deity. *




Something I have of course advocated from the beginning.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Not according to the DMGs 'typical' NPCs.
> *




CR is a measure of power of a creature again four PCs, however, so the "typical NPCs" are a moot point as they don't matter because they have no place in the discussion.  We're talking about PCs, not NPCs.  I don't know any PC fighter who won't have either a +4 weapon or Sure Striking by Level 11.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> As a good rule of thumb I would say divide character level by four and round down to find weapon enhancement bonus.
> 
> Though perhaps dividing by three is closer to 'typical' campaigns.
> *




I imagine 2.5 (rounding up) would be more accurate for PCs.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Sure Striking is certainly a possibility, though hardly de rigeur. Its not even a core rulebook ability.
> *




It's still a viable ability, and most campaigns use that book anyway.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Given prior knowledge of their target; time to plan; and the appropriate access to magic items, possibly.
> *




That's not necessary.  Most parties will have the kind of abilities needed memorized/prepared/acquired in at least one instance for ANY encounter, not just for those with deities.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Remember the Quasi-deity will be smarter than the party and more wise than the party.
> *




Not if he or she is dumb enough at Level 1 to challenge a Level 11 party!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Which almost certainly wouldn't penetrate the deities Spell Resistance.
> *




I'll give you this one.  The cleric and wizard could still find useful things to do, however, such as Haste, Bull's Strength, etc.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well you proffered an example: heavily weighed in favour of the PCs who somehow already know they are fighting a Quasi-deity (and have planned accordingly), rather than a typical character.
> *




As I already said, most parties will have those things prepared anyway, mainly because you never know what nasty creature you may find.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Any enemy can be beaten with the right information; planning and equipment. But this will of course affect the CR of the encounter.
> *




I feel it doesn't apply in this case, though.  Fighters and rogues will buy weapons with Sure Striking anyway just to be safe, and clerics and fighters have plenty of spells that could be useful even if not in a direct way.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well I think +24 ECL myself.
> *




Please explain that.  I see no reason why (by your rules) a Level 22-23 character couldn't kill a deity as easily as a Level 24-25 character would.  (Level 1 DvR1 would be ECL 25=CR 22, Level 24-25=CR 22, Level 22-23=CR 21)  I can see, however, how Epic Power characters can do what non-Epic Power characters could not.  That's what I consider the turning point. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I agree. Though the real issue is trying to gauge and measure the power of divinity.
> *




I agree.  Unfortunately, that divinity is more or less powerful depending on the initial power of the wielder.  THAT is the true problem.  DvR 0 means much more with Epic Power than with a Level 1 character.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *CR is a measure of power of a creature against four PCs, however, so the "typical NPCs" are a moot point as they don't matter because they have no place in the discussion.  We're talking about PCs, not NPCs.*




I thought the target quasi-deity (we were discussing) was an NPC.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I don't know any PC fighter who won't have either a +4 weapon or Sure Striking by Level 11.*




Considering you need a 12th-level spellcaster casting Greater Magic Weapon to gain a +4 weapon I would suggest that PCs gaining +4 enhancement bonus weapons before 12th-level are in an overtly magical campaign. 

If you give noticeably better than 'typical' magic items then you must adjust the CR rules accordingly.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I imagine 2.5 (rounding up) would be more accurate for PCs.*




Thats well beyond 'typical' averages.

+5 weapons at 13th-level is possible, but such high magic campaigns will have a noticable affect on CRs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's still a viable ability, and most campaigns use that book anyway.*




Its certainly viable but (as I mentioned) its hardly likely more than one PC (if any) will have such a weapon.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's not necessary.  Most parties will have the kind of abilities needed memorized/prepared/acquired in at least one instance for ANY encounter, not just for those with deities.*




Yes, but why would a Fighter use his +1 sure striking weapon in favour of his +3 brilliant energy weapon.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not if he or she is dumb enough at Level 1 to challenge a Level 11 party!*




Exactly my point.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'll give you this one.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The cleric and wizard could still find useful things to do, however, such as Haste, Bull's Strength, etc.*




But first; how would they know their opponent was a quasi-deity? They wouldn't. So their initial assault would prove ineffective. Also they wouldn't necessarily know the power/defenses of a quasi-deity even when their initial assault proves ineffective.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As I already said, most parties will have those things prepared anyway, mainly because you never know what nasty creature you may find.*




Exactly. They won't have the information to plan ahead and it won't be immediately obvious they are fighting anything other than a regular character.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I feel it doesn't apply in this case, though.  Fighters and rogues will buy weapons with Sure Striking anyway just to be safe,*




I don't necessarily agree.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and clerics and fighters have plenty of spells that could be useful even if not in a direct way.*




After they discern the quasi-deities true nature.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Please explain that.  I see no reason why (by your rules) a Level 22-23 character couldn't kill a deity as easily as a Level 24-25 character would.  (Level 1 DvR1 would be ECL 25=CR 22, Level 24-25=CR 22, Level 22-23=CR 21)  I can see, however, how Epic Power characters can do what non-Epic Power characters could not.  That's what I consider the turning point.*




I don't quite understand the question?

Divinity (as I have rated it) is measured by the list of the deities defenses and powers. The quasi-deity power also factors in the mammoth ability score modifiers.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I agree.  Unfortunately, that divinity is more or less powerful depending on the initial power of the wielder.  THAT is the true problem.  DvR 0 means much more with Epic Power than with a Level 1 character. *




Thats just like saying a 44th-level character is better than a 24th-level one though.


----------



## S'mon

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> CR is a measure of power of a creature again four PCs, however, so the "typical NPCs" are a moot point as they don't matter because they have no place in the discussion.  We're talking about PCs, not NPCs.  I don't know any PC fighter who won't have either a +4 weapon or Sure Striking by Level 11.
> 
> I imagine 2.5 (rounding up) would be more accurate for PCs.
> 
> *




Whether PC fighters have +4 weapons of sure striking at 11th level depends on whether you're running a 'little shop of infinite magic items' game or not - PCs in my game have ranged up to 9th level and never had anything better than +2.  There's not much in the MM that has DR over +3 anyway, and not that many over +2.  It's perfectly possible to run a viable game without letting the PCs buy whatever MI they happen to want.  I don't find it credible that a town with no wizard over 8th level is going to be producing +4 sure strike weapons on demand - or +3 weapons, for that matter.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Whether PC fighters have +4 weapons of sure striking at 11th level depends on whether you're running a 'little shop of infinite magic items' game or not - PCs in my game have ranged up to 9th level and never had anything better than +2.  There's not much in the MM that has DR over +3 anyway, and not that many over +2.  It's perfectly possible to run a viable game without letting the PCs buy whatever MI they happen to want.  I don't find it credible that a town with no wizard over 8th level is going to be producing +4 sure strike weapons on demand - or +3 weapons, for that matter. *




Yes, but your game is slightly magic light; whereas Anubis game is slightly magic heavy. My task is to find the common ground which seems to be slightly less than +1 enhancement bonus/3 Levels.

This parallels the fact that spellcasters need to be 12th-level to create +4 weapons and gives the spell Greater Magic Weapon some meaning and purpose (if everyone is running around with +4 weaponry at 11th-level; that spell becomes pointless).

So you would have to say the average lies somewhere within +1/3 Levels and +1/4 Levels. Perhaps +1/3.5:

eg.
+1 at about 4th-level
+2 at about 7th-level
+3 at about 10th-level
+4 at about 14th-level
+5 at about 18th-level

Incidently looking through the Epic NPC list at the back of the ELH, very few of them have Epic Magic items.

In the standard classes I only saw one epic item (The Paladins +6 Shield); among the personalities Shuruppak's sword is +12 (total bonuses); the Cat Lord has a +8 rapier; Eclavdra has a +7 morningstar.

What we can draw from this is that seemingly Epic items are a bit thin on the ground.

I would suggest that the 'jump' to +6 take place at around 35th. Although characters could of course create such items themselves before that; this is a useful chart for NPCs.

eg.
+6 at 35th-level
+7 at 39th-level
+8 at 42nd-level
+9 at 46th-level
+10 at 50th-level
etc. 
NB. Remember these are just rough guidelines.

Deities are handled somewhat differently in the IH though. 

I also recently came up with a new way to instigate Esoteric Divine Powers that means you don't necessarily have to spend WP to obtain them - its a simpler and more effective mechanism.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I thought the target quasi-deity (we were discussing) was an NPC.
> *




Remember, at its core, CR is the measure of power of an NPC against PCs.

We're talking about an NPC deity going up against four PCs, because that is the only way to determine CR.

Do you honestly think that a party of Level 11 characters won't decimate a Level 1 character with DvR 0?

Forget about PCs having +4 weapons for now and think only of the Sure Striking ability.  Most fighters will get a weapon with Sure Striking.  This would be a +2 weapon.

Heck, you could even forget about that.  A Level 11 party will have access to Antimagic Field which, when cast, completely negates the DR of the deity.  What's that foolish deity gonna do then?  Beg for his life or just die?  He has no SDAs to fall back on, and if he or she goes after Fighter, he or she is as good as dead.  One hit is all it takes.

This stuff about knowledge of the deity's status is a moot point.  After the first hit does nothing, they'll know that they need a lot more power in the weapons to kill the deity in question.  The deity, on the other hand, will NOT have enough power to take the party out.  At best, the deity will retreat, which still equals a win for the party in question.

Remember, you've been basing your arguments on the NPC stats in the book for both sides.  To determine the actual numbers, you must match an NPC deity against a party of four balanced PCs, because that is how ECL and CR are determined.

I have shown time and again that a Level 11 party would easily defeat a Level 1 character with DvR 0.  Add levels to both sides, and the balance remains pretty much the same.  At Level 2, the deity still would be unable to defeat the now Level 12 party.  By the time the deity is Level 4, nothing else matters, because the party will, even by your standards, now have +4 weapons.  This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that DvR 0 should be ECL +10.

I have give nevery argument I can think of to show you that DvR 0 is ECL +10.  I believe my arguments are all valid and reasonable and easily seen in any campaign.

_[Note: I'm using your rules for ECL/CR from Asgard 6 here.]_

As for DvR 1 being ECL +20, my main premise is that DvR 1 is a 100% increase in power over DvR 0.  (Using a Level 1 character here doesn't work.)  This is more of a theory than anything else, becayse at ECL +20, it's impossible to calculate specifics.  I do believe it to be accurate, though, because by doing so, a Level 21 deity would be ECL 41 (CR 30) and thus a decent challenge for four Level 40-43 character (Party CR 30).  By your assumption, the party members would all need Level 44-47 to challenge the Level 21 deity with DvR 1, and that is a bit harsh, I believe.  Not much of a difference, but enough to have an effect.

Anyway, I have made my case.  I am saying all of this with due respect to you, of course.  I hope you take my words to heart and consider what I've said.  Not only does it make sense, it also actually makes the calculations of ECL and CR easier in the long run.  It's a win-win situtation!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Remember, at its core, CR is the measure of power of an NPC against PCs.*




I don't agree thats the best way to do it though.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *We're talking about an NPC deity going up against four PCs, because that is the only way to determine CR.*




The flipside of that is however that the +14 ECL is given to PCs as well. Something that I think returns us to the Monte Cook article we previously discussed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Do you honestly think that a party of Level 11 characters won't decimate a Level 1 character with DvR 0?*




Remember that the 1st-level Quasi-deity will have weapons equivalent to a 15th-level NPC.

Such a fight is approximately a 50/50 chance of going either way as I see it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Forget about PCs having +4 weapons for now and think only of the Sure Striking ability.  Most fighters will get a weapon with Sure Striking.  This would be a +2 weapon.*




I don't buy this 'most fighters will have weapons with the sure striking ability' opinion.

If you are running/playing an overtly magical campaign then the PCs are obviously going to be 'pound for pound' more powerful. Thus CR will be duly affected.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Heck, you could even forget about that.  A Level 11 party will have access to Antimagic Field which, when cast, completely negates the DR of the deity.  What's that foolish deity gonna do then?  Beg for his life or just die?  He has no SDAs to fall back on, and if he or she goes after Fighter, he or she is as good as dead.  One hit is all it takes.*




Assumes the 'foolish deity' gets caught in one in the first place. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This stuff about knowledge of the deity's status is a moot point.  After the first hit does nothing, they'll know that they need a lot more power in the weapons to kill the deity in question.*




Not at all. 

Which is easier: fighting a Red Dragon on a whim or fighting a red dragon with prior knowledge of the opponent; everyone armed with dragon bane weaponry and everyone protected versus fire?

Information affects CR.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The deity, on the other hand, will NOT have enough power to take the party out.  At best, the deity will retreat, which still equals a win for the party in question.*




With the items of a 15th-level NPC I don't see why it wouldn't have a fighting chance if played intelligently; by 'fighting chance' I don't necessarily mean standing toe to toe with the party.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Remember, you've been basing your arguments on the NPC stats in the book for both sides.  To determine the actual numbers, you must match an NPC deity against a party of four balanced PCs, because that is how ECL and CR are determined.*




I used the NPC examples to represent a lower limit. Stats wise PCs will be similar, so the only difference will be the magic items.

I already mentioned that NPCs are treated as equal to PCs in that respect which always gives PCs the edge.

A 20th-level NPC is rated equal to a 20th-level PC in terms of CR.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have shown time and again that a Level 11 party would easily defeat a Level 1 character with DvR 0.*




You have shown that they could; but not necessarily that they would.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Add levels to both sides, and the balance remains pretty much the same.  At Level 2, the deity still would be unable to defeat the now Level 12 party.  By the time the deity is Level 4, nothing else matters, because the party will, even by your standards, now have +4 weapons.  This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that DvR 0 should be ECL +10.*




The measure of this power is not based on Damage Reduction alone (in fact thats only a very small fraction of the power) - but on all the deities gained powers and abilities.

Again this relates to Monte Cooks article; wherein many of the abilities will be more useful to PCs than NPCs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have given every argument I can think of to show you that DvR 0 is ECL +10.  I believe my arguments are all valid and reasonable and easily seen in any campaign.*




They are indeed valid and reasonable, but not conclusive.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *[Note: I'm using your rules for ECL/CR from Asgard 6 here.]*




That article didn't properly take into account the increase in ability scores (as I now rate them).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for DvR 1 being ECL +20, my main premise is that DvR 1 is a 100% increase in power over DvR 0.  (Using a Level 1 character here doesn't work.)  This is more of a theory than anything else, becayse at ECL +20, it's impossible to calculate specifics.  I do believe it to be accurate, though, because by doing so, a Level 21 deity would be ECL 41 (CR 30) and thus a decent challenge for four Level 40-43 character (Party CR 30).  By your assumption, the party members would all need Level 44-47 to challenge the Level 21 deity with DvR 1, and that is a bit harsh, I believe.  Not much of a difference, but enough to have an effect.*




Again I rated DR1 in terms of what it adds to a character.

Remember again that the addition ECL affects NPC wealth/items.

A level 21 DR1 is effectively ECL 45/CR 31 (wealth as per a 45th-level NPC). This is the equivalent (50/50) to x4 34th-level characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I have made my case.  I am saying all of this with due respect to you, of course.*




Hey! We are all friends here mate! I have nothing but respect for your opinion. You know that!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hope you take my words to heart and consider what I've said.*




I have considered them. But other than the difference between rating these powers as they apply to PCs and NPCs (something I may attend to) I don't see a problem.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not only does it make sense, it also actually makes the calculations of ECL and CR easier in the long run.  It's a win-win situtation! *




I think any such difference will be negligable. But if you wish to modify the CRs when you see the final work then fair enough.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

Hi Upper Krust! Concerning The ELH, don`t you think that it is ridiculous tha the wealth of 30th level NPC is so much lower than of a PC of same level? Hey, something as an average 30th level Wizard or Fighter shouldn`t even exist! There might even not be any beings of such level on many worlds!


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> A level 21 DR1 is effectively ECL 45/CR 31 (wealth as per a 45th-level NPC). This is the equivalent (50/50) to x4 34th-level characters.
> *




You mean four Level 44 characters, right?  By your own system, four Level 34 has a party CR of 27.  It would take four Level 44-47 characters to be party CR 31, and thus a challenge for CR 31.

Not to nitpick or anything . . .

Getting back to the subject, I think the best idea is to playtest it.  Dont' warn players ahead of time, just throw the Level 1 DvR 0 NPC against a party of Level 11 characters.  I think they will win.

Same with the ECL +20 for DvR 1.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Melkor said:
			
		

> *Hi Upper Krust!*




Hi Melkor mate! 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Concerning The ELH, don`t you think that it is ridiculous tha the wealth of 30th level NPC is so much lower than of a PC of same level?*




It fulfills two criteria: firstly it gives PCs a slight edge in confrontations; secondly it stops PCs gaining too much wealth/items from defeated NPCs.



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Hey, something as an average 30th level Wizard or Fighter shouldn`t even exist! There might even not be any beings of such level on many worlds! *




On a world scale I agree. However on a multiversal (and beyond) scale its appropriate.

Incidently, there should be a 30th-level character for every 536,870,912 people. So Earth should have about 11 30th-level characters. 

40th-level character - Every 549 billion
50th-level character - Every 562 trillion
60th-level character - Every 576 quintillion
etc.

This demographic does not apply to deities since they are effectively immortal.


----------



## S'mon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Simon!
> 
> 
> Yes, but your game is slightly magic light; whereas Anubis game is slightly magic heavy. My task is to find the common ground which seems to be slightly less than +1 enhancement bonus/3 Levels.
> 
> This parallels the fact that spellcasters need to be 12th-level to create +4 weapons and gives the spell Greater Magic Weapon some meaning and purpose (if everyone is running around with +4 weaponry at 11th-level; that spell becomes pointless).
> 
> So you would have to say the average lies somewhere within +1/3 Levels and +1/4 Levels. Perhaps +1/3.5:
> 
> eg.
> +1 at about 4th-level
> +2 at about 7th-level
> +3 at about 10th-level
> +4 at about 14th-level
> +5 at about 18th-level
> 
> What we can draw from this is that seemingly Epic items are a bit thin on the ground.
> 
> *




I agree about Greater Magic Weapon, but rem it has a very long duration.  I think your above suggestion therefore is a bit magic-light for a DMG-standard game.  As far as PCs in a 'standard' campaign goes, I suggest that weapons should probably be about +1 per 3 levels, rounded down, and including special powers - so eg a +3 Vorpal (effective +5 to +s) sword is +8.   For NPCs it seems to be about +1/5 levels, though this varies by class, +1/4 levels would also work.

However the 30%/level wealth increase allows for PCs having +10-effect weapons at 20th level.  I think GMW in most campaigns is used to boost the +1-Vorpal (or whatever) to +5 (or whatever), ie making a +6-effect weapon into effectively a +10-effect (or better) weapon.

The big issue I've seen is that in my game, MI are taken from NPCs, who usually have at best 'standard' NPC wealth, or crafted by _specific_ wizards (eg Dulleaberg's top magic weapons-crafter is 8th level, so he can make weapons up to +2), and in neither case does this produce the ultra-powerful weapons that you get if you allow PCs to freely buy whatever they want with their accumulated wealth.


----------



## S'mon

BTW if this 'sure striking' ability is such a dead-cert purchase for any PC, I suspect it's broken...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You mean four Level 44 characters, right?  By your own system, four Level 34 has a party CR of 27.  It would take four Level 44-47 characters to be party CR 31, and thus a challenge for CR 31.
> 
> Not to nitpick or anything . . .*




Remember I said a 50/50 confrontation. An equal CR (for the parties average) means the Players should defeat the opponent using roughly 25% of their resources.

For a party of 4 PCs a CR+4 is a 50/50 encounter.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Getting back to the subject, I think the best idea is to playtest it.  Dont' warn players ahead of time, just throw the Level 1 DvR 0 NPC against a party of Level 11 characters.  I think they will win.
> 
> Same with the ECL +20 for DvR 1. *




Perhaps we should conduct such an experiment here, what do you think?


----------



## S'mon

I suggest that typical weapon effective '+' for PCs is probably 1/3 levels, rounded down, up to level 15, +1 per '+' thereafter, but free purchase of MI will definitely alter this.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I agree about Greater Magic Weapon, but rem it has a very long duration.  I think your above suggestion therefore is a bit magic-light for a DMG-standard game.  As far as PCs in a 'standard' campaign goes, I suggest that weapons should probably be about +1 per 3 levels, rounded down, and including special powers - so eg a +3 Vorpal (effective +5 to +s) sword is +8.   For NPCs it seems to be about +1/5 levels, though this varies by class, +1/4 levels would also work.
> 
> However the 30%/level wealth increase allows for PCs having +10-effect weapons at 20th level.  I think GMW in most campaigns is used to boost the +1-Vorpal (or whatever) to +5 (or whatever), ie making a +6-effect weapon into effectively a +10-effect (or better) weapon. *




My scores were merely for the enhancement bonuses. As per the DMG you can create weapon abilities up to your allowed enhancement bonus.

So +3 at 10th-level could mean +3 defending; flaming burst weapon etc.


----------



## S'mon

Hi Craig - taking the Enhancement bonus alone, it's probably reasonable to expect that in a DMG-standard campaign the top fighters in the typical min-maxed PC group could have weapon & armour +s equal to 1/3 their level, rounded down, ie +5 weapons at 15th, as this is what the party Wizard can theoretically create, although it may be less if they go for special powers instead.  Anything over this is noticeably magic-heavy though, I agree.  For secondary combatants (cleric, rogue) maybe 1/4 or 1/5.  For NPC fighter-types it appears to be more 1/4 or 1/5 though, skewed towards the top end, so maybe calculating it off 1/4 would give the best overall result?  The 7th level PC fighters in my campaign currently have no magic weapons at all, BTW...


----------



## Anubis

S'mon said:
			
		

> *BTW if this 'sure striking' ability is such a dead-cert purchase for any PC, I suspect it's broken...  *




Not exactly.  It'll be used by everyone until they can afford more powerful weapons, and it bypasses DR of up to +5.  After that, though, the ability just takes up space.  A fighter will like have the weapon until Level 13 or 14, but then replace it altogether with a new weapon with other enhancements, because DR won't be as much an issue anymore as the only thing in the MM with DR at +5 is Tarrasque, I think.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Perhaps we should conduct such an experiment here, what do you think?
> *




I'm game.  How would you suggest we do that?  Just create average PC character of that level and take all average rolls?  Or do you have some genius way of conducting this experiment?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm game.  How would you suggest we do that?  Just create average PC character of that level and take all average rolls?  Or do you have some genius way of conducting this experiment? *




I was thinking we both make 28 point buy characters with average hit points.

You get x4 11th-level characters with PC wealth (66,000gp each).

I get a 1st-level character Quasi-deity with 15th-level NPC wealth (59,000gp).

No items allowed that couldn't be created at that level or lower.

Otherwise anything goes. You can have sure striking all you want and I'll pick any items I want up to my allowed wealth.

I suppose we could get Simon to adjudicate the encounter if hes willing (?) and give him the details of each others plans of attack.

Round one could start within sight but out of range then see how we go from there. Knowledge of the opponent is simply that they are hostile.

What do you think?


----------



## S'mon

I'm game, but I don't use Sword & Fist IMC so I'd need details on that and other splatbook powers.   I don't have DDG either since you dissuaded me from getting it!


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I get a 1st-level character Quasi-deity with 15th-level NPC wealth (59,000gp).
> *




Well, since we're presumably trying to prove or disprove my theory/argument of DvR 0 actually being ECL +10 as opposed to your ECL +14, wouldn't it be more appropriate for your Quasi-deity to be a Level 1 character with Level 11 NPC wealth?

Or do you think that the test would work either which way, with my point being proven by finding a normal challenge at even the ECL +14 as opposed to my ECL +10, and your point being proven by my not being able to win at either level?

Actually, that last paragraph makes no sense.  NOW I think I understand the difference between ECL and CR . . . Hehehe . . . All in the equipment . . .

Now I'm just confused.  Do you equate ECL and CR as the same for this test?

Then again, maybe not.  Perhaps the real thing that needs to be proven is that the equipment won't give the Quasi-deity the upper-hand.  Or not.

Hmmm . . . First question here is: Do you equate CR and ECL as the same for this test, as per your rules in Asgard 6, or is the ECL and CR different?  Basically, your ECL (used to determine CR) and the core definition of ECL (used to determine character level for unusual characters) seem to be two entirely different things at the moment.  Clear this up for us all, and I'll start making my characters.  For Simon, when I post my characters, I will also include the definitions of all abilities not in the core rules.  I'll try not to include any really fancy Prestige Classes, and I'll use only core races so as not to confuse the issue with other creatures with an ECL change.

I'll post my characters as soon as they are finished.  The characters I create will all be characters under I would play in any normal campaign with the powers to match.

One more thing, is there another board we should go to for this?  Or does it fit the rules of the House Rules Forum since we're testing "House Rules"?


----------



## Knight Otu

Technically, the Fight Club boards would be appropriate for this, but it is mostly used for You Bastard duels.
It could propably be done here in house rules, I guess.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust!

When did you stop considering Solars to be quasi-deities?  And why?  If it is the result of a posted discussion, could you post the link?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well, since we're presumably trying to prove or disprove my theory/argument of DvR 0 actually being ECL +10 as opposed to your ECL +14, wouldn't it be more appropriate for your Quasi-deity to be a Level 1 character with Level 11 NPC wealth?
> 
> Or do you think that the test would work either which way, with my point being proven by finding a normal challenge at even the ECL +14 as opposed to my ECL +10, and your point being proven by my not being able to win at either level?
> 
> Actually, that last paragraph makes no sense.  NOW I think I understand the difference between ECL and CR . . . Hehehe . . . All in the equipment . . .*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now I'm just confused.  Do you equate ECL and CR as the same for this test?*




Yes. (All protagonists are under ECL20)



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Then again, maybe not.  Perhaps the real thing that needs to be proven is that the equipment won't give the Quasi-deity the upper-hand.  Or not.*




I think I can still win if we all have no magical equipment. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hmmm . . . First question here is: Do you equate CR and ECL as the same for this test, as per your rules in Asgard 6, or is the ECL and CR different?*




The same.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, your ECL (used to determine CR) and the core definition of ECL (used to determine character level for unusual characters) seem to be two entirely different things at the moment.*




I know. 

For them ECL is used to balance PCs. I use ECL for both PCs and NPCs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Clear this up for us all,*




Okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and I'll start making my characters.*




I already know the outcome (after preliminary examination of the matter last night) but I am happy to continue if you wish.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For Simon, when I post my characters, I will also include the definitions of all abilities not in the core rules.  I'll try not to include any really fancy Prestige Classes, and I'll use only core races so as not to confuse the issue with other creatures with an ECL change.*




Try and keep things as simple as possible.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'll post my characters as soon as they are finished.  The characters I create will all be characters under I would play in any normal campaign with the powers to match.*




Beef them up all you want (provided they are within the parameters we outlined previously).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *One more thing, is there another board we should go to for this?  Or does it fit the rules of the House Rules Forum since we're testing "House Rules"? *




I would be happier having the fracas in another thread.

Knight Otu (hello mate!  ) suggested the Fight Club forum. That sounds appropriate...?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust!*




Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *When did you stop considering Solars to be quasi-deities?  And why?  If it is the result of a posted discussion, could you post the link? *




Technically they still should; however they are missing the ability score increases (and one or two other minor powers).

However, I _may_ have to review how I assign divinity to Outsiders in general (?) unless you want Hecatonchieres with Divine Rank 8; or Atropals with Divine Rank 12. 

Incidently Serge asked me recently about this point:

A while ago I revised my ideas on Greater Gods - to whit only Pantheon Heads (in a tight Pantheon) are Greater Powers*.

*Theres a bit more to it than that; a pantheon can have multiple Greater Gods but it only has 4 Divine Ranks over Divine Rank 15. So you can have: 
DR19 (x1) = Odin or Tezcatlipoca or Zeus
DR18 (x1); DR16 (x1) = Ra + Osiris
DR17 (x2) = Ahriman + Ormazd (if detailed as Greater Gods, even I am not sure of that one yet!?)
DR17 (x1); DR16 (x2) = Brahma + Vishnu + Shiva
DR16 (x4) = Native American Seasonal Deities - whose individual names escape me offhand. 

That caused me to review a number of facets like the Arch-Devils power. Asmodeus is two divine classes below (1st Ed. 400hp) Pantheon Heads. So if 400hp deities are the only Greater Gods he must be a Lesser Power.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

By the Upper Krust, what is your opinion of relative ease with creating items giving huge bonuses to Spellcraft checks in relation to Epic Spellcasting? I suggest increasing prices by 10 and making a non-Epic cap at +20 bonus.


----------



## Anabstercorian

*The Unknown Gods*

Okay, I don't know how many of you have been around since the Judges Guild days (I sure haven't!) but there's a project relating to them that I have become happily embroiled in.  There's an old book called The Unknown Gods, a 44 page book of about 84 deities of quasi- to lesser- power.  Anyway, I'm hoping to convert them to 3e, and I also hope that I'll be lucky enough to use your product while doing so.  SO...  When's The Immortal's Handbook coming out?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Important Announcement*

Hi all! 

Just wanted to let you know that Necromancer Games have a preview of their forthcoming book Tome of Horrors on the web.

http://www.necromancergames.com/pdf/Tome_Teaser.pdf

So why is this relevant here you ask. Well, aside from Scott Greene being a good friend of mine, yours truly is named under the very special thanks heading in the credits. As most of you know Scott and I swopped a lot of ideas a while back on unique Outsider types many of whom can be found in the Tome of Horrors (a few of which are in the preview).

While this is far from his first work in print; I am very happy for him finally getting the recognition (in print) for all his sterling efforts with his website:

http://www.enworld.org/cc


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Melkor mate! 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *By the Upper Krust, what is your opinion of relative ease with creating items giving huge bonuses to Spellcraft checks in relation to Epic Spellcasting? I suggest increasing prices by 10 and making a non-Epic cap at +20 bonus. *




I have been giving the Epic Spells some scrutiny and I think the major problem is that its too easy to increase save DCs.

In my opinion it should be:

+1 DC = +1 Spellcraft DC
+2 DC = +4
+3 DC = +9
+4 DC = +16 
etc.

I'm not sure if this should also be applied to Spell Resistance as well - I'll have to look into it more.

As for the items themselves. An item that bestowed +100 to Spellcraft would cost 2 million gp (1 million GP & 40,000 XP to create). Essentially this can effectively mimic a 10,000XP spellcasting cost.

However, to fully make use of the +100 Spellcraft DC remember that you have to research the spell - and the more powerful the spell the higher the costs. Also if you somehow lose the Item you will no longer be able to cast the spell! So I'm not sure if this should be a cause for concern (after my above addendum anyway).


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: The Unknown Gods*

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 

I don't know much about the Judges Guild stuff myself; what more can you tell me?



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Okay, I don't know how many of you have been around since the Judges Guild days (I sure haven't!) but there's a project relating to them that I have become happily embroiled in.  There's an old book called The Unknown Gods, a 44 page book of about 84 deities of quasi- to lesser- power.*




Someone mentioned Judges Guild to me earlier today...



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I'm hoping to convert them to 3e,*




...they could be working on translating some Judges Guild stuff to 3rd Ed (they only mentioned the possibility in passing - I may have picked them up wrong?). Just thought you might be interested. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *and I also hope that I'll be lucky enough to use your product while doing so.*




Appreciate the love mate!  

How are the deities detailed (?); as per (1st Ed.) Deities & Demigods? If so it should be simplicity itself to convert them.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *SO...  When's The Immortal's Handbook coming out? *




Ask Wizards of the Coast, they're the ones hamstringing me! 

When I have some solid news you will all be the first to know!


----------



## Anubis

Something just occured to me . . . When you base all this on ECL, you get slanted results if you give wealth based on ECL instead of character level!

It just hit me, if you gave a Level 5 character the wealth of a Level 40 character, he'd still be able to give a challenge to an Epic party!

Does this mean that my Xun Huo, the Level 40 Wizard with Divine Rank 2, would actually, by my assumption, be ECL 72, with the wealth of a Level 72 character?!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Something just occured to me . . . When you base all this on ECL, you get slanted results if you give wealth based on ECL instead of character level!*




Most wealth (or treasure) is based on ECL (or CR) though.

eg. a 22nd-level Wizard Demilich should have treasure commensurate with 30th-level in my opinion.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It just hit me, if you gave a Level 5 character the wealth of a Level 40 character, he'd still be able to give a challenge to an Epic party!*




Think of it as equating wealth with power, not necessarily levels alone.

Why should a 5th-level character have the treasure of a 40th-level character?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Does this mean that my Xun Huo, the Level 40 Wizard with Divine Rank 2, would actually, by my assumption, be ECL 72,*




Divine Rank 2 is ECL +28.

So that would be +68 ECL (unless there is something about Xun Huo I can't recollect?)



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *with the wealth of a Level 72 character?! *




Well if its a PC it has its own wealth.

If you were creating it at that power I would advocate the 68th-level PC wealth. If you were creating such an NPC use their wealth at 68th-level.


----------



## Anabstercorian

The gods are given hit points, a description of powers, basic combat statistics, and level equivalent ability for casting spells and fighting.  To be honest, the gods are terribly written - I'm going to have to tread lightly to produce a version of them that is useful yet still true to their original format.


----------



## Cheiromancer

> *Technically they still should; however they are missing the ability score increases (and one or two other minor powers).
> *



Yeah, they do look kind of pathetic if you subtract 15 from all their stats, don't they?

Probably not quite ascended yet.  Maybe the 9 choirs of angels are the first nine steps up the (10 step) ladder to quasi-divinity?

Similarly, Pit fiends are probably on the path to being quasi-deities themselves.

Just bought the Deities and Demigods book.  I have your recommendation that gods receive a blanket reduction of 3 divine ranks, except for demi-gods, and that pantheon heads combined have a total of 4 ranks above 15.  So 17 and 17 in a dualist pantheon, 16, 16 and 17 in the Olympic pantheon,... do I have that right?

Any other quick and dirty modifications you'd suggest?


----------



## Anubis

Okay, I think I'm ready now.

You make a Level 1 character with Divine Rank 0, and give it the wealth of a Level 11 character.  I am, after all, trying to prove it to be ECL +10.  Let's avoid the use of actual Worshipper Points for purposes of this test, if they would even apply in this case.

I will make a Level 11 party.

I'll soon start a thread over on the Fight Club Forum and we'll duke it out!

I'll post here when I open the thread.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

Hmm, I won`t accept Set and DVR 15 and Oziris at 16. But my image of Set is more based on Conan books, first Fantasy books I have read, to which I have sentimental attitude. Set there was propably NE Greater Deity, DVR around 17 if not more. Oh, and snakes are cool.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *The gods are given hit points, a description of powers, basic combat statistics, and level equivalent ability for casting spells and fighting.  To be honest, the gods are terribly written - I'm going to have to tread lightly to produce a version of them that is useful yet still true to their original format. *




Give a single example (I only need the above information I think) and I will show you how to convert it.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey there mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Yeah, they do look kind of pathetic if you subtract 15 from all their stats, don't they?*




Exactly.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Probably not quite ascended yet.  Maybe the 9 choirs of angels are the first nine steps up the (10 step) ladder to quasi-divinity?*




The Third Choir (weakest) comprises Devas; Planetars and Solars.

The description of the Elohim (one after Solars) is very like the Solar itself except with 4 wings and a flaming sword. So I may retain the core of the Solar statistics for that one.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Similarly, Pit fiends are probably on the path to being quasi-deities themselves.*




I tend to think of all (intelligent) outsiders as being on the path to godhood - though I am still not convinced the Abominations should be beyond quasi-deity status. Initially I looked to giving outsiders divinity automatically:

ie. 
20+HD = Quasi-deity
30+HD = Demigod
40+HD = Lesser God
60+HD = Intermediate God
80+HD = Greater God
etc.

But now that may need some tinkering with? The philosophy, if not the actual mechanics.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Just bought the Deities and Demigods book.  I have your recommendation that gods receive a blanket reduction of 3 divine ranks, except for demi-gods,*




Yes. That way there is a point to having the Intermediate Status.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *and that pantheon heads combined have a total of 4 ranks above 15.  So 17 and 17 in a dualist pantheon,*




Yes.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *16, 16 and 17 in the Olympic pantheon,... do I have that right?*




Well I would advocate Hades and Poseidon as being Intermediate Gods. While they are Zeus brothers, at no point do they head the pantheon, nor do they share power. 

However, naturally its up to the individual DMs to assign as they wish. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Any other quick and dirty modifications you'd suggest? *




The number of deities (Demi/Lesser/Inter: not counting quasi-deities) in the Pantheon is equal to the Divine Rank of its most powerful god.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Okay, I think I'm ready now.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You make a Level 1 character with Divine Rank 0, and give it the wealth of a Level 11 character.  I am, after all, trying to prove it to be ECL +10. *




If it was ECL+10 then you would be creating a party of 7th-level characters.

I'm saying its ECL+14 therefore I get 15th-level NPC equipment.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Let's avoid the use of actual Worshipper Points for purposes of this test, if they would even apply in this case.*




Okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I will make a Level 11 party.*




I'll soon start a thread over on the Fight Club Forum and we'll duke it out!

I'll post here when I open the thread. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sure.

What distance apart are we starting? I'll let you pick.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Melkor mate! 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Hmm, I won`t accept Set and DVR 15 and Oziris at 16. But my image of Set is more based on Conan books, first Fantasy books I have read, to which I have sentimental attitude. Set there was propably NE Greater Deity, DVR around 17 if not more. Oh, and snakes are cool. *




Well thats still viable.

Once Ra abdicates, Osiris becomes Pantheon Head. Remember also that at one point Set kills Osiris and chops him up - presumably becoming the Pantheon Head until Osiris gets put back together again. From that juncture onward I would say Sets brush with Divinity gives him DR16 and Osiris risen is DR18.


----------



## Necropolis

Hi upper krust !   
can you give me the list of monsters from your upcoming book ? with the CRS  ?
and what about the release date for the book something as changed about it ?
thanks


----------



## The Serge

U_K:

Some questions (and sorry if you've already addressed these).

Where do you place the upper Angelic Choirs?  Are Arch-angels already gods to you, are they Advanced Solars, are they Advanced Solars with a DvR, or are they something altogether different?

Second, if Posiedon and Hades should be Intermediate gods to you, what should Athena and Hera be?

Thanks!


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> If it was ECL+10 then you would be creating a party of 7th-level characters.
> 
> I'm saying its ECL+14 therefore I get 15th-level NPC equipment.
> *




Huh?  You lost me now.  ECL and CR are the same here, so a Level 1 character with Divine Rank 0 at ECL +10 would be ECL 11, and thus CR 11.  A CR 11 creature is a challenge for four Level 11 characters, not four Level 7 characters.

I was under the assumption that I would be making "PCs" and you would be making an "NPC", as if you were the DM and I were the player.

Basically, if I make four Level 11 characters, and you make a Level 1 Divine Rank 0 character at ECL +14, that's ECL 15 or CR 15.  CR is based on four PCs of the same level, remember?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Sure.
> 
> What distance apart are we starting? I'll let you pick.  *




How about in an open arena that is 100 feet in diameter.  We'll start on either side, both sides aware of the other, 80 feet away from each other.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *Hi upper krust !  *




Hi Necropolis mate! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *can you give me the list of monsters from your upcoming book ?*




I could but I want to keep some surprises in there! 

Also I am only certain on about 80% of the (50) monsters at this point, and if the ELH enters the SRD I will make 5 of the monsters Abominations.

However I have revealed a few in the past so nothing given away by reiterating those I guess:

Cogent...Overmind (Web Enhancement)
Cosmocrat...High-Handed One
Golem, Mercury
Infinitaur
Eidolon...Astral Shadow (Template)
Nosferatu...Blood Monster (Template)
Pseudo-Brain (Template, Web Enhancement)

of course theres also the Celestials.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *with the CRS  ?*




I will tell you that the HD range (in the monster chapter) is between 13 and 333. 

The power range is between quasi-deity and overgod. I have a handful of monsters that could take on an entire Pantheon.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *and what about the release date for the book something as changed about it ?*




Not yet. I'll let you all know when I have something concrete.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *thanks *




My pleasure.


----------



## Upper_Krust

The Serge said:
			
		

> *U_K:*




Hello Serge mate! 

Incidently give me a day or two to reply to your email. Thanks.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Some questions (and sorry if you've already addressed these).*




Hey! Ask anyway! 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Where do you place the upper Angelic Choirs?*




They cover the full spectrum of divinity.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Are Arch-angels already gods to you, are they Advanced Solars, are they Advanced Solars with a DvR, or are they something altogether different?*




Well the term 'Arch-Angel' actually occurs twice in the Angelic Hierarchy. 

Firstly you have Planetars who are termed 'Arch-Angels'.

ie. (Third Choir)
Devas = Angels
Planetars = Arch-Angels
Solars = Principalities

Additionally you have the Second and First Choirs.

Beyond them are the true 'Arch-Angels' who are the Overgods of the Upper Planes.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Second, if Posiedon and Hades should be Intermediate gods to you, what should Athena and Hera be?*




Intermediate Gods as well. 

I advocate all deities (In D&Dg) except Pantheon Heads (and Demigods) be reduced by 3 Divine Ranks (with a few exceptions).



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Thanks! *




No problem mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Huh?  You lost me now.  ECL and CR are the same here, so a Level 1 character with Divine Rank 0 at ECL +10 would be ECL 11, and thus CR 11.  A CR 11 creature is a challenge for four Level 11 characters, not four Level 7 characters.*




Yes its a challenge but its going to have virtually no chance of success. A CR equal to the party average represents an almost certain win for the party using approximately 25% of their resources - such is not worth testing.

Using a CR equal to the party (x4 11th-level characters = CR15) gives a 50/50 chance of success. That can be tested.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I was under the assumption that I would be making "PCs" and you would be making an "NPC", as if you were the DM and I were the player.*




Thats right. I get 15th-level NPC gear and you get 11th-level PC gear.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, if I make four Level 11 characters, and you make a Level 1 Divine Rank 0 character at ECL +14, that's ECL 15 or CR 15.  CR is based on four PCs of the same level, remember?*




I explained this above. You can't test a party average CR you test a 50/50 fight.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How about in an open arena that is 100 feet in diameter.  We'll start on either side, both sides aware of the other, 80 feet away from each other. *




Seems a bit confined. What about double those dimensions?

By the way I am going to be busy over the next 24 hours or so - I suggest we start this on Sunday. Okay?


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, Upper_Krust! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Cosmocrat...High-Handed One
> *



What is their approximate power level and alignment?


----------



## S'mon

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its a challenge but its going to have virtually no chance of success. A CR equal to the party average represents an almost certain win for the party using approximately 25% of their resources - such is not worth testing.
> 
> Using a CR equal to the party (x4 11th-level characters = CR15) gives a 50/50 chance of success. That can be tested.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats right. I get 15th-level NPC gear and you get 11th-level PC gear.
> 
> 
> 
> I explained this above. You can't test a party average CR you test a 50/50 fight.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a bit confined. What about double those dimensions?
> 
> By the way I am going to be busy over the next 24 hours or so - I suggest we start this on Sunday. Okay? *




I run my D&D game on Sunday so prob no adjudication until Monday! 

-Simon


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, Upper_Krust! *




Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *What is their approximate power level and alignment? *




Cosmocrat: Lawful Neutral; approximately Elder-god-like in power.


----------



## Knight Otu

Perfect!


----------



## Cheiromancer

I like your idea of reducing the number of greater gods.  But if most greater gods are reduced 3 ranks, perhaps intermediate gods should be reduced only 2 ranks, and lesser gods one rank?  This way lesser gods don't become less powerful than demi-gods.

How do you choose which salient abilities are the first to disappear?  If I were industrious I would do some kind of statistical analysis to see what salient abilities appear for what level of deity, but I was wondering if anyone had already answered this question.


----------



## Anubis

*Anubis vs. Upper_Krust*

Hey yo, UK, ready for your deity's rear to get kicked in?  

Go here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23465

I have started the thread and posted my characters.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *I like your idea of reducing the number of greater gods.  But if most greater gods are reduced 3 ranks, perhaps intermediate gods should be reduced only 2 ranks, and lesser gods one rank?  This way lesser gods don't become less powerful than demi-gods.*




I should have added not to reduce a god in status (except for the Greater God to Intermediate God transition).



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *How do you choose which salient abilities are the first to disappear?  If I were industrious I would do some kind of statistical analysis to see what salient abilities appear for what level of deity, but I was wondering if anyone had already answered this question. *




Naturally if a deity is reduced from Greater God status you will need to remove any Salient Abilities that require DR16.

But generally I would just review this on a case by case basis. Its hardly as if you will need to use every deities stats every session.


----------



## Cheiromancer

> *I should have added not to reduce a god in status (except for the Greater God to Intermediate God transition).*




Why not?  Otherwise the divine ranks 13, 14 and 15 will be empty, as will 8, 9 and 10.

Or did you mean that reduction of ranks only applies to (some) greater gods?

And regarding SDA's; I'll have to go through the list more carefully, but already I can see a few that are more problematic than others.  Like annihilating strike.  Guess they'll be among the first on the chopping block!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Why not?  Otherwise the divine ranks 13, 14 and 15 will be empty, as will 8, 9 and 10.*




Well Divine Rank 13; 14 and 15 will comprise the reduced Greater Gods.

Lets see what happens to the Asgardian Pantheon:

Odin DR19 (unchanged)
Aegir DR8 (reduced in status)
Balder DR11
Forseti DR10 (reduced in status)
Frey DR15 (reduced in status)
Freya DR12
Frigga DR14 (reduced in status)
Heimdall DR12
Hel DR12
Hermod DR 3 (unchanged)
Loki DR13 (reduced in status)
Njord DR8 (reduced in status)
Odur DR4 (unchanged)
Sif DR7
Skadi DR3 (reduced in status)
Surtur DR11
Thor DR15 (reduced in status)
Thrym DR11 
Tyr DR12
Uller DR3 (reduced in status)

DRs: 3; 3; 3; 4; 7; 8; 8; 10; 11; 11; 11; 12; 12; 12; 12; 13; 14; 15; 15; 19.

Personally I think the top slots have too many good aligned individuals.

I would suggest swopping Loki and Frey as well as Frigga and Hel. Also perhaps increasing Tyr to DR14.

ie.
Loki DR15
Hel DR14
Tyr DR14
Frey DR13
Frigga DR12

I also don't like reducing Uller to Demigod. I would probably have him at DR9 to be fair.

So in retrospect maybe it is fairer to give blanket treatment of the -3 DR even if it reduces divine status?



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Or did you mean that reduction of ranks only applies to (some) greater gods?*




It should apply to all non-Pantheon Rulers in a tight Pantheon.

So it shouldn't generally apply to the D&D Pantheon. Though to be fair I would maybe reduce a few myself.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *And regarding SDA's; I'll have to go through the list more carefully, but already I can see a few that are more problematic than others.  Like annihilating strike.  Guess they'll be among the first on the chopping block! *




I have all the problem SDAs addended in the Immortals Handbook. Annihilating Strike was obviously top of the list.


----------



## Necropolis

Hi again upper krust !
you said Cr of 333 !!! 
for what ?
maybe for the true arch angels ?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *Hi again upper krust !*




Hi Necropolis mate! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *you said Cr of 333 !!! *




Actually that was a Hit Dice of 333 I mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.

There is no base creature in the monster section beyond CR60 in the Immortals Handbook. Remember this is of course CR60 by my CR rules - not WotCs rules.

ie. A 320th-level character is CR60.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *for what ?*




Its actually for a golem (believe it or not); though that was among one of the monsters I am still working on so it could be subject to change.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *maybe for the true arch angels ? *




The 'true arch-angels' have Hit Dice akin to the hit points of 1st Ed. Solars (hows that for cryptic).


----------



## Necropolis

Hi again
what do you mean by this :
The 'true arch-angels' have Hit Dice akin to the hit points of 1st Ed. Solars (hows that for cryptic). 
sorry for not understanding that man and can you tell me please  about the true power of the " true archangels "  what they can do and how much power they have compare to something else " dragons and undeads  liches archdukes of hell and demon princes  and so on ..."

and by the way are you going to give us a previes or a sneek peek from this product in the near future ? maybe in pdf with some artworks ?
thanks again man


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *Hi again *




Hello mate! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *what do you mean by this :
> The 'true arch-angels' have Hit Dice akin to the hit points of 1st Ed. Solars (hows that for cryptic).*




They have 177 Hit Dice.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *sorry for not understanding that man *




Thats okay mate! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *and can you tell me please  about the true power of the " true archangels "*




Well I may not detail the 'true Arch-Angels' in the Immortals Handbook since they are the Overgods of the Upper Planes. However, I will have the Seraphim in the IH who are the most powerful 'generic' angel.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *what they can do and how much power they have compare to something else " dragons and undeads  liches archdukes of hell and demon princes  and so on ..."*




Well lets see:

"...The mighty Seraphim, or Solar Dragons, are the grandest servants of good in the cosmos. The lofty ones sit atop the celestial hierarchy of the upper planes thought to reside in the highest of the Seven Heavens.
   These titanic entities resemble immense dragon-like shapes formed of pure spirit energy writhing with an aura of holy fire. Each vast shape commands six wings; two of which are used for flying the others each act as a veil covering one of the Seraphims four esoteric heads. For it is said to behold one of their faces, even for an instant is to..." 

How many Dragons; Archdevils; Liches and Demon Princes do you need disposed again? The Seraphim may send one of the weaker celestials to take care of them all. 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *and by the way are you going to give us a previes or a sneek peek from this product in the near future ? maybe in pdf with some artworks ?*




I will have a preview and a web enhancement in due course - however, those will have to wait until Deities & Demigods enters the SRD.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *thanks again man *




No problem mate!


----------



## Anabstercorian

So, Satan would be a fallen Solar Dragon - An Eclipse Dragon?

Eclipse Dragon.  That's pretty cool.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

Howdy-Ho, Sir Krustman!  I'm not dead.  I was trying to catch up with this thread and couldn't, so I skimmed some of it.  So, some random thoughts and I'm sorry If I refer to something that didn't happen on this thread or if I say something that's already been said.  

Seraphim:  Cool!!!  
I heard once that they cover their "feet" with their wings, but "feet" didn't exactly mean feet.   

Cosmocrat:  What is it? What does it look like and what is its purpose in life?  

How much will the book set me back, cash-wise, and when, where and as what (title) should I look for it?

Way back, I was meaning to comment on that list of where you ranked certain gods, I'll try and dig that up and copy and paste it here, OK?


----------



## Cheiromancer

Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Seraphim:  Cool!!!
> I heard once that they cover their "feet" with their wings, but "feet" didn't exactly mean feet.
> *




You probably don't want to catch a glimpse of THAT either.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *So, Satan would be a fallen Solar Dragon - An Eclipse Dragon?*




Not necessarily. Lucifer would be a fallen Arch-Angel (the 'true' Arch Angels are slightly above the Seraphim).

Lucifer and Satan may not be the same being (at least thats how I advocate doing things).



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Eclipse Dragon.  That's pretty cool. *




Funny you mention it I actually have Lunar Dragons in the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## The Serge

*Lucifer and Satan*

Tradition would say they're one and the same.  

Religious/mythological studies would say they're two different beings who, through misinterpretation, are identified as one.  Lucifer is a reference to a human king, while Satan is Christianity's traditional Dark Lord (although he has other names, like Baalzebub and Belial).

Personally, I like the two being the same only because it's a continuation of the classic "change" in identity that occurs with most heroes and the worst of villains.  Lucifer, in his pride, ceases to be the Lightbearer and, since he led many angels against the god, becomes The Adversary, The Satan.  

But that's just me 

Anyway, U_K, in  your cosmology, does that place Lucifer or Satan on top as one of the big baddies?  If Satan's a fallen Arch-Angel, how does he rank based upon your design.  And, if they're not one and the same, how is Lucifer distinguished from Satan and what's his status?

Later!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Howdy-Ho, Sir Krustman!*




Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I'm not dead.*




Glad to hear it mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I was trying to catch up with this thread and couldn't, so I skimmed some of it.*




Tell me about it! I would forget my head if it wasn't screwed on! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *So, some random thoughts and I'm sorry If I refer to something that didn't happen on this thread or if I say something that's already been said.*




Don't worry about that mate. Ask away! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Seraphim:  Cool!!!
> I heard once that they cover their "feet" with their wings, but "feet" didn't exactly mean feet.  *




They have winged feet (as well as having six wings); maybe this is what you picked up on (?) - though I am sure there are myriad versions depending on the source.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Cosmocrat:  What is it? What does it look like and what is its purpose in life?*




"...The Cosmocrats, or High-Handed Ones, are a race of trans-temporal aliens. While their exact nature and origins are unknown, they are thought to guard the time stream against external threats. Some divine sages even speculate that there is but one Cosmocrat. That it can appear in more than one place at the same time giving the illusion there are more than one. But such rumours are unverifiable.
   Cosmocrats look like titanic suits of full armour, generally humanoid in appearance though of obvious alien design and material; perhaps orichalcum. What they look like beneath their armour..."



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *How much will the book set me back, cash-wise, and when, where and as what (title) should I look for it?*




I would estimate it will be the standard price for a book its size!



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Way back, I was meaning to comment on that list of where you ranked certain gods, I'll try and dig that up and copy and paste it here, OK? *




Sure! I have probably changed a lot of my philosophy on such things over the intervening months but I'll be happy to discuss any questions you have, naturally.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Lucifer and Satan*



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> *Tradition would say they're one and the same.
> 
> Religious/mythological studies would say they're two different beings who, through misinterpretation, are identified as one.  Lucifer is a reference to a human king, while Satan is Christianity's traditional Dark Lord (although he has other names, like Baalzebub and Belial).
> 
> Personally, I like the two being the same only because it's a continuation of the classic "change" in identity that occurs with most heroes and the worst of villains.  Lucifer, in his pride, ceases to be the Lightbearer and, since he led many angels against the god, becomes The Adversary, The Satan.
> 
> But that's just me
> 
> Anyway, U_K, in  your cosmology, does that place Lucifer or Satan on top as one of the big baddies?  If Satan's a fallen Arch-Angel, how does he rank based upon your design.  And, if they're not one and the same, how is Lucifer distinguished from Satan and what's his status?
> 
> Later! *




Actually, from a religious standpoint, Lucifer and Satan are the same being.

Lucifer was the God-given Archangel name.  When Lucifer betrayed God, God stripped him of that name as he was unworthy of it, and then cast him down into Hell.

He then took the new name Satan and became ruler of Hell.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

This is where I got the Seraphim info.  Be warned, It specifically mentions what "feet" are.  http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/seraphim.html

The WotC boards don't like me.  I can't find the list, I'll try again tomorrow.  

"What they look like beneath their armour..." Is unknown?  If so, I think I recognize them.  BTW, you spelt armor wrong.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Will the real Devil please stand up.*

Hi all! 

I think there are too many ways to interpret the identity of Satan; Lucifer; Asmodeus that you could never hope to please all of the people all of the time.

Even I have multiple viewpoints on the matter.

The whole thing has grander philosophical issues - like the nature of the biblical GOD (yes I know; that old can of worms that its generally best to ignore).

If we position GOD as a 'mere' Greater Deity. Then Lucifers position is obviously one akin to the classic D&D representation of Asmodeus. Likewise the Seraphim would be Lesser Powers - in fact they would be identical in power to 1st Ed. Solars. You could of course make the case that with the advent of the Intermediate Level of power; Lucifer was (as the most powerful servant of god) within these parameters - this neatly allows us to use the 1st Ed. 333hp representation of Lucifer.

While the above position is valid it leads us to our first moral dilemma...

If GOD is only a Greater Power then he can't be the 'be all and end all' deity christianity prescribes to. Since, firstly, we know Uber-Deities exist. Secondly that in an open cosmology (according to other world mythologies)  there are many such uber-deities so they can't all be omnipotent. Therefore GOD must be beyond Uber-deity power.

Anyway, I digress...

Now that we have taken GOD out of the physical equation lets look at whats left. Uber-deities. Most mythologies relate at least one entity that created those beings we paint as Greater Powers, or others that will destroy them.

The higher on the Cosmic scale the more abstract and less individual such entities become - until we arrive at a point where concepts and forces are represented.

At which point we realise that we are typing this bottomless rant at 2 am when we should be sleeping. 

Later all!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *This is where I got the Seraphim info.  Be warned, It specifically mentions what "feet" are.  http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/seraphim.html*




Interesting. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *The WotC boards don't like me.  I can't find the list, I'll try again tomorrow. *




Well I have made quite a few changes since then...



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *"What they look like beneath their armour..." Is unknown?  If so, I think I recognize them.*




I thought you might...I couldn't resist paying homage. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *BTW, you spelt armor wrong.    *




True, from a certain point of view. 

I'm going to have to go through the IH and Americanise it.


----------



## Knight Otu

Interesting description for the Cosmocrat(s). Not the one that I would get to read in a certain novel series (), but cool none the less.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Interesting description for the Cosmocrat(s). Not the one that I would get to read in a certain novel series (), but cool none the less.  *




Well I did mention that I was only really using the name. 

No chaotarchs I'm afraid; though theres always...


----------



## Knight Otu

I'm quite aware that, for various reasons, you neither can nor want to use the Perry Rhodan cosmocrats. 
Of course, if you change timestream to "moral code" (no, this not in a moral way! Think of it more as a "code of evolution", a genetic code for the multiverse), then it could be rather close. 



> No chaotarchs I'm afraid; though theres always...



... fallen cosmocrats?  Propably not .
Of course, a fan theory says that chaotarch are nothing but cosmocrats with a different "alignment".


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I'm quite aware that, for various reasons, you neither can nor want to use the Perry Rhodan cosmocrats. *




Each to ther own. Of course its always nice to give a nod to various influences.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Of course, if you change timestream to "moral code" (no, this not in a moral way! Think of it more as a "code of evolution", a genetic code for the multiverse), then it could be rather close. *




They do this as well, you'll see. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *... fallen cosmocrats?  Propably not .*




I was thinking more of the Cogent (Overminds).



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Of course, a fan theory says that chaotarch are nothing but cosmocrats with a different "alignment". *




I still haven't seen a picture of a (Perry Rhodan) Cosmocrat or Chaotarch. What do they look like?

Incidently I'll get back to my Lucifer rant later tonight (I should be on late since I'm staying up for the chat night tonight).

So if you have any questions on such matters lets thrash them out.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

I Still can't get on the WotC D&D boards.  

As for Lucifer and Satan, I once saw somewhere the 7 deadly sin associated with Fallen Angels.  Lucifer represented pride, and Satan represented wrath.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I still haven't seen a picture of a (Perry Rhodan) Cosmocrat or Chaotarch. What do they look like?
> *



I think there is a picture of Taurec in his human form somewhere, but I might be mistaken. Otherwise, mostly descripions of their manifestations in our universe.

I'll see if I can dig them up.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Where were we... 

I was actually rereading through my Encyclopedia of the Occult earlier and it actually associates Lucifer MorningStar with Ormazd and Satan with Ahriman.

Lately I have been considering that any future work on the Persian Pantheon would detail Ahriman and Ormazd as Greater Gods of Divine Rank 17. Asmodeus would be an Aspect (freed Avatar) of Ahriman, since Asmodeus is a perversion of the being Aeshma Deva; a creation of Ahriman.

As ever, this interferes with my cosmogony somewhat.

If Uberdeities are the powers immediately beyond deities then I believe they would reside within our multiverse. The reason being again partly because mythology tells us such beings exist and additionally that 

So Uberdeities are the cosmic embodiments of forces, philosophies and places as represented within our multiverse.

A planet is roughly akin to a planar layer in cosmic terms so it is an easy assumption to determine that beyond Greater Gods are the cosmic 'life forces' of planets or planar layers.

eg. Gaia is the life force of Earth. Surtur is the life force of Muspelheim. Ojukalazogadit is the life force of an Abyssal layer (read Gord the Rogue for that last one). I am sure there are many other plausible corelations, the seven Seraphim to the Seven Heavens perhaps*.

*In occult lore there are more than sven heavens of course! Maybe I'll write about them in the IH. 

Okay time for chat night. 

To be continued...


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Melkor mate!
> 
> 
> 
> I have been giving the Epic Spells some scrutiny and I think the major problem is that its too easy to increase save DCs.
> 
> In my opinion it should be:
> 
> +1 DC = +1 Spellcraft DC
> +2 DC = +4
> +3 DC = +9
> +4 DC = +16
> etc.
> 
> I'm not sure if this should also be applied to Spell Resistance as well - I'll have to look into it more.
> 
> As for the items themselves. An item that bestowed +100 to Spellcraft would cost 2 million gp (1 million GP & 40,000 XP to create). Essentially this can effectively mimic a 10,000XP spellcasting cost.
> 
> However, to fully make use of the +100 Spellcraft DC remember that you have to research the spell - and the more powerful the spell the higher the costs. Also if you somehow lose the Item you will no longer be able to cast the spell! So I'm not sure if this should be a cause for concern (after my above addendum anyway).  *




Sorry, but I don`t understand your reasoning. If anything Epic Spells are too weak. Plus 1d6 of damage per +2 DC? Spellcaster using Maximize spell can double spell`s damage every 6 levels. And look at spells in ELH, for example Pestilence. Wow, at a DC of over 100 you can destroy a small rural community( something a 10th level Wizard can easily do) by inflicting it with disease that isn`t even contagious! Don`t you think that Epic Level Spellcasters should be able to create diseases that would be a threat for entire kingdoms? Oh, and don`t you think that Epic Spellcasting  makes Clerics too powerful compared to arcane casters?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Melkor mate! 



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but I don`t understand your reasoning.*




By simply applying a -10,000 XP expenditure you could create a spell with a +50 Save DC. With Base 10 +10 (epic spell) you have a starting base DC of 70 (not yet counting your ability score bonus and likely feats).

At DC 89 you have automatically defeated any being within either the Epic Level Handbook or Deities & Demigods.

Personally I am of the opinion that maybe they have dicked about with the magic system in general far too much. Its very easy in 3rd Ed. to get 'lost at sea' with regards high-level spellcasting.



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *If anything Epic Spells are too weak. Plus 1d6 of damage per +2 DC? Spellcaster using Maximize spell can double spell`s damage every 6 levels.*




If you stack Empower you could double damage every 4 levels.



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *And look at spells in ELH, for example Pestilence. Wow, at a DC of over 100 you can destroy a small rural community (something a 10th level Wizard can easily do) by inflicting it with disease that isn`t even contagious!*




Actually that spell would utterly decimate a town as far as I can see.

I imagine you could up the effects to make the disease contagious...?



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Don`t you think that Epic Level Spellcasters should be able to create diseases that would be a threat for entire kingdoms?*




Anything is possible, the only question is the level of power needed to achieve a certain endeavour.



			
				Melkor said:
			
		

> *Oh, and don`t you think that Epic Spellcasting  makes Clerics too powerful compared to arcane casters? *




The general consensus is that Clerics are the most powerful class (pre-epic) anyway. So no big change I think.

Off the top of my head perhaps Clerics should gain access to a new spell level every 3 levels (rather than every two?). Though I don't advocate making such changes at this stage in 3rd Ed.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

Concerning Clerics, I simply dropped Hit Dice to 1d6, it makes no sense for them to be better in fighting than Rogues, especially with all buffing spells they get. 
But I don`t like the fact that Epic Cleric gets all spellcasting abilities of Wizards + Heal and Life Seed.


----------



## Anubis

The problem is that the power is too weak, but making that little amount of power go very far is very easy using the current rules.

I would say that a caster would be limited in his or her ability to increase DCs and such.  Simply rules that you can only put as many modifiers on an Epic Spell as you have ranks in the related Knowledge skill.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*You never did finish that infernal rant...*

Hi all! 

About time I returned to the question of evil.

Other plausible Elder Deities include the Greek Titans; perhaps those six represent the six layers of Carceri (Tartarus). I discuss a few others in the Immortals Handbook.

More ancient than the Elder Deities are the Old Ones. Each represents the embodiment of an entire plane; be it a philosophy or a force.

The lower planar deities are also associated with the seven sins; the upper planar deities reflect the seven virtues (these beings are sometimes refered to as ArchAngels).

The Nine Hells embody the sin of Pride, the once ArchAngel Lucifer Morningstars fall created the hells. His serpentine form is the personification of Lawful Evil. Lucifer's Avatar (83 HD, Divine Rank 16) ruled the Hells before being deposed and imprisoned by the other Archdevils now tentatively led by Asmodeus (49HD, Divine Rank 8); himself the Avatar of the Persian greater-deity Ahriman). 

Beyond the Old Ones lie the Proto-deities; incarnate forces of the multiverse, among them the embodiment of Matter (and by extension evil), known as Aratron; Tharizdun; or the Elder Elemental God.


----------



## Cheiromancer

I thought gods were immune to being imprisoned?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *I thought gods were immune to being imprisoned? *




They are immune to the spell 'imprisonment' but not the act of being imprisoned.


----------



## Knight Otu

Also, I would guess that multiple gods could act together to increase their effective Divine Rank for the purpose of overcoming immunities (similar to the Help Another action).


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Anubis!
> 
> I have my reply to your earlier post ready (about Ability Scores) - but I want to work on it - I had a few new ideas just there now.
> 
> Incidently I think I have a solution to the PC wealth tables.
> 
> Try:
> 
> Level x Level x Level x Level x 5 GP
> 
> ...?
> 
> Anyway...think its time I got my dinner. *




I know it's been a while since we discussed this part, but I feel it needs to be addressed.  Have you tested this formula?  I haven't even gotten that far up to be able to test it.

My only suggestion might be to start by giving NPCs the same equipment value as PCs.  Would that be unbalanced or would it be a good way to increase challenge?

Also, your formula suggests an exponential increase in money.  Is that what you advocate?  (I'm leaving this one to you because I'm nowhere near the point where this is gonna matter in any of my games.)


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings people!

I'm currently in the army, a compulsory institution here in Norway, and that's why I haven't been answering posts lately.
Fortunately I get a great first aid here, so it's not a complete waste, and after the course, which takes 7 weeks from now, I get much more spare time...

There are some things that need to be addressed here, but due to lack of time, I cannot address all of them.

BTW: On DCs and Epic Spells: UK's assumption may be true at "lower" levels, but at "higher" levels, it's not, considering the fact that the XP mitigating factor is constant, not varying with level. Hence, the approach 1,4,9,16 is NOT appropriate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I know it's been a while since we discussed this part, but I feel it needs to be addressed.  Have you tested this formula?  I haven't even gotten that far up to be able to test it.
> 
> My only suggestion might be to start by giving NPCs the same equipment value as PCs.  Would that be unbalanced or would it be a good way to increase challenge?
> 
> Also, your formula suggests an exponential increase in money.  Is that what you advocate?  (I'm leaving this one to you because I'm nowhere near the point where this is gonna matter in any of my games.) *




It's not exponential at all, it's quartic.

Here's a table:




		Code:
	

10     50 000
20     800 000
30     4 050 000
40     12 800 000
50     31 250 000
60     64 800 000
70     120 050 000
80     204 800 000
90     328 050 000
100    500 000 000
120    1 036 800 000
140    1 920 800 000
160    3 276 800 000
180    5 248 800 000
200    8 000 000 000
250    19 531 250 000
300    40 500 000 000
350    75 031 250 000
400    128 000 000 000
450    205 031 250 000
500    312 500 000 000
600    648 000 000 000


In fact, it's a quite good approximation, although mine is much closer. However, I use a much more advanced formula that's not convenient to use (unless you have a calculator).

Could someone please post the actual table? I haven't got my books with me this weekend, and without the actual values, I cannot run a linear regression on your formula, telling if its approximation is adequate.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

Yo Krust, Is this at all like your current list? Its from the original on "Overpowers sign here. Its the best I could find.  

Entities:

Entropy (Greek: Chaos), (Egypt: Nun)
Evil (Greyhawk: Tharizdun), (Christian: Satan)
Fate (Greyhawk: Lady Probability)
Good (Christian: Holy Spirit)
Time (Persian: Zurvan Akurana), (Greyhawk: Proctor Chronos)

Overgods (by Plane):

Incidently the four Seraphim (Arch-Angels: eg. Michael) are considered equivalent to Overgods as are the two Balseraph (Gog and Magog).

- Prime Material: Mother-Earth (Greek: Gaia), (Egypt: Heh), (Indian: Aditi),
(Celtic: Danu)
Difficult one, I also wanted to have Ubbo-Sathla here. In which case I would make Gaia a Neutral Good Overpower.

- Concordant Opposition: Ahura Mazdah (Conjunction of Ahriman and Ormazd).
Or possibly Ubbo-Sathla?

- Ethereal Plane: Yibb-Tstll
- Plane of Shadow: Cyaegha
- Astral Plane: Yog-Sothoth
- Negative Plane: Nyogtha
- Positive Plane: ?
The Plane of Shadow is now no longer a demiplane.

- Elemental Air: Air
- Elemental Earth: Earth
- Elemental Fire: Fire
- Elemental Water: Water
Do these need names?

- Nirvana: Daoloth
- Limbo: Azathoth

- Arcadia: Justice
- Seven Heavens: Faith
- Twin Paradises: Prudence (possibly Greek: Gaia)
- Elysium: Hope (Cthonian: Nodes)
- Happy Hunting Grounds: Temperance
- Olympus: Charity (possibly Greek: Phanes)
- Gladsheim: Fortitude (Norse: Audumhla)
Obviously based on the Seven Virtues - I am trying to get them to directly oppose the seven sins.

It might be possible to split Heh (Egyptian Overgoddess) from Gaia.

- Pandemonium: Wrath (Greek: Erebus)
- Abyss: Lust (Cthonian: Shub-Niggurath)
- Tartarus: Gluttony (Cthonian: Abhoth), (Greek: Tartarus)
- Hades: Envy (Cthonian: Shudde M Ell), (Greek: Nyx)
- Gehenna: Greed (Egyptian: Amon)
- Nine Hells: Pride (Egyptian: Kek)
- Acheron: Sloth (Cthonian: Quachil Uttaus)
Based on the Seven Sins, difficult to tie them to a plane AND get them to oppose the Seven Virtues.

Elder Gods by Pantheon:
- African: working on it.
- Babylonian-Sumerian: Apsu and Tiamat.
- Celtic: Donn
- Central American: Ometicuhtli
- Chinese: The Yellow Emperor/Shang-Ti
- Egyptian: Atum/Ra, Apep, Maat, Ptah.
- Greek: The Titans, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
- Indian: Brahma, Durga (Conjunction of Parvati and Kali), Mahisha (Demon;
slain by Durga)
- Japanese: Inzagi and Inzamna.
- Norse: Surtur and Ymir.
- North American: Great Spirit.
- Persian: Ahriman, Ormazd.


----------



## Anubis

I doubt that is how it goes, at least with Tharizdun.

According to the official Greyhawk information currently out there, Tharizdun is a Greater Deity.

I hope UK don't change this because it would topple my created pantheon, in which Tharizdun was destroyed and his father Thanatos (my idea) took over his spot.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Sorry for the slow response - I had a friends batchelor party to attend to yesterday. 

A lot to get through - I'll start with the wealth issue.

I am not happy with WotCs results (in lieu of any system). As far as I can tell its akin to a x1.15 increase each level (I think this represents a doubling every 5 levels. 

If this is continued it means you are hitting the billion gp figure at around the 75th-level mark.

Passing the Trillion gp mark close after 125th-level. Quodrillion gp around 175th-level.

So even though my own system gives drammatic results I think they are more manageable and ultimately more 'realistic' - given my own experience in such matters.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 

I'll answer this point before I return to your post Bjorn.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I doubt that is how it goes, at least with Tharizdun.*




Well actually... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *According to the official Greyhawk information currently out there, Tharizdun is a Greater Deity.*




Thats what happens when you read dodgy material not taken from the source! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hope UK don't change this because it would topple my created pantheon, in which Tharizdun was destroyed and his father Thanatos (my idea) took over his spot. *




This is easily remedied anyway mate. 

You could just swop Nerull (Thanatos by another name) and Tharizdun around.


----------



## Upper_Krust

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings people!*




Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I'm currently in the army, a compulsory institution here in Norway, and that's why I haven't been answering posts lately.*




Hope thats going well for you mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Fortunately I get a great first aid here, so it's not a complete waste, and after the course, which takes 7 weeks from now, I get much more spare time...*




Let us know afterwards how it went.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *There are some things that need to be addressed here, but due to lack of time, I cannot address all of them.*




I'm sure they'll keep.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *BTW: On DCs and Epic Spells: UK's assumption may be true at "lower" levels, but at "higher" levels, it's not, considering the fact that the XP mitigating factor is constant, not varying with level. Hence, the approach 1,4,9,16 is NOT appropriate.*




I don't see any other way to get it working though.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *In fact, it's a quite good approximation, although mine is much closer. However, I use a much more advanced formula that's not convenient to use (unless you have a calculator).*




My intention is not to deliver an approximation though.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Could someone please post the actual table? I haven't got my books with me this weekend, and without the actual values, I cannot run a linear regression on your formula, telling if its approximation is adequate. *




21: 975 K
22: 1.2 M
23: 1.5 M
24: 1.8 M
25: 2.1 M
26: 2.5 M
27: 2.9 M
28: 3.3 M
29: 3.8 M
30: 4.3 M
31: 4.9 M
32: 5.6 M
33: 6.3 M
34: 7 M
35: 7.9 M
36: 8.8 M
37: 9.9 M
38: 11 M
39: 12.3 M
40: 13.6 M


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Yo Krust,*




Whassup Bjorn! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Is this at all like your current list?*




A bit (about 50%).



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Its from the original on "Overpowers sign here. Its the best I could find.*




Nice retrieval - I'm impressed.  



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Entities:
> 
> Entropy (Greek: Chaos), (Egypt: Nun)
> Evil (Greyhawk: Tharizdun), (Christian: Satan)
> Fate (Greyhawk: Lady Probability)
> Good (Christian: Holy Spirit)
> Time (Persian: Zurvan Akurana), (Greyhawk: Proctor Chronos)*




Okay, first up this 'class' is now refered to Proto-deities.

Entropy
Fate
Matter
Spirit
Thought
Time



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Overgods (by Plane):
> 
> Incidently the four Seraphim (Arch-Angels: eg. Michael) are considered equivalent to Overgods as are the two Balseraph (Gog and Magog).
> 
> - Prime Material: Mother-Earth (Greek: Gaia), (Egypt: Heh), (Indian: Aditi),
> (Celtic: Danu)
> Difficult one, I also wanted to have Ubbo-Sathla here. In which case I would make Gaia a Neutral Good Overpower.
> 
> - Concordant Opposition: Ahura Mazdah (Conjunction of Ahriman and Ormazd).
> Or possibly Ubbo-Sathla?
> 
> - Ethereal Plane: Yibb-Tstll
> - Plane of Shadow: Cyaegha
> - Astral Plane: Yog-Sothoth
> - Negative Plane: Nyogtha
> - Positive Plane: ?
> The Plane of Shadow is now no longer a demiplane.
> 
> - Elemental Air: Air
> - Elemental Earth: Earth
> - Elemental Fire: Fire
> - Elemental Water: Water
> Do these need names?
> 
> - Nirvana: Daoloth
> - Limbo: Azathoth
> 
> - Arcadia: Justice
> - Seven Heavens: Faith
> - Twin Paradises: Prudence (possibly Greek: Gaia)
> - Elysium: Hope (Cthonian: Nodes)
> - Happy Hunting Grounds: Temperance
> - Olympus: Charity (possibly Greek: Phanes)
> - Gladsheim: Fortitude (Norse: Audumhla)
> Obviously based on the Seven Virtues - I am trying to get them to directly oppose the seven sins.
> 
> It might be possible to split Heh (Egyptian Overgoddess) from Gaia.
> 
> - Pandemonium: Wrath (Greek: Erebus)
> - Abyss: Lust (Cthonian: Shub-Niggurath)
> - Tartarus: Gluttony (Cthonian: Abhoth), (Greek: Tartarus)
> - Hades: Envy (Cthonian: Shudde M Ell), (Greek: Nyx)
> - Gehenna: Greed (Egyptian: Amon)
> - Nine Hells: Pride (Egyptian: Kek)
> - Acheron: Sloth (Cthonian: Quachil Uttaus)
> Based on the Seven Sins, difficult to tie them to a plane AND get them to oppose the Seven Virtues.*




Some of these are the same. But most are changed.

I also now have found esoteric names for for the elemental overgods.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Elder Gods by Pantheon:
> - African: working on it.
> - Babylonian-Sumerian: Apsu and Tiamat.
> - Celtic: Donn
> - Central American: Ometicuhtli
> - Chinese: The Yellow Emperor/Shang-Ti
> - Egyptian: Atum/Ra, Apep, Maat, Ptah.
> - Greek: The Titans, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
> - Indian: Brahma, Durga (Conjunction of Parvati and Kali), Mahisha (Demon;
> slain by Durga)
> - Japanese: Inzagi and Inzamna.
> - Norse: Surtur and Ymir.
> - North American: Great Spirit.
> - Persian: Ahriman, Ormazd. *




A lot of these are changed.

At best the above was work in progress. I now have the completed list.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

Nuffin'.   sup wit joo?  

God, if you only knew what I went through to find that.  (Oh look, it seems like I'm telling God, but God would already know.  Thats Funny.)

Is this completed list is private knowledge?  Aren't I annoying with these lists?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Nuffin'.   sup wit joo?*




Jus, sittin' here chillin'...



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *God, if you only knew what I went through to find that.  (Oh look, it seems like I'm telling God, but God would already know.  Thats Funny.)*




I can imagine! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Is this completed list is private knowledge?*




Not really, though I try to avoid giving away too much information. I want the IH to have as many surprises as possible (If indeed the content of such a list would be deemed a surprise)



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Aren't I annoying with these lists? *




Not at all mate! Was there anything specific you wanted to know other than simply 'everything'?


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

*Everything would be nice, but...*

I guess if I have to choose something, is there anything else to know about proto-deities?  And what'd you call the elemental overgods?   And if there's room for one more who are the overgods for the upper planes? And...Just Kidding!!!!!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Everything would be nice, but...*

Hello again mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I guess if I have to choose something, is there anything else to know about proto-deities? *




They each have an Omnific Divine Ability. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *And what'd you call the elemental overgods?*




Air: Aeradi
Earth: Chthon
Fire: Pyroeis
Water: Aquaster
Positive: Yin (or Od)
Negative: Yang (or Ob)



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *And if there's room for one more who are the overgods for the upper planes?*




The Seven Virtues.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *And...Just Kidding!!!!! *


----------



## Cheiromancer

What happened to the fight with Anubis?  Did he concede that quasi-deity was +14 ECL?


----------



## Kalanyr

Hey UK 

What are your thoughts on how most of the abominations have higher Damage Reduction than the gods ?


----------



## Knight Otu

> They each have an Omnific Divine Ability.



Aha, the elusive ODAs! 



> What happened to the fight with Anubis? Did he concede that quasi-deity was +14 ECL?



I would like to know that too, but it seems that this has not happened ... yet. 



> What are your thoughts on how most of the abominations have higher Damage Reduction than the gods ?



Personally, I feel that the gods' DR is too low for any rank above Demigod. I think the required plus should go up by +1 per 1 or 2 steps above Demigod.
I don't know what U_K thinks about that, though.


----------



## Knight Otu

The fight has just continued.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *What happened to the fight with Anubis?*




I got distracted over the weekend. I just posted my latest move.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Did he concede that quasi-deity was +14 ECL? *




Not yet. I have dropped three of his four characters (one dead; two incapacitated) without taking a scratch. He has trapped me in a Wall of Force (due to the stupid 3rd Ed. revision that means Spell Resistance no longer works versus Wall of Force). But I think I still have it under control.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *Hey UK.*




Hi Kalanyr mate! 



			
				Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *What are your thoughts on how most of the abominations have higher Damage Reduction than the gods ? *




Thats okay.

Most of them use natural attacks, whereas the gods mostly use manufactured weaponry.

Don't worry about the Gods being able to hurt them. I'll sort out what weaponry they should have. None of this +5 Mjolnir nonsense.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Aha, the elusive ODAs! *




I wondered if anyone would remember. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I would like to know that too, but it seems that this has not happened ... yet. *




Anubis party had/has the potential to win. But it was always going to take a 1 in 20 shot. I can take those odds. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Personally, I feel that the gods' DR is too low for any rank above Demigod. I think the required plus should go up by +1 per 1 or 2 steps above Demigod.
> 
> I don't know what U_K thinks about that, though.  *




Remember that Gods can take Improved Damage Reduction Salient Divine Ability.

Odin could have DR 411/+28 if he threw all his SDAs into DR.


----------



## Anubis

It was the ruling from about the Necklace of Fireballs that made it tough for me.  I've always played that only one can be used at a time, so that ruling took me totally by surprise.  If I had it to do over again, I would make sure to take care of that problem BEFORE moving Lu Bu in for the kill.

Without that ruling, which I still feel is a bit dicey in and of itself, you would have been dead already, guranteed.

As for my thoughts I've come up with . . . Here's a hint: equipment seems to play a bigger part in the ECL modifier than ANYTHING else.

Had we tested it with you playing the same character with only ECL +10, you would have been crushed royally.  Playing ECL +14 instead gave you MUCH more equipment to work with.

Also, the difference between PC and NPC wealth is a major one.  I'm ALMOST to the point of thinking that character with ECL should take equipment for their total class levels instead of their ECL.

I mean, when you think about it, the ONLY thing your character gains from ECL is wealth, nothing else.  That said, you character could have been ECL +10 and been a PC, and would be doing the same as he is now with ECL +14 as an NPC.

That said, I have no intention to concede.  Xun Huo WILL be triumphant over Incisor.


----------



## Knight Otu

> I wondered if anyone would remember.



Someone _always_ remembers. 



> Remember that Gods can take Improved Damage Reduction Salient Divine Ability.
> 
> Odin could have DR 411/+28 if he threw all his SDAs into DR.



True, but which self-respecting god would put every SDA into DR?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It was the ruling from about the Necklace of Fireballs that made it tough for me.  I've always played that only one can be used at a time, so that ruling took me totally by surprise.*




Even so all I needed to do was detonate one globe then volutarily fail my reflex save detonating the entire necklace - your character was still within range.

The Wall of Force ruling took me by surprise, so I guess we are equal on the 'surprised' count.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If I had it to do over again, I would make sure to take care of that problem BEFORE moving Lu Bu in for the kill.*




If we were to go again I would change my tactics even though they have been successful up to now.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Without that ruling, which I still feel is a bit dicey in and of itself,*




I already explained a secondary method of detonating the globes above.

Try not to dwell on it any more than I on your 'cash & carry' sure striking weaponry.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *you would have been dead already, guranteed.*




Unlikely. I simply would have changed my strategy.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for my thoughts I've come up with . . . Here's a hint: equipment seems to play a bigger part in the ECL modifier than ANYTHING else.*




That cuts both ways I am sure.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Had we tested it with you playing the same character with only ECL +10, you would have been crushed royally.  Playing ECL +14 instead gave you MUCH more equipment to work with.*




Nonsense! I could easily have made 21,000gp enough to kick tail. 

Horn of Blasting - still not used. 12k
Boots of Speed - 9k (swop for a few Potions of Haste)
+1 Greataxe - still not used. 2k
Amulet of Natural Armour +2 - irrelevant given you need 20 to hit regardless. 8k
Change Bracers of Armour +3 to +2 - saved 5k.

Even with 59,000gp I still had less money than each of your four characters. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, the difference between PC and NPC wealth is a major one.  I'm ALMOST to the point of thinking that character with ECL should take equipment for their total class levels instead of their ECL.
> 
> I mean, when you think about it, the ONLY thing your character gains from ECL is wealth, nothing else.  That said, you character could have been ECL +10 and been a PC, and would be doing the same as he is now with ECL +14 as an NPC.*




Even if we set this up with no magic items I have still proved my point.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That said, I have no intention to concede.  Xun Huo WILL be triumphant over Incisor. *




You want some...come get some.


----------



## Anubis

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *
> True, but which self-respecting god would put every SDA into DR? *




One that didn't wanna ever get hit?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Even so all I needed to do was detonate one globe then volutarily fail my reflex save detonating the entire necklace - your character was still within range.
> *




True.  Actually . . . Hmmm . . .



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The Wall of Force ruling took me by surprise, so I guess we are equal on the 'surprised' count.
> *




Why is that?  No ruling was necessary.  The spell's description in the PH explains everything.  It says SR does not apply, and that the wall is nearly indestructible, listing a few specific spells that get rid of it.  Simple.  Why would upholding the rule by the book surprise you?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> If we were to go again I would change my tactics even though they have been successful up to now.
> *




I certainly know not to underestimate the power of the Necklace of Fireballs ever again.  My players will be PISSED when I use this tactic against them.  (The blow yourself up while immune to fire tactive, that is.)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Try not to dwell on it any more than I on your 'cash & carry' sure striking weaponry.
> *




Except that IS standard.  The way I see it, only people with little tactical sense don't invest in Sure Striking early.  It's a sure way to get yourself killed.  At least, that's how my games go.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Unlikely. I simply would have changed my strategy.
> *




True.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> That cuts both ways I am sure.
> *




What I'm saying is that our test is testing a specific ECL, but taking wealth into consideration sway it.  In all honesty, the best way to find the ECL, after all is said and done, which I have now figured out after seeing your *equipment* devastate my party . . . Extrapolate the numbers from the existing ECL modifiers!  That's right . . . Take all the abilities of the Divine Ranks, and calculate them as if they were normal abilities!

I do wanna finish our little test, however, if anything to prove a point. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Nonsense! I could easily have made 21,000gp enough to kick tail.
> 
> Horn of Blasting - still not used. 12k
> Boots of Speed - 9k (swop for a few Potions of Haste)
> +1 Greataxe - still not used. 2k
> Amulet of Natural Armour +2 - irrelevant given you need 20 to hit regardless. 8k
> Change Bracers of Armour +3 to +2 - saved 5k.
> 
> Even with 59,000gp I still had less money than each of your four characters.
> *




I guess I'll give you that.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You want some...come get some.
> *




Oh, I will!


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You want some...come get some.
> *




Actually, after figuring a simple little matter out . . . YOU'VE ALREADY LOST!  Head over to see what will be the end of the battle!

I've got you now!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, after figuring a simple little matter out . . . YOU'VE ALREADY LOST!  Head over to see what will be the end of the battle!*




Unlikely...most unlikely! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I've got you now! *




Don't count your chickens...


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Don't count your chickens...
> *




Even if you get past the fireballs, you still have my trump card to deal with, and I seriously doubt you'll be able to defeat it.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Even if you get past the fireballs,*




LOL! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *you still have my trump card to deal with, and I seriously doubt you'll be able to defeat it.  *




I hear a lot of talk, but I don't see much action! Bring that bad boy ON!


----------



## Knight Otu

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> One that didn't wanna ever get hit?  *



Yeah, portfolio: Egoism


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Damage Reduction*

Hi all! 

I wanted to ask you all about Damage Reduction. What do you think about reducing it to component parts (and not just for deities!):

ie. 
Blocks of 5/+1

So that you would have 30/+6, or 45/+9.

Deities could start with 24/+4 then gain +1 per Divine Rank (or just make the quasi-deity 20/+4).

eg.
DR1 = 25/+5
DR6 = 30/+6
DR11 = 35/+7
DR16 = 40/+8
etc.

The Improved Damage Reduction SDA could increase things by 5/+1.

I am not totally convinced yet this is a good idea (which is why I brought it up here, to get some feedback). Any thoughts?

Incidently, I think I have come up with a fantastic way of linking my own magic ideas to the Epic Spell System - a little bit of testing to do, but its looking great so far!


----------



## Anubis

Interesting ideas . . .

I would start the Quasi-deity at 20/+4 just to keep it with the other numbers you have (increments of 5/+1), but other than that, your ideas sounds perfect, considering greater deities should naturally have more damage reduction than deities below them.

So that said, it works perfectly . . . For deities.

Other beings, however, would not be served by this incremental change.  I would leave others as they are, otherwise you empower some creatures while weakening others.

Anyway, for deities, it works.  I like it.


----------



## poilbrun

Hi all! I'm back from holidays (if you wonder, they were great, the type where you slept during two weeks rather than the type where you need to sleep two weeks AFTER the holidays!), and have spent some time reading all that was written during those two weeks... But the question I have for you, U_K, has nothing to do with what I've read!  

To put it short, does the death of an avatar affect a god, and if so, how? Does the god lose anything, or is he just pissed because he has to spend WP to create a new one?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Interesting ideas . . .
> 
> I would start the Quasi-deity at 20/+4 just to keep it with the other numbers you have (increments of 5/+1), but other than that, your ideas sounds perfect, considering greater deities should naturally have more damage reduction than deities below them.*




Remember:

DR1 = 25/+5
DR2 = 26/+5
DR3 = 27/+5
DR4 = 28/+5
DR5 = 29/+5
DR6 = 30/+6
etc.

Just in case I didn't make that initially clear.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So that said, it works perfectly . . . For deities.
> 
> Other beings, however, would not be served by this incremental change.  I would leave others as they are, otherwise you empower some creatures while weakening others.
> 
> Anyway, for deities, it works.  I like it. *




I admit I am reticent about advocating such a change in other creatures but in many cases I think it would be for the better.

eg. A Pit Fiend or Balor has 30/+3. That effectively means melee is out of the question for someone with a weaker weapon - its a pretty black and white situation; if you are a DM then using a Balor when the party have few (if any) +3 weapons then the party is going to take a pummeling. However 15/+3 makes the Balor tough; but the issue of combat is not so black and white.


----------



## Upper_Krust

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Hi all!*




Poil Brun mate! Good to have you back! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I'm back from holidays (if you wonder, they were great, the type where you slept during two weeks rather than the type where you need to sleep two weeks AFTER the holidays!), and have spent some time reading all that was written during those two weeks...*




Glad to hear you and the girlfriend had a great time in Italy mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *But the question I have for you, U_K, has nothing to do with what I've read! *




Sure fire away! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *To put it short, does the death of an avatar affect a god, and if so, how? Does the god lose anything, or is he just pissed because he has to spend WP to create a new one? *




Creating an Avatar is a permanent expenditure of a deities power, however the deity won't personally suffer any after effects of an Avatars destruction. Though if the deities Avatar was destroyed in front of worshippers it could have repercussions on that particular area of worship leading to a serious loss of faith (and face for the deity and its clergy).

I show in the IH, how such Events can increase (or decrease) the measure of the deities faith/worship.


----------



## Knight Otu

The increase of the required enhancement bonus to bypass DR for higher statures of divinity looks a bit familiar. 
I think it's a good idea.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The increase of the required enhancement bonus to bypass DR for higher statures of divinity looks a bit familiar.  *




Well it should help any ECL/CR system shenanigans. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I think it's a good idea.  *




The more I look at it the happier I am. 

However, one related point that has been annoying me is that of Damage Reduction with no enhancement bonus needed to trump.

eg. 3/-

Personally I think it confuses a few issues.

On the one hand I like the idea that creatures could have a Hardness ability - golems are the obvious recipients. 

I advocate Constructs gain their material hardness as standard.

In effect Hardness is like extraordinary (Ex) Damage Reduction.

But the type of 'damage reduction' (that can't be beaten by magic items) they use is still supernatural (Su). To me thats just a bit silly.

I may nix their interpretation in the IH. So that I have Damage Reduction (Su) and Hardness (Ex) as clearly distinct.

The task will then be to determine things like Barbarian Damage Reduction and the Damage Reduction Feat, as well as monsters like the Demi-lich and Lava/Winter Wight.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

*Bizjorn in the Hizouse!!!!*

Sup, Krust-Dawg?  

Anyway, allow me to ask you more annoying questions.  

If I recall goodly ( ), In olden times some gods could  "lift nearly anything (at DM's Discretion) and bend or crush anything they laid their hands on."  Could this or anything similar work at all now?  I can't find a way.  But I'm not very good with game mechanics anyway.   

Also, couldja tell me where you might place the following beings in your ranking system?

Buri
Audhulma
Ymir
Surtur
Erebus
Eros
Gaia
Uranus

Thanx a bunch.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Remember:
> 
> DR1 = 25/+5
> DR2 = 26/+5
> DR3 = 27/+5
> DR4 = 28/+5
> DR5 = 29/+5
> DR6 = 30/+6
> etc.
> 
> Just in case I didn't make that initially clear.
> *




Ah, I see.  Nope, you did not make that clear initially.  In that case, Quasi-deities would indeed be 24/+4.  I understand now.  Still works perfectly for deities.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> eg. A Pit Fiend or Balor has 30/+3. That effectively means melee is out of the question for someone with a weaker weapon - its a pretty black and white situation; if you are a DM then using a Balor when the party have few (if any) +3 weapons then the party is going to take a pummeling. However 15/+3 makes the Balor tough; but the issue of combat is not so black and white. *




The way I see it, if a DM is throwing such creatures at a party with so few levels that they don't have proper weaponry, then there is something wrong.  As far as I've seen, damage reduction rarely, if ever, effects the entire party, but rather usually effects only non-fighter types unless they all invest in Sure Striking, which is always a wise idea.  Damage reduction isn't as much a limiter as it seems.  It's there mainly because some creatures with higher damage reduction have very few hit points, and low level parties could take such creatures out easily at a far lower level.  The Balor with just over 100 hit points is a perfect example of this.

If, however, the lack of sufficient magical items is the result of player stupidity, such as if they upgrade everything else first and still don't invest in Sure Striking, then those PCs deserve to die for their ignorance.

All of this, of course, only applies to normal campaigns.  In low-magic campaigns, things with damage reduction will be 2-3 CR higher than in the core rules, because the game is not meant to be played low-magic.  In those cases, all such circumstances are the DM's fault for not going by the normal rules of the game.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a system that works in ALL situations.  We must only consider a normal game for it to work.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well it should help any ECL/CR system shenanigans.
> *




Honestly, anything up to damage reduction of X/+5 should only be considered ECL +1/2.  This is one of the things I was talking about before.  You see, non-Epic things are usually within that range, and applying specific ECL modifiers based on damage reduction up to that level throws pretty much everything off in the non-Epic range.

What I would do is make it ECL +1/2 for anything up to X/+5, but then make a modifier for anything over that.  Perhaps, starting with damage reduction of X/+6, any five points of damage reduction over 30 give ECL +1/2, and each rank of damage reduction of +6 or more gives an ECL of +1/2 as well.  In other words:




		Code:
	

 X/+5 = ECL +0.5
30/+6 = ECL +1
35/+6 = ECL +1.5
30/+7 = ECL +1.5
35/+7 = ECL +2
40/+7 = ECL +2.5
35/+8 = ECL +2.5
40/+8 = ECL +3



In this way, non-Epic damage reduction gets one value while Epic damage reduction gets a different value.  How does that sound?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Bizjorn in the Hizouse!!!!*



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Sup, Krust-Dawg?*




Big up BD! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Anyway, allow me to ask you more annoying questions.*




Shoot from the hip.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *If I recall goodly ( ), In olden times some gods could  "lift nearly anything (at DM's Discretion) and bend or crush anything they laid their hands on."  Could this or anything similar work at all now?  I can't find a way.  But I'm not very good with game mechanics anyway.*




I have a way to add things like this in the IH. But generally you should seperate the pseudo-reality of the game from hyperbole.  

Atlas may be strong - but hes not THAT strong, of course someone always is THAT strong.  



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Also, couldja tell me where you might place the following beings in your ranking system?
> 
> Buri
> Audhulma
> Ymir
> Surtur
> Erebus
> Eros
> Gaia
> Uranus*




Buri a DR20 Greater God
Audhumla probably an aspect of Aditi (Protodeity)
Erebus and Eros could be Overdeities (linked with the seven sins; virtues)
Surtur an Elder God
Gaia probably an aspect of Aditi
Uranus an Elder God

Without doubt Gaia is the most difficult of all beings to assign power to.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Thanx a bunch. *




Anytime mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ah, I see.  Nope, you did not make that clear initially.  In that case, Quasi-deities would indeed be 24/+4.  I understand now.  Still works perfectly for deities.*




I would be content to assign the 20/+4 to the Solar.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The way I see it, if a DM is throwing such creatures at a party with so few levels that they don't have proper weaponry, then there is something wrong.  As far as I've seen, damage reduction rarely, if ever, effects the entire party, but rather usually effects only non-fighter types unless they all invest in Sure Striking, which is always a wise idea.  Damage reduction isn't as much a limiter as it seems.  It's there mainly because some creatures with higher damage reduction have very few hit points, and low level parties could take such creatures out easily at a far lower level.  The Balor with just over 100 hit points is a perfect example of this.
> 
> If, however, the lack of sufficient magical items is the result of player stupidity, such as if they upgrade everything else first and still don't invest in Sure Striking, then those PCs deserve to die for their ignorance.
> 
> All of this, of course, only applies to normal campaigns.  In low-magic campaigns, things with damage reduction will be 2-3 CR higher than in the core rules, because the game is not meant to be played low-magic.  In those cases, all such circumstances are the DM's fault for not going by the normal rules of the game.
> 
> It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a system that works in ALL situations.  We must only consider a normal game for it to work. *




If we push the perennial sure striking solution to the side I think one of the problems with 3rd Ed. is the intrinsic reliance upon magic items.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Honestly, anything up to damage reduction of X/+5 should only be considered ECL +1/2.  This is one of the things I was talking about before.  You see, non-Epic things are usually within that range, and applying specific ECL modifiers based on damage reduction up to that level throws pretty much everything off in the non-Epic range.
> 
> What I would do is make it ECL +1/2 for anything up to X/+5, but then make a modifier for anything over that.  Perhaps, starting with damage reduction of X/+6, any five points of damage reduction over 30 give ECL +1/2, and each rank of damage reduction of +6 or more gives an ECL of +1/2 as well.  In other words:
> 
> In this way, non-Epic damage reduction gets one value while Epic damage reduction gets a different value.  How does that sound? *




I'm not sure I agree with the idea of splitting the value of Damage Reduction. I'll have to give that some scrutiny.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

*Big ups to your momma!!!!*

So, Is Aditi one of these:Entropy
Fate
Matter
Spirit
Thought
Time
?  And if so which one?  Do others have other names?  Thanx again.


----------



## ranix65

Please excuse my extreme ignorance, but what is the Immortal's Handbook, a guide to playing Highlander-style characters in D&D?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not sure I agree with the idea of splitting the value of Damage Reduction. I'll have to give that some scrutiny.
> *




I understand.  I myself have tried to figure out whether or not it would be the right thing to do.  When you get into increments besides 5/+1, it starts to get messy.  Problem is, 50/+6 is not worth anywhere near as much as 250/+6, ya' know?  On the other hand, increments of 5/+X make very little difference the higher up you go in power so . . . Hmmm . . .

Maybe . . .

Keep everything up to X/+5 the same, but after that . . . Perhaps make it ECL +1/2 per damage reduction "plus" increase, but for the actual points of damage reduction, make it ECL +1/2 for each full 50% (or 100%?) increase over 5 points per "plus".

In other words:




		Code:
	

 X/+5 = ECL +0.5

30/+6 = ECL +1
45/+6 = ECL +1.5
60/+6 = ECL +2

35/+7 = ECL +1.5
52/+7 = ECL +2
70/+7 = ECL +2.5

40/+8 = ECL +2
60/+8 = ECL +2.5
80/+8 = ECL +3



How's that?  This way, the points still make a difference seperate from the "plus", but much more slowly, putting much less impact on the ECL.

On thing that I've figured out is that a "simple" system to handle ECL is a fantasy.  I'll be casting meteor swarm in real life before a simple ECL system can be created.  Time to give up on making it "simple", and work more on making it "accurate", ya?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Big ups to your momma!!!!*

Hello mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *So, Is Aditi one of these:
> 
> Entropy
> Fate
> Matter
> Spirit
> Thought
> Time
> ?  And if so which one? *




Fate...which is also Life and Nature.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Do others have other names?  Thanx again. *




Yes.

Entropy = Death (called Byss or Tamas)
Fate = Life (Aditi or Kundalini)
Matter = Evil (Aratron or Cognaster)
Spirit = Good (Shekina or Iliaster)
Thought = Chaos (Asat or another name that escapes me at the moment)
Time = Law (Zurvan or Janus)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi there ranix65! 



			
				ranix65 said:
			
		

> *Please excuse my extreme ignorance, but what is the Immortal's Handbook, a guide to playing Highlander-style characters in D&D? *




Not quite.

Its actually a guide for roleplaying Immortal campaigns. It outlines how characters gain worship and how this worship translates into divinity. 

Aside from the basic rules it covers a multitude of new divine powers; divinity above greater power; scores of artifacts and how to create them; the magic of the gods; godly portfolios; monsters to challenge the gods; divine realms and how to shape reality; outlining immortal pantheons; ideas and advice for running such a campaign; divine adventures and everything in between


----------



## ranix65

Awesome, where's it gonna be available and when's it gonna be done?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I understand.  I myself have tried to figure out whether or not it would be the right thing to do.  When you get into increments besides 5/+1, it starts to get messy.  Problem is, 50/+6 is not worth anywhere near as much as 250/+6, ya' know?*




On the contrary though, so few things without +6 weapons could bypass 50/+6 anyway as to make upgrading to 250/+6 nearly irrelevant.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On the other hand, increments of 5/+X make very little difference the higher up you go in power so . . . Hmmm . . .*




3rd. Ed has an over-reliance on magic items whatever way you look at it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Maybe . . .
> 
> Keep everything up to X/+5 the same, but after that . . . Perhaps make it ECL +1/2 per damage reduction "plus" increase, but for the actual points of damage reduction, make it ECL +1/2 for each full 50% (or 100%?) increase over 5 points per "plus".
> 
> In other words:
> 
> How's that?  This way, the points still make a difference seperate from the "plus", but much more slowly, putting much less impact on the ECL.*




Perhaps lessening the constant modifier is the answer (thinking out loud here) rather than complicating the issue. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On thing that I've figured out is that a "simple" system to handle ECL is a fantasy.  I'll be casting meteor swarm in real life before a simple ECL system can be created.  Time to give up on making it "simple", and work more on making it "accurate", ya? *




...except that I don't give up.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi ranix65! 



			
				ranix65 said:
			
		

> *Awesome,*




Hey thanks! I appreciate the interest! 



			
				ranix65 said:
			
		

> *where's it gonna be available and when's it gonna be done? *




Initially it will be available in 4 .pdf sections (Apotheosis; Magic; Monsters; Campaigns) at www.rpgnow.com

After that I am confident it will be published in print form.

As to when it will be released is dependant on when WotC enter Deities & Demigods into the System Reference Document. The Immortals Handbook is compatible with that book (though I have made a few changes for the better).

Once that happens it should be a matter of a week or so before the first section is available (with the others following at short intervals thereafter).


----------



## Blacksad

Just a small thing, on SR, with your revised CR system,
I don't know if you already made such a rule but something like:

default SR being 11+CR instead of 11+ECL, with caster level check being the same, i.e. 1d20+CR instead of 1d20+ECL

would be cool.

It requires to revise the SR of some monster, but it would solve a tricky problem IMO.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Blacksad mate! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Just a small thing, on SR, with your revised CR system,
> I don't know if you already made such a rule but something like:
> 
> default SR being 11+CR instead of 11+ECL, with caster level check being the same, i.e. 1d20+CR instead of 1d20+ECL
> 
> would be cool.
> 
> It requires to revise the SR of some monster, but it would solve a tricky problem IMO. *




The tricky aspect to something like this is the modifiers I apply to high ECL/CR.

eg. A Hecatonchiere is about ECL 100/CR 42 (or thereabouts). this means it is a 50/50 challenge for x4 PCs of 72nd-level. Meaning that probably SR83 is appropriate.

So there is a slightly convaluted process involved.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Perhaps lessening the constant modifier is the answer (thinking out loud here) rather than complicating the issue.
> *




Huh?  What do you mean?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...except that I don't give up.
> *




I'm serious.  There is no simple solution.  That's outside the realm of possibility.  Dragons need their own system, deities need their own system as well, it's all very complex in the end.


----------



## Impeesa

ranix65 said:
			
		

> *Awesome, where's it gonna be available and when's it gonna be done? *




That's like asking Blizzard when their game will be done, or when Peter Gabriel will have a new cd out (incidentally, both of these finally did come out... where's our book? ).

--Impeesa--


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Blacksad mate!
> 
> 
> 
> The tricky aspect to something like this is the modifiers I apply to high ECL/CR.
> 
> eg. A Hecatonchiere is about ECL 100/CR 42 (or thereabouts). this means it is a 50/50 challenge for x4 PCs of 72nd-level. Meaning that probably SR83 is appropriate.
> 
> So there is a slightly convaluted process involved. *




Oops! forgot to say Hi myself

Hi U_K!

Isn't my method easier? and harder to break?

i.e. with your method: a CR 64 creature (ECL 448) is a 50/50 challenge for x4 PCs of  320th-level.
That would mean SR331.
But while it should be the same challenge for 340th level PCs, the SR becomes totaly meaningless at this level.

It's a problem, isn't it?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis matey! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Huh?  What do you mean?*




I meant perhaps each 5/+1 should represent +1/4 ECL (or something other than a half etc.)



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm serious.  There is no simple solution.  That's outside the realm of possibility.*




I'll see about conjuring up a miracle then! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Dragons need their own system, deities need their own system as well,*




The whole point of the system is lost then. Either it works for all equally or it works for none.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *it's all very complex in the end. *




Its only complex if you make it complex.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *That's like asking Blizzard when their game will be done, or when Peter Gabriel will have a new cd out (incidentally, both of these finally did come out... where's our book? ).*




I know...that Krust needs to get up off his backside and...oh wait thats me.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Oops! forgot to say Hi myself
> 
> Hi U_K!*




Hey Blacksad mate! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Isn't my method easier? and harder to break?*




I think this could set some unholy precedents though, Hecatonchieres with SR111 etc.

Great Wyrm Red Dragon with SR41.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *i.e. with your method: a CR 64 creature (ECL 448) is a 50/50 challenge for x4 PCs of  320th-level.
> That would mean SR331.
> But while it should be the same challenge for 340th level PCs, the SR becomes totaly meaningless at this level.*




Well, to be fair there are no CR64 monsters and 320th-level PCs are a bit thin on the ground. 

Actually the higher you ascend the less spell resistance itself is relevant and I'm not just talking about epic spells. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *It's a problem, isn't it? *




Generally speaking though I don't set SR by CR though.


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think this could set some unholy precedents though, Hecatonchieres with SR111 etc.
> *




no, no, no!

With my method, it would be SR 53 (CR+11), and the caster level check of a level 72 character would be 1d20+38

The SR of the great red wyrm wouldn't change.

This would ensure that in the ECL variation of 16 between CR55 and CR56, the SR represent the same challenge, and not an almost impossible one up to a too easy one while staying on the same CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again mate! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *no, no, no!
> 
> With my method, it would be SR 53 (CR+11), and the caster level check of a level 72 character would be 1d20+38*




But the caster level check is not based of challenge rating!? Are you saying that should change? I'm not sure I agree with such a proposal.

I think its better to modify Spell Resistance than the fundamental of Caster Level Check.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *The SR of the great red wyrm wouldn't change.*




Then for their CR they have very low SR.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *This would ensure that in the ECL variation of 16 between CR55 and CR56, the SR represent the same challenge, and not an almost impossible one up to a too easy one while staying on the same CR. *




I'm not happy messing too much with this. Also, as I mentioned Spell Resistance becomes less and less of an issue the higher you ascend anyway.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I meant perhaps each 5/+1 should represent +1/4 ECL (or something other than a half etc.)
> *




Ah.  Yeah, that could work.  Has potential.  I still think maybe I already solved the problem though with my previous post.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'll see about conjuring up a miracle then!
> *




Why do we need a "simple" system?  It's not like the changes I propose *overly* complicate matters.  Either way, you still probably need a calculator and a sheet with the conversions.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The whole point of the system is lost then. Either it works for all equally or it works for none.
> *




Not really.  Dragons are already handled differently than any other type of creature, and deities have their own book!

Incidentally, I have recalculated the ECL of Quasi-deities, and strangely enough, counting all of their abilities, I came up with . . . ECL +12 . . .

You must remember that Divine Rank 0 does NOT have immunity to electricity, cold, or acid, as you seem to believe.

As to your argument, "Why do they say Divine Rank 1 yada yada yada and then say Divine Rank 1 yada yada yada?", well, I can answer that now.

The statement about the energy immunities is in a seperate text block than the statement about poison and disease immunity.

For Divine Rank 1, you get ECL +24 under this new guideline.

Anyway, consider that.  I'll have more on other Divine Ranks soon, but it is NOT an incremental increase by any stretch of the imagination.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Its only complex if you make it complex.
> *




Actually, it's complex by design.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ah.  Yeah, that could work.  Has potential.  I still think maybe I already solved the problem though with my previous post.*




Actually I have kept +0.5 ECL per 5/+1 and it now works okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Why do we need a "simple" system?  It's not like the changes I propose *overly* complicate matters.  Either way, you still probably need a calculator and a sheet with the conversions.*




Thats just it though. I want to be able to glance at a monster entry and work out the CR in less than 30 seconds, all without a calculator. 

Regarding the new system I was initially reticent about the ability scores but it was pretty simple when I got down to it.

I also don't like giving different powers a variable; obviously there are exceptions that have to be accomodated (ability scores; damage reduction; spell resistance; regeneration etc.) but giving a big list of powers with variable modifiers is a waste of time in my opinion.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not really.  Dragons are already handled differently than any other type of creature, and deities have their own book!*




But using that logic everything is handled differently.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Incidentally, I have recalculated the ECL of Quasi-deities, and strangely enough, counting all of their abilities, I came up with . . . ECL +12 . . .*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You must remember that Divine Rank 0 does NOT have immunity to electricity, cold, or acid, as you seem to believe.*




I already gave my evidence to this - its obvious they DO gain those abilities. Its simply a WotC typo.

By the way does that mean if you add those abilities the Quasi-deity template works out at ECL+14 mate? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As to your argument, "Why do they say Divine Rank 1 yada yada yada and then say Divine Rank 1 yada yada yada?", well, I can answer that now.
> 
> The statement about the energy immunities is in a seperate text block than the statement about poison and disease immunity.*




Red herring! 

As far as I can see the evidence speaks for itself.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For Divine Rank 1, you get ECL +24 under this new guideline.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, consider that.  I'll have more on other Divine Ranks soon, but it is NOT an incremental increase by any stretch of the imagination.*




You could probably make a case that Divine Rank 6 bestows more abilities and as such is worth more than the +4 I suggest for each Divine Rank? But its probably a negligable difference.

Regarding Greater Deities I don't allow them an 'Auto Perfect' on any dice rolls. So I'm not factoring that (although you can gain such an ability) 

Also I am advocating that deities only gain 1 SDA per Divine Rank (none of this bonus SDAs for Divine Status). However, I may have Divine Blast and Divine Shield as automatic additions to the Demigod Template...?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, it's complex by design.  *




Yes, but one complication rather than two is the lesser of the two evils here.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Actually I have kept +0.5 ECL per 5/+1 and it now works okay.
> *




Eh . . . I dunno about this . . . Doing it that way, some creatures will be given more ECL than they are worth.

By the way, you do give the "magic immunity" of golems more than ECL +1/2, right?  If not, you are underestimating them badly, because magic immunity is more powerful than the Divine Immunities of deities!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Thats just it though. I want to be able to glance at a monster entry and work out the CR in less than 30 seconds, all without a calculator.
> *




That may be possible with normal monsters, but when it comes to Epic monsters, that just ain't gonna happen. 

Besides, you need a calculator to get the base ECL modifier for HD.  Or can you do that in your head?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Regarding the new system I was initially reticent about the ability scores but it was pretty simple when I got down to it.
> *




Do you count having no particular ability score as having a 0 in that score, or do you not count it at all?  I think you should not count it all all, because having a 0 means that you get penalties.  See my other post for my explanations as to why it should be different for Str, Dex, and Con as opposed to Int, Wis, and Cha.

By the way, I also advocate for deities that each score get a flat Divine bonus of +10, instead of the character getting +60 to divvy out.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I also don't like giving different powers a variable; obviously there are exceptions that have to be accomodated (ability scores; damage reduction; spell resistance; regeneration etc.) but giving a big list of powers with variable modifiers is a waste of time in my opinion.
> *




Yeah, because some of those powers are also more useful to some creatures than others.  Something with Cha 255 that has no abilities that have anything to do with Cha will get nothing from the score.  Well, except maybe a lot of booty, but . . . 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> But using that logic everything is handled differently.
> *




No, that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm saying that dragons in and of themselves are handled differently.  They have many things other creatures do not have.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *




That's what you think! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I already gave my evidence to this - its obvious they DO gain those abilities. Its simply a WotC typo.
> *




I already countered your evidence though.  You simply failed to see the subject break.  As for the "Web Enhancement", well, I think THAT was the typo.  I would be interested in hearing what the Sage or Monte or Andy have to say about it.  Perhaps we should ask them directly before proceeding?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> By the way does that mean if you add those abilities the Quasi-deity template works out at ECL+14 mate?
> *




Actually, no, the Quasi-deity then works out to ECL +16.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Red herring!
> 
> As far as I can see the evidence speaks for itself.
> *




Yes, I think we should contact one of the designers or someone else with WotC and ask if it were a typo or not.  If it were a typo, I think we would have heard by now.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *




We'll see!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You could probably make a case that Divine Rank 6 bestows more abilities and as such is worth more than the +4 I suggest for each Divine Rank? But its probably a negligable difference.
> 
> Regarding Greater Deities I don't allow them an 'Auto Perfect' on any dice rolls. So I'm not factoring that (although you can gain such an ability)
> 
> Also I am advocating that deities only gain 1 SDA per Divine Rank (none of this bonus SDAs for Divine Status). However, I may have Divine Blast and Divine Shield as automatic additions to the Demigod Template...?
> *




Regarding SDAs per Divine Rank, I think that perhaps you are being a bit harsh.  There is no problem with giving an extra per Divine Status.

As for Divine Blast and Divine Shield, I would say a definite NO to Divine Blast, and probably no to Divine Shiled as well, or maybe . . .

Replace the SDA per Divine Status with SPECIFIC SDAs.  This would be a combination of your previous two ideas.  Perhaps "bonus SDAs" . . .

Demigod (DvR 1): Divine Shield
Lesser Deity (DvR 6): Avatar
Intermediate Deity (Dv 11): Annihilating Strike
Greater Deity (Dv 16): Divine Splendor

I dunno . . . Either keep the SDA per Divine Status, OR replace it with specific SDAs at specific Dinve Status, but NOT both.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, but one complication rather than two is the lesser of the two evils here.
> *




You have no idea how NOT complicated my system is.  Once I've finished testing, I'll let you know.  I think MOST of our ideas should come out similar, but I already know some things we differ on.


----------



## Knight Otu

> Besides, you need a calculator to get the base ECL modifier for HD. Or can you do that in your head?



I believe the multipliers are still 3/4, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4? Then, at least I can do most of them in my head (though at times I get lazy and use a calculator for that).


----------



## Anubis

I have e-mailed James Wyatt (one of the creators of Deities & Demigods) and asked him when deities get electricity, cold, and acid immunity.  I will post his response here as soon as I receive it.


----------



## Anubis

*The Verdict*

Well, I received an e-mail from James Wyatt himself today, and he made everything quite clear.  It looks as though I (and the book) was wrong, and that UK had guessed correctly.



Here is what I wrote, quote:

"My friends and I have been having a little debate about some of the stuff in Deities & Demigods, and I finally deicded to go straight to the source.  As one of the creators of Deities & Demigods, perhaps you can enlighten us.

On page 26 under "Immunities", there is the following:

   Energy Immunity: Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to electricity, cold, and acid, even if the attacker is a deity of higher divine rank.  Some deities have additional energy immunities.
   Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to disease and poison, stunning, sleep, paralysis, and death effects, and disintegration.

A friend of mine believes that the part about "Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to electricity, cold, and acid" is a typo, however, and that those immunities are instead granted at divine rank 0.  He cites the fact that in the Web Enhancement, the sample Quasi-deity has the electricity, cold, and acid immunities at divine rank 0.

I, however, believe that the typo is actually in the Web Enhancement, and that the text in Deities & Demigods is, in fact, correct.

That is my question today.  Does a deity get immunity to electricity, cold, and acid at divine rank 1 (as per Deities & Demigods) or divine rank 0 (as per the Web Enhancement)?  Your help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time, and I await what you have to say on the matter.  Thanks you again.

-Brandon Harwell"



Here is the official reply from James Wyatt, one of the creators of Deities & Demigods, and I quote:

"Hi Brandon--

There are a very few divine rank 0 deities in the actual book as well as in the web enhancement (mostly in the Asgardian pantheon--Skirnir and the Jotunheim giants), and they all agree with the web enhancement. I checked an earlier file of the manuscript and I see that it used to be quite clear in the text that all deities are immune to acid, cold, and electricity, even at divine rank 0. So your friend is correct, sorry to say.

I'll try to make sure this gets addressed in the errata.

Thanks for writing!

James"



So there you have it.  If you combined that with the idea that all six ability scores are equal, which I still find questionable although it makes the calculations much easier, the Quasi-deity works out to be ECL +16 as follows:

ECL +1 for 100% increase over normal movement
ECL +6 for +60 Divine Bonus to ability scores
ECL +1/2 for DR 24/+4
ECL +1 for Fire Resistance 20
ECL +2 for SR 30
ECL +1 for Transmutation Immunity
ECL +1 for Energy Drain, Ability Drain, and Ability Damage Immunity
ECL +1 for Mind-Affecting Effect Immunity
ECL +3 for Electricity, Cold, and Acid Immunity

Now Divine Rank 1 works out to be ECL +24 (if you decide to give SDAs per divine rank and NOT for divine status) or ECL +25 (if you decide to give SDAs as per the rules in Deities & Demigods), as follows:

ECL +1 or +2 for Salient Divine Abilities
ECL +1 for no automatic failure on "1"
ECL +1 for Disease, Poison, Stun, Sleep, Paralysis, Death, and Disintegrate Immunity
ECL +3 for Domain Powers and Spell-Like Abilities
ECL +1 for Portfolio and Create Magic Items
ECL +1 for Divine Aura



Anyway, I think that covers everything.  Sheesh . . . To believe that even UK once considered Divine Rank 0 to be ECL +8 . . .


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Eh . . . I dunno about this . . . Doing it that way, some creatures will be given more ECL than they are worth.*




Any examples?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, you do give the "magic immunity" of golems more than ECL +1/2, right?  If not, you are underestimating them badly, because magic immunity is more powerful than the Divine Immunities of deities!*




Remember that Magic Immunity for constructs also means they can't benefit from magic either, so its a double edge sword. That said however I agree that the Magic Immunity ability is very powerful (more so than the standard figure I give).

I suggest a +3 ECL (I rate SDAs at +1 as it happens).

Iron Golem: CR13
Stone Golem: CR11
Clay Golem: CR10
Flesh Golem: CR8

There are a few powers in the ELH that also should rate higher than the standard +0.5.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That may be possible with normal monsters, but when it comes to Epic monsters, that just ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Besides, you need a calculator to get the base ECL modifier for HD.  Or can you do that in your head?*




I can discern a CR for any monster in less than 30 seconds (under the new system) without a calculator, and I'm no maths wizard (hello Ea mate). 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Do you count having no particular ability score as having a 0 in that score, or do you not count it at all?  I think you should not count it all all, because having a 0 means that you get penalties.*




Thats right, I don't count it at all.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *See my other post for my explanations as to why it should be different for Str, Dex, and Con as opposed to Int, Wis, and Cha.*




I did, see my rebuttal.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, I also advocate for deities that each score get a flat Divine bonus of +10, instead of the character getting +60 to divvy out.*




I don't like this idea. Totally destroys flexibility. It also means that deities can have no weak stats - which is totally incongruous with mythology (Hercules did not have Einstein level intellect no matter what Deities & Demigods says).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yeah, because some of those powers are also more useful to some creatures than others.  Something with Cha 255 that has no abilities that have anything to do with Cha will get nothing from the score.  Well, except maybe a lot of booty, but . . . *




A Hill giant with a 255 Charisma would be bigger than Elvis...any which way you slice it in fact. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *No, that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm saying that dragons in and of themselves are handled differently.  They have many things other creatures do not have.*




Like what?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's what you think! *








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I already countered your evidence though.  You simply failed to see the subject break.  As for the "Web Enhancement", well, I think THAT was the typo.  I would be interested in hearing what the Sage or Monte or Andy have to say about it.  Perhaps we should ask them directly before proceeding?*




I don't value the Sages opinion and neither Andy nor Monte had anything to do with Deities & Demigods.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, no, the Quasi-deity then works out to ECL +16.*




Says you! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yes, I think we should contact one of the designers or someone else with WotC and ask if it were a typo or not.  If it were a typo, I think we would have heard by now.*




Even if the official line differs from my opinion I would challenge their ruling (and, naturally, defeat them in any objective argument).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Regarding SDAs per Divine Rank, I think that perhaps you are being a bit harsh.  There is no problem with giving an extra per Divine Status.*




It annoyingly messes with the symmetry of my system though. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for Divine Blast and Divine Shield, I would say a definite NO to Divine Blast, and probably no to Divine Shiled as well, or maybe . . .
> 
> Replace the SDA per Divine Status with SPECIFIC SDAs.  This would be a combination of your previous two ideas.  Perhaps "bonus SDAs" . . .
> 
> Demigod (DvR 1): Divine Shield
> Lesser Deity (DvR 6): Avatar
> Intermediate Deity (Dv 11): Annihilating Strike
> Greater Deity (Dv 16): Divine Splendor
> 
> I dunno . . . Either keep the SDA per Divine Status, OR replace it with specific SDAs at specific Dinve Status, but NOT both.*




I'm not sure either way at this juncture.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You have no idea how NOT complicated my system is.*




I only remembered the laundry list of ECL modifiers for special abilities.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Once I've finished testing, I'll let you know.  I think MOST of our ideas should come out similar, but I already know some things we differ on. *




Okay.


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!
> *



Bonjour!



> *
> But the caster level check is not based of challenge rating!? Are you saying that should change?
> *




yes, it doesn't change the caster level check from level 1 to 20, but it change it above level 20.



> *
> I'm not sure I agree with such a proposal.
> 
> I think its better to modify Spell Resistance than the fundamental of Caster Level Check.
> *




I disagree, because I think it quickly break down (even at not so high level).

party level 40 CR 30, an easy challenge would be 8 CR under: CR 22.
CR 22 is a good challenge for level 24 character, so SR 35 and caster level check 1d20+22.

If one of the PC is a drow or a high level creature or has a magic item granting SR, this would allow the "orcs of the high level" to sometimes affect the character, as they are supposed to be still meaningful (they grant xp).

It works in the other side, with a creature 8 CR above (max allowed), the PC are still able to affect it 1d20+30 vs SR49.

While with your method CR38 is a good chalenge for level 56 PCs, which mean SR 67, which is completly impossible to attain by level 40 wizard. and the SR of low level creature completly loose its meaning.



> *
> Then for their CR they have very low SR.
> *




yes, dragons uses a different formula, I think grazzt(?) the guy behind the creature catalog has figured the formula behind dragon SR.



> *
> I'm not happy messing too much with this. Also, as I mentioned Spell Resistance becomes less and less of an issue the higher you ascend anyway. *




It's still an issue when you face, very easy to kill creatures, or very hard to kill creatures IMO.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: The Verdict*

Hello again mate! 

I see you tried to sneak this one in under my radar... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well, I received an e-mail from James Wyatt himself today, and he made everything quite clear.  It looks as though I (and the book) was wrong, and that UK had guessed correctly.*




By 'guessed' I think you mean deduced. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here is what I wrote, quote:
> 
> "My friends and I have been having a little debate about some of the stuff in Deities & Demigods, and I finally deicded to go straight to the source.  As one of the creators of Deities & Demigods, perhaps you can enlighten us.
> 
> On page 26 under "Immunities", there is the following:
> 
> Energy Immunity: Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to electricity, cold, and acid, even if the attacker is a deity of higher divine rank.  Some deities have additional energy immunities.
> Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to disease and poison, stunning, sleep, paralysis, and death effects, and disintegration.
> 
> A friend of mine believes that the part about "Deities of rank 1 or higher are immune to electricity, cold, and acid" is a typo, however, and that those immunities are instead granted at divine rank 0.  He cites the fact that in the Web Enhancement, the sample Quasi-deity has the electricity, cold, and acid immunities at divine rank 0.
> 
> I, however, believe that the typo is actually in the Web Enhancement, and that the text in Deities & Demigods is, in fact, correct.
> 
> That is my question today.  Does a deity get immunity to electricity, cold, and acid at divine rank 1 (as per Deities & Demigods) or divine rank 0 (as per the Web Enhancement)?  Your help is greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thank you for your time, and I await what you have to say on the matter.  Thanks you again.
> 
> -Brandon Harwell"
> 
> 
> Here is the official reply from James Wyatt, one of the creators of Deities & Demigods, and I quote:
> 
> "Hi Brandon--
> 
> There are a very few divine rank 0 deities in the actual book as well as in the web enhancement (mostly in the Asgardian pantheon--Skirnir and the Jotunheim giants), and they all agree with the web enhancement. I checked an earlier file of the manuscript and I see that it used to be quite clear in the text that all deities are immune to acid, cold, and electricity, even at divine rank 0. So your friend is correct, sorry to say.
> 
> I'll try to make sure this gets addressed in the errata.
> 
> Thanks for writing!
> 
> James"*




Well James Wyatt is one of the people I respect the most in this industry; though the evidence was so clear cut on this point that there was only ever going to be one answer - or a big laying of the Immortal Smackdown from yours truly. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So there you have it.*




Indeed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you combined that with the idea that all six ability scores are equal, which I still find questionable although it makes the calculations much easier, the Quasi-deity works out to be ECL +16 as follows:
> 
> ECL +1 for 100% increase over normal movement
> ECL +6 for +60 Divine Bonus to ability scores
> ECL +1/2 for DR 24/+4
> ECL +1 for Fire Resistance 20
> ECL +2 for SR 30
> ECL +1 for Transmutation Immunity
> ECL +1 for Energy Drain, Ability Drain, and Ability Damage Immunity
> ECL +1 for Mind-Affecting Effect Immunity
> ECL +3 for Electricity, Cold, and Acid Immunity*




You missed the potential +30 Inherant Bonus to ability scores.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now Divine Rank 1 works out to be ECL +24 (if you decide to give SDAs per divine rank and NOT for divine status) or ECL +25 (if you decide to give SDAs as per the rules in Deities & Demigods), as follows:
> 
> ECL +1 or +2 for Salient Divine Abilities
> ECL +1 for no automatic failure on "1"
> ECL +1 for Disease, Poison, Stun, Sleep, Paralysis, Death, and Disintegrate Immunity
> ECL +3 for Domain Powers and Spell-Like Abilities
> ECL +1 for Portfolio and Create Magic Items
> ECL +1 for Divine Aura*




I don't rate either the Quasi-deity or Demigod templates the same way you do.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I think that covers everything.  Sheesh . . . To believe that even UK once considered Divine Rank 0 to be ECL +8 . . .
> *




Just goes to show that idiot Upper_Krust doesn't know what the hell hes on about.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: The Verdict*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You missed the potential +30 Inherant Bonus to ability scores.
> *




You can't count that.  Many people who achieve godhood will already have these bonuses, which can only be obtained once anyway!  Also, giving them this means they can no longer use the other method gaining inherent bonuses.  They cancel each other out and thus do not count for ECL.  There are way too many variables.

Or do you think a Level 30 character with +5 inherent to all scores is gonna get the same ECL modifier as a Level 20 character who has no inherent bonuses upon achieving godhood?  Can't do that . . .



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I don't rate either the Quasi-deity or Demigod templates the same way you do.
> *




I rated them based on the ECL modifiers of the specific abilities.  Can you contest ANY of them?  I don't think so.  Heck, half of the bonuses are rated the same as you rate them!

Go ahead, debate about the bonuses themselves.  I was wrong about the typo, and conceded on the ability scores for simplicity's sake (it was an unnecessary recalculation, especially given the +60 Divine Bonus for deities, which you gave a good point on about flexibility), but I will be posting a new thread with my most recent findings, and you'll be amazed at the simplicity and accuracy!  (I'll be posting it fresh in order to make it more updatable, and because these other two threads are getting crowded and mixed up.)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Bonjour! *




Bonjour mon ami Blacksad! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *yes, it doesn't change the caster level check from level 1 to 20, but it change it above level 20.*




I really don't like the idea of this.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I disagree, because I think it quickly break down (even at not so high level).
> 
> party level 40 CR 30, an easy challenge would be 8 CR under: CR 22.
> CR 22 is a good challenge for level 24 character, so SR 35 and caster level check 1d20+22.
> 
> If one of the PC is a drow or a high level creature or has a magic item granting SR, this would allow the "orcs of the high level" to sometimes affect the character, as they are supposed to be still meaningful (they grant xp).
> 
> It works in the other side, with a creature 8 CR above (max allowed), the PC are still able to affect it 1d20+30 vs SR49.
> 
> While with your method CR38 is a good chalenge for level 56 PCs, which mean SR 67, which is completly impossible to attain by level 40 wizard. and the SR of low level creature completly loose its meaning.*




I don't see the problem. A 56th-level PC = CR34. Therefore a CR38 opponent is the 50/50 mark for x4 56th-level PCs. A CR38 opponent is 72nd-level with SR 68.

You can't hold the hand of the d20 system all the way to infinity. At some point you have to just let it go.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *yes, dragons uses a different formula, I think grazzt(?) the guy behind the creature catalog has figured the formula behind dragon SR.*




Didn't he uncover that there was no actual formula, a dragons SR was its CR +7; 8 or 9.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *It's still an issue when you face, very easy to kill creatures, or very hard to kill creatures IMO. *




You can balance the SR against 4 PCs who would be 50/50 against it. Thats good enough for me.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: The Verdict*

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You can't count that.  Many people who achieve godhood will already have these bonuses, which can only be obtained once anyway!  Also, giving them this means they can no longer use the other method gaining inherent bonuses.  They cancel each other out and thus do not count for ECL.  There are way too many variables.
> 
> Or do you think a Level 30 character with +5 inherent to all scores is gonna get the same ECL modifier as a Level 20 character who has no inherent bonuses upon achieving godhood?  Can't do that . . .*




Agreed. Though I very much doubt even a 30th-level character will have already gained the maximum inherant bonus for ALL ability scores.

So there may be some flexibility therein. Perhaps it should be +16 after all...?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I rated them based on the ECL modifiers of the specific abilities.  Can you contest ANY of them?  I don't think so.  Heck, half of the bonuses are rated the same as you rate them!
> 
> Go ahead, debate about the bonuses themselves.*




Okay, lets take a look...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *ECL +1 for 100% increase over normal movement
> ECL +6 for +60 Divine Bonus to ability scores
> ECL +1/2 for DR 24/+4
> ECL +1 for Fire Resistance 20
> ECL +2 for SR 30
> ECL +1 for Transmutation Immunity
> ECL +1 for Energy Drain, Ability Drain, and Ability Damage Immunity
> ECL +1 for Mind-Affecting Effect Immunity
> ECL +3 for Electricity, Cold, and Acid Immunity*




+0.5 Speed
+0.5 Hit Points
+6 Ability Scores
+2 Damage Reduction
+2 Spell Resistance
+3.5 Immunities & Fire Resistance



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I was wrong about the typo, and conceded on the ability scores for simplicity's sake (it was an unnecessary recalculation, especially given the +60 Divine Bonus for deities, which you gave a good point on about flexibility), *




Thanks mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *but I will be posting a new thread with my most recent findings, and you'll be amazed at the simplicity and accuracy!*




Looking forward to it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *(I'll be posting it fresh in order to make it more updatable, and because these other two threads are getting crowded and mixed up.) *




Good idea.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: The Verdict*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> +0.5 Speed
> +0.5 Hit Points
> +6 Ability Scores
> +2 Damage Reduction
> +2 Spell Resistance
> +3.5 Immunities & Fire Resistance
> *




I may concede on the speed issue, because otherwise monks would get a higher ECL as well.  Your listing, however, cancels the argument out once the maximum hit points are factored in, so we start with +1 for that either which way.

We agree on the ability scores, so that gives us a +7 total now.

Starting with damage reduction is where we differ.  I still advocate anything up to +5 be considered a "normal" SQ and counting as only ECL +1/2.  My reasoning is simple.  Basically, anything through +5 is within the normal core rules, and within those very same core rules, there are MANY way to circumvent damage reduction easily, the least of which being Sure Striking.  Holy Sword can do it, as can Greater Magic Weapon, and most things in the core rules don't have gross damage reduction that can't be penetrated, so any which way you cut it, damage reduction up to +5 is quite limited in its usefulness.  This is especially true when Sure Striking is a factor, because damage reduction is a moot point from then on.  Once you get to +6 and above, though, you are then in Epic territory where things become MUCH more powerful, and the magic to circumvent such defenses is a rarity in any case.  Take a look at the numbers once more, I think you'll find that ECL +1/2 works perfectly.  As I said before, some things get too much of an ECL nod doing it the way you suggest.  Don't raise it above +1/2 until Epic levels, and everything works out perfectly!

We agree on SR, so no debate here.

The Divine Immunities is where we clash the most.  Are you telling me that you consider (assuming that you give the Fire Resistance ECL +1/2 as normal, which we can agree upon) immunity against Transmutation, Energy Drain, Ability Drain, Ability Damage, Mind-Affecting Effects, Electricity, Cold, and Acid to be worth only +3?!  You value each of those immunities at ECL +1/2 each?!?!?!  This is something I can shoot down easily, because I once made the same mistake and got shot down myself.  Starting with the Electricity, Cold, and Acid, do you mean to tell me that you consider IMMUNITY toward energy equally valuable as RESISTANCE toward energy?  Resistance runs out, immunity is forever.  The two are nowhere near the same value!  I once considered giving resistance ECL based on the amount of resistance, but then it was pointed out to me that doing so made high resistances more valuable than immunity, which is absurd to say the least!  Moving on to the others, I consider every grouping of immunities to be ECL +1, whereas you give them all ECL +1/2.  My test for you is this: give those same immunities to the creature of your choice, and see if the ECL works out to +1/2 . . . I think you'll see that immunities are far more valuable than you realize!  When factoring in each of those immunities, the character in question become impervious to approximately 80% of ALL magical attacks!  Does that sound like ECL +1/2 each to you?  No way, man . . . No way . . .

Anyway, that is my reasoning.  Food for thought for ya'.


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Bonjour mon ami Blacksad!
> *




Salut Camarade U_K ! 



> *
> I really don't like the idea of this.
> *




I perfectly understand this.



> *
> I don't see the problem. A 56th-level PC = CR34. Therefore a CR38 opponent is the 50/50 mark for x4 56th-level PCs. A CR38 opponent is 72nd-level with SR 68.
> 
> You can't hold the hand of the d20 system all the way to infinity. At some point you have to just let it go.
> 
> *



The problem is with level 40 PCs (CR30) who face a CR 38 opponent or vice-versa CR 30 creatures who face PC with SR based on the challenge they represent for a party of a given level.

"low level" (i.e. 40 ) invoker aren't at all a challenge for CR38 character, while they are still supposed to grant XP.

The +8 -8 range of CR should be covered IMO, or it kills part of the goal of updating the CR system in regards of spellcaster.

While my first exemple took something over the top, I tend to think that at level above 20, encounter with creatures several CR (up to 8) under the PCs CR, are more common than at mid-level (11-16).

and I don't think that ECL 40 is completly uncommon with gods

I think basing caster level check on CR solve the problem, without too much pain, and that if there is a solution (and a problem), I think the solution should be used instead of leaving the problem alone (at least a variant rule). Plus it makes calculating SR easier.



> *
> Didn't he uncover that there was no actual formula, a dragons SR was its CR +7; 8 or 9.
> *



I think it was something crazy based on HD :confused



> *
> You can balance the SR against 4 PCs who would be 50/50 against it. Thats good enough for me. *




not for me


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

for some inexplicable reason I haven't been able to access the boards for the past 24 hours. 

However, that gave me the chance to review the ECL/CR system once and for all.

Testing shows the new system to be pretty much perfect. Though I have made a few changes (notably a few based on Anubis findings; thanks for that mate*) 

*Although theres a lot we still disagree on. 

Incidently I now rate Divine Rank 0 at +18 ECL (includes the full ability score spectrum). Divine Rank 1 is +28 ECL and each subsequent Divine Rank is +3 ECL. There are some issues with regards gained abilities at Lesser God or Greater God status but they are either negligable or not included in my rules (such as the perfect dice score for Greater Gods which I don't use...though you can gain such an ability).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Salut Camarade U_K !  *




Bonjour encore ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I perfectly understand this.
> 
> The problem is with level 40 PCs (CR30) who face a CR 38 opponent or vice-versa CR 30 creatures who face PC with SR based on the challenge they represent for a party of a given level.
> 
> "low level" (i.e. 40  ) invoker aren't at all a challenge for CR38 character, while they are still supposed to grant XP.
> 
> The +8 -8 range of CR should be covered IMO, or it kills part of the goal of updating the CR system in regards of spellcaster.
> 
> While my first exemple took something over the top, I tend to think that at level above 20, encounter with creatures several CR (up to 8) under the PCs CR, are more common than at mid-level (11-16).
> 
> and I don't think that ECL 40 is completly uncommon with gods
> 
> I think basing caster level check on CR solve the problem, without too much pain, and that if there is a solution (and a problem), I think the solution should be used instead of leaving the problem alone (at least a variant rule). Plus it makes calculating SR easier.*




Maybe as an optional rule the idea has merit but I just don't see that its necessary.

Also by basing caster level check on CR are you taking into account templates; feats? etc. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I think it was something crazy based on HD  *




Dragon SR (and CR) are both rated far too low.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *not for me  *




Enjoy house ruling it then.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> However, that gave me the chance to review the ECL/CR system once and for all.
> 
> Testing shows the new system to be pretty much perfect. Though I have made a few changes (notably a few based on Anubis findings; thanks for that mate*)
> 
> *Although theres a lot we still disagree on.
> 
> Incidently I now rate Divine Rank 0 at +18 ECL (includes the full ability score spectrum). Divine Rank 1 is +28 ECL and each subsequent Divine Rank is +3 ECL. There are some issues with regards gained abilities at Lesser God or Greater God status but they are either negligable or not included in my rules (such as the perfect dice score for Greater Gods which I don't use...though you can gain such an ability). *




Congratulations!  Could you give a reprise of the final version?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Congratulations!  Could you give a reprise of the final version? *




It'll be a few days before I post it. I'm going to be really busy tonight and tomorrow.

In the mean time check out something I posted here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25893

Incidently, for those of you using the epic rules I worked out the following:

- Demilich Template: +27 ECL (the Lich works out at +6 ECL; Demilich a further +21)

- Paragon Template: +36 ECL

- Pseudonatural Template: starts at 
+18 ECL = 1HD

+20 ECL = 4HD
+21 ECL = 8HD
+22 ECL = 12HD
+23 ECL = 16HD

+25 ECL = 20HD
+26 ECL = 24HD
+27 ECL = 28HD
+28 ECL = 32HD

+30 ECL = 36HD
+31 ECL = 40HD
+32 ECL = 44HD
+33 ECL = 48HD

+35 ECL = 52HD
etc.

Continue at  +1.25 ECL/4 HD


----------



## S'mon

*Red Dragon!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Dragon SR (and CR) are both rated far too low.
> *




Hi Craig!  At what level do you (all) think a prepared PC group might have a chance against an unprepared  young adult Red?  Using U-K's CR system it works out CR 16 by my calculation, the MM rates it CR 12.  My PC group is 8th level and fairly strong despite limited magic - they all have +1 weapons so DR isn't much of a problem.  The SR 19 is though - half their spells will fail.  Plus the Sorcerer is a Fireballer.  The MM CR indicates it'd be a 50-50 fight.  The revised CR indicates they'd need to be 12th level to stand a chance.  My gut feeling is it might be nearer 16th...

Edit: You can assume the dragon has a 'smart' or 'min-maxed' spell choice for its caster level - I won't say more in case a player is reading!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Red Dragon!*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hi Craig!*




Hey Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *At what level do you (all) think a prepared PC group might have a chance against an unprepared  young adult Red?  Using U-K's CR system it works out CR 16 by my calculation, the MM rates it CR 12.  My PC group is 8th level and fairly strong despite limited magic - they all have +1 weapons so DR isn't much of a problem.  The SR 19 is though - half their spells will fail.  Plus the Sorcerer is a Fireballer.  The MM CR indicates it'd be a 50-50 fight.  The revised CR indicates they'd need to be 12th level to stand a chance.  My gut feeling is it might be nearer 16th...
> 
> Edit: You can assume the dragon has a 'smart' or 'min-maxed' spell choice for its caster level - I won't say more in case a player is reading!  *




Using the latest CR system I work it out to be CR17.

That means you are talking 50/50 for a party of four 13th-level characters.

Cohorts will make a difference (remember party average is total levels divided by 4). But I still think you will need at least 52 levels.

I would say prior knowledge of the target would reduce it by maybe 1 CR; while the ability to plan/equip to specifically take on the Dragon probably a reduction of 2 CR (not stacking with the first reduction).


----------



## -Eä-

*On character wealth by level*

Greetings! 

I'm just popping in now and then to give some advice on how to do things, because character wealth per level does not work.


Character wealth per level is broken, as per the official rules that exist now. The system follows a semi-exponential growth that is not applicaple at higher levels. Also, the character wealth is not accustomed at all to UK's modified CR-rules, at which the character wealth increase per level should decrease, not increase. Therefore, both 5*y^4 is broken, as is my a+b*c^SQRT(d+e*y) (which follows the official increase exactly for y>=21).

Cocnclusion: A new formula needs to be devised: One which follows the the formula for challenge ratings: i.e 10*ln(x/5)/ln(2), or else neither ECL nor CRs will work appropriatelly.

An easy way to do this is to calculate CR first, and then use the calculated result in the character wealth per level formula. Ie.: A level 40 character gets as much wealth as a level 30 character in the official rules. This way, the scale is not compromised.

As for UK's system (5*y^5): It works good for the first 50 CRs, but after that, the wealth degenerates, as per using CR as basis. If you're planning to use characters above CR 50, that system will not work (and for doing that, you will most probably need a calculator anyhow), so here is a system that works for doing character wealth by CR above CR 20 generally:
Insert CR into:
((1.56*10^-17)*(68^(0.867+SQRT(92.7+0.483*x)))-1340)*1000, where x=CR=10*ln(LVL/5)/ln(2)

Character wealth per level from this gives the following table:



		Code:
	

        {"21", "912880.650043348`"},
        {"22", "1.070035925155234`*^6"},
        {"23", "1.230181683091631`*^6"},
        {"24", "1.3932263693725562`*^6"},
        {"25", "1.5590847077494117`*^6"},
        {"26", "1.7276770418196064`*^6"},
        {"27", "1.8989287680386156`*^6"},
        {"28", "2.0727698445474317`*^6"},
        {"29", "2.2491343633522196`*^6"},
        {"30", "2.42796017579729`*^6"},
        {"31", "2.609188563151244`*^6"},
        {"32", "2.792763945604702`*^6"},
        {"33", "2.97863362414932`*^6"},
        {"34", "3.166747550747995`*^6"},
        {"35", "3.357058122961791`*^6"},
        {"36", "3.5495199998127827`*^6"},
        {"37", "3.7440899361642725`*^6"},
        {"38", "3.9407266333099343`*^6"},
        {"39", "4.1393906038053245`*^6"},
        {"40", "4.340044048857896`*^6"},
        {"41", "4.54265074682587`*^6"},
        {"42", "4.747175951576703`*^6"},
        {"43", "4.953586299621858`*^6"},
        {"44", "5.161849725084643`*^6"},
        {"45", "5.371935381680943`*^6"},
        {"46", "5.583813570991471`*^6"},
        {"47", "5.797455676395417`*^6"},
        {"48", "6.012834102107623`*^6"},
        {"49", "6.229922216829072`*^6"},
        {"50", "6.448694301575602`*^6"},
        {"51", "6.669125501297899`*^6"},
        {"52", "6.891191779949859`*^6"},
        {"53", "7.11486987869832`*^6"},
        {"54", "7.340137277000149`*^6"},
        {"55", "7.566972156301108`*^6"},
        {"56", "7.795353366136711`*^6"},
        {"57", "8.025260392434418`*^6"},
        {"58", "8.256673327841636`*^6"},
        {"59", "8.489572843915747`*^6"},
        {"60", "8.72394016502946`*^6"},
        {"61", "8.959757043861937`*^6"},
        {"62", "9.197005738352144`*^6"},
        {"63", "9.43566899000817`*^6"},
        {"64", "9.675730003469909`*^6"},
        {"65", "9.91717242723608`*^6"},
        {"66", "1.015998033547386`*^7"},
        {"67", "1.040413821083101`*^7"},
        {"68", "1.0649630928186009`*^7"},
        {"69", "1.0896443739268787`*^7"},
        {"70", "1.1144562258094981`*^7"},
        {"71", "1.1393972447159296`*^7"},
        {"72", "1.1644660604339877`*^7"},
        {"73", "1.1896613350464804`*^7"},
        {"74", "1.2149817617502645`*^7"},
        {"75", "1.2404260637333775`*^7"},
        {"76", "1.2659929931070276`*^7"},
        {"77", "1.2916813298888283`*^7"},
        {"78", "1.317489881034369`*^7"},
        {"79", "1.343417479513976`*^7"},
        {"80", "1.369462983432511`*^7"},
        {"81", "1.3956252751889851`*^7"},
        {"82", "1.4219032606745917`*^7"},
        {"83", "1.4482958685059963`*^7"},
        {"84", "1.47480204929283`*^7"},
        {"85", "1.5014207749368869`*^7"},
        {"86", "1.5281510379614286`*^7"},
        {"87", "1.554991850869256`*^7"},
        {"88", "1.5819422455276301`*^7"},
        {"89", "1.6090012725786746`*^7"},
        {"90", "1.6361680008743001`*^7"},
        {"91", "1.6634415169339677`*^7"},
        {"92", "1.690820924424176`*^7"},
        {"93", "1.718305343658931`*^7"},
        {"94", "1.7458939111195724`*^7"},
        {"95", "1.7735857789936267`*^7"},
        {"96", "1.8013801147312984`*^7"},
        {"97", "1.8292761006187715`*^7"},
        {"98", "1.8572729333679255`*^7"},
        {"99", "1.8853698237211473`*^7"},
        {"100", "1.9135659960708987`*^7"}


Sorry about that formatting, but I don't have the time to reformat all those figures. This is, by the way, character wealth per LEVEL, not CR.

*^7=10^7, so that 1.91*^7=1.91*10^7

Remember: A thing like this is a MUST if one is to use the modified CR-system, or else, the system will crumble fatally. Also: a similar thing needs to be done to NPC equipment and such.

By the way, the formula was discovered from the basic 2^((-1+SQRT(1+8*t)/2), which is the basic arithmetic sum-doubling formula.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth

*Re: Re: Red Dragon!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> (remember party average is total levels divided by 4). *




I'm dubious about this. Shouldn't average level be:
AL = Average Level
1) AL = Total Party level divided by number of characters
2) if 5-6 characters, AL+1; 7-8 +2, 9-12 +3, etc.

Just as with calculating Encounter Levels.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Red Dragon!*

Hello all! 

Apologies for my tardiness; a friends wedding yesterday and the Ryder Cup (Yay Europe!  ) have impeded my activities.

By the way I'll get to your post in a moment Ea mate! 

Hi Demiurgeastaroth! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'm dubious about this. Shouldn't average level be:
> AL = Average Level
> 1) AL = Total Party level divided by number of characters
> 2) if 5-6 characters, AL+1; 7-8 +2, 9-12 +3, etc.
> 
> Just as with calculating Encounter Levels. *




I was determining a 50/50 chance CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: On character wealth by level*



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings!*




Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I'm just popping in now and then to give some advice on how to do things, because character wealth per level does not work.*




I must admit I haven't settled on this yet so I appreciate the help. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Character wealth per level is broken, as per the official rules that exist now. The system follows a semi-exponential growth that is not applicaple at higher levels. Also, the character wealth is not accustomed at all to UK's modified CR-rules, at which the character wealth increase per level should decrease, not increase. Therefore, both 5*y^4 is broken, as is my a+b*c^SQRT(d+e*y) (which follows the official increase exactly for y>=21).*




Okay, I was with you all the way up to the intervention of mathematical formula. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Cocnclusion: A new formula needs to be devised: One which follows the the formula for challenge ratings: i.e 10*ln(x/5)/ln(2), or else neither ECL nor CRs will work appropriatelly.*




Why not just use ECL? I don't like the idea of using modified CR (if I'm understanding you correctly).



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *An easy way to do this is to calculate CR first, and then use the calculated result in the character wealth per level formula. Ie.: A level 40 character gets as much wealth as a level 30 character in the official rules. This way, the scale is not compromised.*




Can't we just assign wealth by ECL?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *As for UK's system (5*y^5): It works good for the first 50 CRs, but after that, the wealth degenerates, as per using CR as basis. If you're planning to use characters above CR 50, that system will not work (and for doing that, you will most probably need a calculator anyhow), so here is a system that works for doing character wealth by CR above CR 20 generally:
> Insert CR into:
> ((1.56*10^-17)*(68^(0.867+SQRT(92.7+0.483*x)))-1340)*1000, where x=CR=10*ln(LVL/5)/ln(2)*




You don't think thats a tad too complicated do you mate? 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Character wealth per level from this gives the following table:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> {"21", "912880.650043348`"},
> {"22", "1.070035925155234`*^6"},
> {"23", "1.230181683091631`*^6"},
> {"24", "1.3932263693725562`*^6"},
> {"25", "1.5590847077494117`*^6"},
> {"26", "1.7276770418196064`*^6"},
> {"27", "1.8989287680386156`*^6"},
> {"28", "2.0727698445474317`*^6"},
> {"29", "2.2491343633522196`*^6"},
> {"30", "2.42796017579729`*^6"},
> {"31", "2.609188563151244`*^6"},
> {"32", "2.792763945604702`*^6"},
> {"33", "2.97863362414932`*^6"},
> {"34", "3.166747550747995`*^6"},
> {"35", "3.357058122961791`*^6"},
> {"36", "3.5495199998127827`*^6"},
> {"37", "3.7440899361642725`*^6"},
> {"38", "3.9407266333099343`*^6"},
> {"39", "4.1393906038053245`*^6"},
> {"40", "4.340044048857896`*^6"},
> {"41", "4.54265074682587`*^6"},
> {"42", "4.747175951576703`*^6"},
> {"43", "4.953586299621858`*^6"},
> {"44", "5.161849725084643`*^6"},
> {"45", "5.371935381680943`*^6"},
> {"46", "5.583813570991471`*^6"},
> {"47", "5.797455676395417`*^6"},
> {"48", "6.012834102107623`*^6"},
> {"49", "6.229922216829072`*^6"},
> {"50", "6.448694301575602`*^6"},
> {"51", "6.669125501297899`*^6"},
> {"52", "6.891191779949859`*^6"},
> {"53", "7.11486987869832`*^6"},
> {"54", "7.340137277000149`*^6"},
> {"55", "7.566972156301108`*^6"},
> {"56", "7.795353366136711`*^6"},
> {"57", "8.025260392434418`*^6"},
> {"58", "8.256673327841636`*^6"},
> {"59", "8.489572843915747`*^6"},
> {"60", "8.72394016502946`*^6"},
> {"61", "8.959757043861937`*^6"},
> {"62", "9.197005738352144`*^6"},
> {"63", "9.43566899000817`*^6"},
> {"64", "9.675730003469909`*^6"},
> {"65", "9.91717242723608`*^6"},
> {"66", "1.015998033547386`*^7"},
> {"67", "1.040413821083101`*^7"},
> {"68", "1.0649630928186009`*^7"},
> {"69", "1.0896443739268787`*^7"},
> {"70", "1.1144562258094981`*^7"},
> {"71", "1.1393972447159296`*^7"},
> {"72", "1.1644660604339877`*^7"},
> {"73", "1.1896613350464804`*^7"},
> {"74", "1.2149817617502645`*^7"},
> {"75", "1.2404260637333775`*^7"},
> {"76", "1.2659929931070276`*^7"},
> {"77", "1.2916813298888283`*^7"},
> {"78", "1.317489881034369`*^7"},
> {"79", "1.343417479513976`*^7"},
> {"80", "1.369462983432511`*^7"},
> {"81", "1.3956252751889851`*^7"},
> {"82", "1.4219032606745917`*^7"},
> {"83", "1.4482958685059963`*^7"},
> {"84", "1.47480204929283`*^7"},
> {"85", "1.5014207749368869`*^7"},
> {"86", "1.5281510379614286`*^7"},
> {"87", "1.554991850869256`*^7"},
> {"88", "1.5819422455276301`*^7"},
> {"89", "1.6090012725786746`*^7"},
> {"90", "1.6361680008743001`*^7"},
> {"91", "1.6634415169339677`*^7"},
> {"92", "1.690820924424176`*^7"},
> {"93", "1.718305343658931`*^7"},
> {"94", "1.7458939111195724`*^7"},
> {"95", "1.7735857789936267`*^7"},
> {"96", "1.8013801147312984`*^7"},
> {"97", "1.8292761006187715`*^7"},
> {"98", "1.8572729333679255`*^7"},
> {"99", "1.8853698237211473`*^7"},
> {"100", "1.9135659960708987`*^7"}
> 
> *




I like the table. The formula is a bit disconcerting.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Sorry about that formatting, but I don't have the time to reformat all those figures. This is, by the way, character wealth per LEVEL, not CR.
> 
> *^7=10^7, so that 1.91*^7=1.91*10^7
> 
> Remember: A thing like this is a MUST if one is to use the modified CR-system, or else, the system will crumble fatally. Also: a similar thing needs to be done to NPC equipment and such.
> 
> By the way, the formula was discovered from the basic 2^((-1+SQRT(1+8*t)/2), which is the basic arithmetic sum-doubling formula. *




Maybe its just me mate but it all seems unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings again!

Hopefully I will be able to participate more in a week or so. I have discovered that being in the army is something I cannot do, so I will probably come home in a week or so (and hopefully continue some of my formerly started projects).

I agree, UK. It's too complicated (as opposed to complex (-; ). The system I proposed is accurate, but not practical at all, so I suggest that you either use a table, for example the one I provided with some rounded figures (like 21: 910 000, 25: 1 600 000, and so on) or that a new and simpler formula is discovered. Neither your system (5*x^4) nor mine nor the table in the ELH works when applying your modified CR-rules.

I shall try and see what I can do. Perhaps a simple root formula will suffice in most cases... I'll post my results here if I have success in creating a simple formula for character wealth by level.

What should be noted, however, is that using your system in combination with the modified CR-rules will yield results good enough for the first 160 levels! What you do then is first to calculate CR, and use (5*CR^4). This is quite straight forward, and as it is now, the simplest way of doing it. ECLs over 160 is the main problem, then.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi all!
> 
> for some inexplicable reason I haven't been able to access the boards for the past 24 hours.
> 
> However, that gave me the chance to review the ECL/CR system once and for all.
> 
> Testing shows the new system to be pretty much perfect. Though I have made a few changes (notably a few based on Anubis findings; thanks for that mate*)
> 
> *Although theres a lot we still disagree on.
> *




We'll see how your matches up to mine, once we're both done.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Incidently I now rate Divine Rank 0 at +18 ECL (includes the full ability score spectrum). Divine Rank 1 is +28 ECL and each subsequent Divine Rank is +3 ECL. There are some issues with regards gained abilities at Lesser God or Greater God status but they are either negligable or not included in my rules (such as the perfect dice score for Greater Gods which I don't use...though you can gain such an ability).
> *




 I'm sorry, but I am pretty certain that you are overrating their power now.  A Level 1 Quasi-deity is not a challenge for a part of Level 19 PCs in any way, shape or form.  In fact, I'm PRETTY certain that with four PCs at Level 19, I could kill a Quasi-deity in a single hit without difficulty!

As for higher levels, which would make more sense, I think that you are just trying to avoid agreeing with me on any divinity issue.

My final number is ECL +16 for Quasi-deity, ECL +24 for Demigod, and ECL +4 for each divine rank after that.

You see, where you go wrong is with giving an ECL modifier for the inherent bonuses to ability scores.  There is no reason to give an ECL modifier for that, mainly because MOST characters who reach divinity through play, or who create high-level characters who reach divinity, will have already gotten ALL of these bonuses.  Don't believe me?  Check it out . . . A Level 30 character has over 4,000,000 in wealth, and the book that gives a +5 inherent bonus to an ability score costs only 137,500.  Can you find any reason why a character with 4,000,000 in wealth WOULDN'T already have gotten six things all worth 137,500?

Do you see my point now?  Because those inherent bonuses are such a variable, there is no way to accurately reflect that in the ECL.  Thus, ECL should be +16, not +18.

As for the +4 per divine rank, this I can also explain to show that it is more fitting than +3.  First, I tried to calculate all divine ranks based on what powers they get at what level based on the ECL table.  SR and damage reduction go up every level, but only have an effect on ECL every five divine ranks.  In addition, deities gain more powers every five divine ranks after 1 (6, 11, 16).  On top of that, they get +10 to ability scores every ten divine ranks.  When I calculated EVERYTHING into it, I got roughly an average of 4.5-5.5 per divine rank.  If you throw out the extra SDA per status, however, and the automatic 20 for Greater Deities, the table became too sporadic, and some things weren't worth mentioning as they have little to no effect.  Givine that, I decided that the MINIMUM you should give per divine rank is +2, +1 for the SDA and +1 for the divine rank (as if he had gained a level).  To show the average increase in ability scores, SR, damage reduction, and other abilities over the course of divine ranks, the average is closer to +4 than +3, or roughly double the SDA/divine rank number.  Thus, it works very well!  In such a sporadic system of power gains, however, as presented in Deities & Demigods, and with such miscellaneous abilities that aren't necessarily reflected in combat well, it is quite difficult to rate some things.  I would stick with +4 per level if anything for simplicity's sake.  That gives a deity of any divine rank an ECL +20+(4 * divine rank), which makes things much simpler and keeps things on a base 20 (per five divine ranks, a good round number).

I hope I have explained this well enough.  Obviously there are too many variables to come up with an exact system, as powers become more varies at higher levels, but still, it works out pretty well nonetheless.  See my point?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings!
> 
> I'm just popping in now and then to give some advice on how to do things, because character wealth per level does not work.
> 
> 
> Character wealth per level is broken, as per the official rules that exist now. The system follows a semi-exponential growth that is not applicaple at higher levels. Also, the character wealth is not accustomed at all to UK's modified CR-rules, at which the character wealth increase per level should decrease, not increase. Therefore, both 5*y^4 is broken, as is my a+b*c^SQRT(d+e*y) (which follows the official increase exactly for y>=21).
> 
> Cocnclusion: A new formula needs to be devised: One which follows the the formula for challenge ratings: i.e 10*ln(x/5)/ln(2), or else neither ECL nor CRs will work appropriatelly.
> 
> An easy way to do this is to calculate CR first, and then use the calculated result in the character wealth per level formula. Ie.: A level 40 character gets as much wealth as a level 30 character in the official rules. This way, the scale is not compromised.
> 
> As for UK's system (5*y^5): It works good for the first 50 CRs, but after that, the wealth degenerates, as per using CR as basis. If you're planning to use characters above CR 50, that system will not work (and for doing that, you will most probably need a calculator anyhow), so here is a system that works for doing character wealth by CR above CR 20 generally:
> Insert CR into:
> ((1.56*10^-17)*(68^(0.867+SQRT(92.7+0.483*x)))-1340)*1000, where x=CR=10*ln(LVL/5)/ln(2)
> 
> Character wealth per level from this gives the following table:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> {"21", "912880.650043348`"},
> {"22", "1.070035925155234`*^6"},
> {"23", "1.230181683091631`*^6"},
> {"24", "1.3932263693725562`*^6"},
> {"25", "1.5590847077494117`*^6"},
> {"26", "1.7276770418196064`*^6"},
> {"27", "1.8989287680386156`*^6"},
> {"28", "2.0727698445474317`*^6"},
> {"29", "2.2491343633522196`*^6"},
> {"30", "2.42796017579729`*^6"},
> {"31", "2.609188563151244`*^6"},
> {"32", "2.792763945604702`*^6"},
> {"33", "2.97863362414932`*^6"},
> {"34", "3.166747550747995`*^6"},
> {"35", "3.357058122961791`*^6"},
> {"36", "3.5495199998127827`*^6"},
> {"37", "3.7440899361642725`*^6"},
> {"38", "3.9407266333099343`*^6"},
> {"39", "4.1393906038053245`*^6"},
> {"40", "4.340044048857896`*^6"},
> {"41", "4.54265074682587`*^6"},
> {"42", "4.747175951576703`*^6"},
> {"43", "4.953586299621858`*^6"},
> {"44", "5.161849725084643`*^6"},
> {"45", "5.371935381680943`*^6"},
> {"46", "5.583813570991471`*^6"},
> {"47", "5.797455676395417`*^6"},
> {"48", "6.012834102107623`*^6"},
> {"49", "6.229922216829072`*^6"},
> {"50", "6.448694301575602`*^6"},
> {"51", "6.669125501297899`*^6"},
> {"52", "6.891191779949859`*^6"},
> {"53", "7.11486987869832`*^6"},
> {"54", "7.340137277000149`*^6"},
> {"55", "7.566972156301108`*^6"},
> {"56", "7.795353366136711`*^6"},
> {"57", "8.025260392434418`*^6"},
> {"58", "8.256673327841636`*^6"},
> {"59", "8.489572843915747`*^6"},
> {"60", "8.72394016502946`*^6"},
> {"61", "8.959757043861937`*^6"},
> {"62", "9.197005738352144`*^6"},
> {"63", "9.43566899000817`*^6"},
> {"64", "9.675730003469909`*^6"},
> {"65", "9.91717242723608`*^6"},
> {"66", "1.015998033547386`*^7"},
> {"67", "1.040413821083101`*^7"},
> {"68", "1.0649630928186009`*^7"},
> {"69", "1.0896443739268787`*^7"},
> {"70", "1.1144562258094981`*^7"},
> {"71", "1.1393972447159296`*^7"},
> {"72", "1.1644660604339877`*^7"},
> {"73", "1.1896613350464804`*^7"},
> {"74", "1.2149817617502645`*^7"},
> {"75", "1.2404260637333775`*^7"},
> {"76", "1.2659929931070276`*^7"},
> {"77", "1.2916813298888283`*^7"},
> {"78", "1.317489881034369`*^7"},
> {"79", "1.343417479513976`*^7"},
> {"80", "1.369462983432511`*^7"},
> {"81", "1.3956252751889851`*^7"},
> {"82", "1.4219032606745917`*^7"},
> {"83", "1.4482958685059963`*^7"},
> {"84", "1.47480204929283`*^7"},
> {"85", "1.5014207749368869`*^7"},
> {"86", "1.5281510379614286`*^7"},
> {"87", "1.554991850869256`*^7"},
> {"88", "1.5819422455276301`*^7"},
> {"89", "1.6090012725786746`*^7"},
> {"90", "1.6361680008743001`*^7"},
> {"91", "1.6634415169339677`*^7"},
> {"92", "1.690820924424176`*^7"},
> {"93", "1.718305343658931`*^7"},
> {"94", "1.7458939111195724`*^7"},
> {"95", "1.7735857789936267`*^7"},
> {"96", "1.8013801147312984`*^7"},
> {"97", "1.8292761006187715`*^7"},
> {"98", "1.8572729333679255`*^7"},
> {"99", "1.8853698237211473`*^7"},
> {"100", "1.9135659960708987`*^7"}
> 
> 
> Sorry about that formatting, but I don't have the time to reformat all those figures. This is, by the way, character wealth per LEVEL, not CR.
> 
> *^7=10^7, so that 1.91*^7=1.91*10^7
> 
> Remember: A thing like this is a MUST if one is to use the modified CR-system, or else, the system will crumble fatally. Also: a similar thing needs to be done to NPC equipment and such.
> 
> By the way, the formula was discovered from the basic 2^((-1+SQRT(1+8*t)/2), which is the basic arithmetic sum-doubling formula. *




       

Dude, too complex!  I'm quite gifted in math and I don't even understand that!  I would like to find the formula WotC used, to be honest.


----------



## -Eä-

*Character Wealth by Level (again)*

Greetings!


No it isn't complex (you know, as in having one real and one imaginary part (-; ), but I agree, it's too complicated. 


WotC didn't use any formula for assigning this. I have asked them many times, but at best they give some vague directions. Those are not appropriate. But even as it is now, you will not want to use the presented table (the one in the ELH) using the modified CR system. That's not possible, for if you are to do that, the whole system breaks apart. As per today, I think the simplest thing is to do what I suggested in my other post: Calculate CR, and then use 5*CR^4. (Which works for the first 50 CRs (160 ECLs)).

I will try to devise a simpler and more accurate system. I may even go as far as consulting the university's expert on real analysis to get a better take.



On ECLs for divinity: In my opinion, Anubis is a bit closer than UK in determining appropriate ECLs for deities. I know the ECLs may vary by campaign, but in my campaign (which is very high magic), ECL +16 works better.

You should note, however, that my campaign is higher magic than D&D default, so it's perhaps not a good reference point in evaluating the average.


By the way: Won't ODAs and other snazzy things have effect on ECL, UK?


----------



## Upper_Krust

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings again!*




Hello again mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Hopefully I will be able to participate more in a week or so.*








			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I have discovered that being in the army is something I cannot do,*




Different horses for different courses - thats all mate! 

Surely the Norwegian Army has a logistics section, you could have run that. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *so I will probably come home in a week or so (and hopefully continue some of my formerly started projects).*




Sorry it didn't work out for you mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I agree, UK. It's too complicated (as opposed to complex (-; ). *








			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *The system I proposed is accurate, but not practical at all, so I suggest that you either use a table, for example the one I provided with some rounded figures (like 21: 910 000, 25: 1 600 000, and so on) or that a new and simpler formula is discovered. Neither your system (5*x^4) nor mine nor the table in the ELH works when applying your modified CR-rules.
> 
> I shall try and see what I can do. Perhaps a simple root formula will suffice in most cases... I'll post my results here if I have success in creating a simple formula for character wealth by level.
> 
> What should be noted, however, is that using your system in combination with the modified CR-rules will yield results good enough for the first 160 levels! What you do then is first to calculate CR, and use (5*CR^4). This is quite straight forward, and as it is now, the simplest way of doing it. ECLs over 160 is the main problem, then. *




Detailing a list without a formula isn't an option I am considering.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *We'll see how your matches up to mine, once we're both done.*




Sure! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry, but I am pretty certain that you are overrating their power now.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A Level 1 Quasi-deity is not a challenge for a part of Level 19 PCs in any way, shape or form.  In fact, I'm PRETTY certain that with four PCs at Level 19, I could kill a Quasi-deity in a single hit without difficulty!*




Were not getting into this again are we? 

By the way don't you mean 15th-level party?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for higher levels, which would make more sense, I think that you are just trying to avoid agreeing with me on any divinity issue.*




But thats ridiculous - I actually changed my position on a number of points because of your arguments. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My final number is ECL +16 for Quasi-deity, ECL +24 for Demigod, and ECL +4 for each divine rank after that.*




Okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You see, where you go wrong is with giving an ECL modifier for the inherent bonuses to ability scores.  There is no reason to give an ECL modifier for that, mainly because MOST characters who reach divinity through play, or who create high-level characters who reach divinity, will have already gotten ALL of these bonuses.  Don't believe me?  Check it out . . . A Level 30 character has over 4,000,000 in wealth, and the book that gives a +5 inherent bonus to an ability score costs only 137,500.*




Technically such a character should already have the +3 ECL applied.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Can you find any reason why a character with 4,000,000 in wealth WOULDN'T already have gotten six things all worth 137,500?*




Yes. Availability.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Do you see my point now?  Because those inherent bonuses are such a variable, there is no way to accurately reflect that in the ECL.  Thus, ECL should be +16, not +18.*




I disagree. They should be included regardless of where they are derived.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for the +4 per divine rank, this I can also explain to show that it is more fitting than +3.  First, I tried to calculate all divine ranks based on what powers they get at what level based on the ECL table.  SR and damage reduction go up every level, but only have an effect on ECL every five divine ranks.  In addition, deities gain more powers every five divine ranks after 1 (6, 11, 16).  On top of that, they get +10 to ability scores every ten divine ranks.  When I calculated EVERYTHING into it, I got roughly an average of 4.5-5.5 per divine rank.  If you throw out the extra SDA per status, however, and the automatic 20 for Greater Deities, the table became too sporadic, and some things weren't worth mentioning as they have little to no effect.  Givine that, I decided that the MINIMUM you should give per divine rank is +2, +1 for the SDA and +1 for the divine rank (as if he had gained a level).  To show the average increase in ability scores, SR, damage reduction, and other abilities over the course of divine ranks, the average is closer to +4 than +3, or roughly double the SDA/divine rank number.  Thus, it works very well!  In such a sporadic system of power gains, however, as presented in Deities & Demigods, and with such miscellaneous abilities that aren't necessarily reflected in combat well, it is quite difficult to rate some things.  I would stick with +4 per level if anything for simplicity's sake.  That gives a deity of any divine rank an ECL +20+(4 * divine rank), which makes things much simpler and keeps things on a base 20 (per five divine ranks, a good round number).*




I agree there are some powers that are ambiguous to rate effectively but I am pretty much certain I have it right this time. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hope I have explained this well enough.  Obviously there are too many variables to come up with an exact system, as powers become more varies at higher levels, but still, it works out pretty well nonetheless.  See my point? *




I think you are wrong about the ability scores - I agree the other issue is debateable.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Character Wealth by Level (again)*



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings!*




Hello again mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *On ECLs for divinity: In my opinion, Anubis is a bit closer than UK in determining appropriate ECLs for deities.*








			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I know the ECLs may vary by campaign, but in my campaign (which is very high magic), ECL +16 works better.
> 
> You should note, however, that my campaign is higher magic than D&D default, so it's perhaps not a good reference point in evaluating the average.*




Okay.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *By the way: Won't ODAs and other snazzy things have effect on ECL, UK? *




Yes. EDAs are ECL+5 and ODAs (even though they are technically unrateable) are ECL+25.


----------



## Knight Otu

*Re: Re: Character Wealth by Level (again)*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Yes. EDAs are ECL+5 and ODAs (even though they are technically unrateable) are ECL+25. *



Does that mean that the ODAs _are_ the last (detailed) step in divine abilities?


----------



## Anubis

UK, there's something you should know regarding character wealth . . . Um . . . Using the total character level or ECL is a VERY VERY VERY bad idea!

I never thought about it before, but this TOTALLY breaks down at higher levels.  A SINGLE Level 115 character with wealth by your formula based on level could rip apart ANYTHING that has been released by WotC so far, even though a Hecatoncheires or a Prismatic Dragon should be able to kill such a character without a second thought.

Ugh . . . Go over to my Saiyans thread and take a look at Vegeta for proof.  I gave him wealth as Level 115, and he can rip apart ANYTHING because of it!


----------



## Kalanyr

I think you are rating a lot of the divine abilities way to high. ECL +16-+19 for DR 0 is insane. A single 16th level character can probably rip apart a party of 4 Quasidieties of 1st level without the least bit of trouble. 

I made a Divine Rank 1 diety (ECL 20 for Divine Rank 1 ) for a level 37 campaign. And it didn't seem stronger than the other characters, probably weaker if anything.


----------



## Anubis

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *I think you are rating a lot of the divine abilities way to high. ECL +16-+19 for DR 0 is insane. A single 16th level character can probably rip apart a party of 4 Quasidieties of 1st level without the least bit of trouble.
> 
> I made a Divine Rank 1 diety (ECL 20 for Divine Rank 1 ) for a level 37 campaign. And it didn't seem stronger than the other characters, probably weaker if anything. *




I think I'll let you deal with this one, UK.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Does that mean that the ODAs are the last (detailed) step in divine abilities? *




I have TDAs and the ZDA; but I am not sure theres a point in actually 'detailing' them. I may mention them - to leave the door open (so to speak) without going into details.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, there's something you should know regarding character wealth . . . Um . . . Using the total character level or ECL is a VERY VERY VERY bad idea!*




On the contrary, surely its the only way!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I never thought about it before, but this TOTALLY breaks down at higher levels.  A SINGLE Level 115 character with wealth by your formula based on level could rip apart ANYTHING that has been released by WotC so far, even though a Hecatoncheires or a Prismatic Dragon should be able to kill such a character without a second thought.*




If there are any problems I am sure they are WotC induced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ugh . . . Go over to my Saiyans thread and take a look at Vegeta for proof.  I gave him wealth as Level 115, and he can rip apart ANYTHING because of it!
> 
> Possessions: Vegeta’s Outfit (AC +50 armor, Save +50 resistance, Str +50 enhancement, Con +50 enhancement, “Haste” continuous; 176,200,000 gp cost), Gloves of Mighty Fists +50 (150,000,000 gp cost), Vegeta’s Boots (Dex +80 enhancement, Attack +50 luck, “Expeditious Retreat” continuous; 189,004,000 gp cost), Ring of Universal Elemental Immunity (2,160,000 gp cost), Ring of Protection +50 (50,000,000 gp cost). Total Wealth: 874,503,125 gp.*




'Rip apart ANYTHING'...I don't think so. Erect an Anti-magic Field and you could drop him like a bag a' dirt. 

I think you also have to ask the question of where did he get those magic items!? He sure as hell didn't create them himself! The 'Outfit' alone costs about 2 million XP and takes over 48 years to create (and thats with the Efficient Item Creation Feat)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Kalanyr mate! 



			
				Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *I think you are rating a lot of the divine abilities way to high. ECL +16-+19 for DR 0 is insane.*




Remember they gain NPC wealth with their ECL treated as their level.



			
				Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *A single 16th level character can probably rip apart a party of 4 Quasidieties of 1st level without the least bit of trouble.*




Never in a million years.

...unless I was playing the 16th-level character. 



			
				Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *I made a Divine Rank 1 diety (ECL 20 for Divine Rank 1 ) for a level 37 campaign. And it didn't seem stronger than the other characters, probably weaker if anything. *




A 37th-level character should be akin to a 9th-level Demigod (Divine Rank 1) for use as a PC.

In a one on one confrontation the 37th-level character could easily bypass a number of abilities (DR; SR etc) but that doesn't stop those abilities existing.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> On the contrary, surely its the only way!?
> *




That's what I thought, but Vegeta can EASILY drop even a Hecotoncheires or a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon WITH EASE, mainly thanks to the items!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 'Rip apart ANYTHING'...I don't think so. Erect an Anti-magic Field and you could drop him like a bag a' dirt.
> *




Many things do not have access to Antimagic Field.  That is not meant to be a limiting factor for magical equipment.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I think you also have to ask the question of where did he get those magic items!? He sure as hell didn't create them himself! The 'Outfit' alone costs about 2 million XP and takes over 48 years to create (and thats with the Efficient Item Creation Feat)
> *




Item creation also is not meant to be a limiting factor.  Wealth is wealth.  It doesn't matter where the item came from, it's well below his wealth, as explained in the ELH>  (They say no items over 25% of total wealth, and no more than 3 items worth more than 10% of total wealth.  I followed those rules to the letter.)  If you have some alternative method for dealing with wealth, I would suggest that you tell us now, because going by the rules, this breaks down VERY easily after Level 40.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Knight Otu mate!
> 
> 
> 
> I have TDAs and the ZDA; but I am not sure theres a point in actually 'detailing' them. I may mention them - to leave the door open (so to speak) without going into details. *




What are EDAs, ODAs, TDAs, and ZDAs?


----------



## Anubis

Okay, here's my solution to the wealth problem . . . I finally found the solution!  This just SCREAMS balance all the way!  Realize now that this is based on the logical conclusion that wealth gains decrease per level after Level 40, although wealth DOES still accumulate.  I have found a formula, a simple one, that works!  This is AWESOME!  Who says Ea is the only math expert around here? 

First off, use the rules and charts in the ELH as-is up through Level 40.

Above Level 40, however, the rules have to change for the sake of balance.  UK, as good as you usually are at balancing these things, the Level x Level x Level x Level x 5 formula simply does not work, giving away WAY too much wealth at higher levels and INCREASING the gains per level!

The balance is in listening to the ELH's explanation that wealth accumulates at a slower rate after Level 20.  Even more importantly, that rate slowly down once more at Level 40 to the point where the growth per level stops entirely.  Any other way, and you get lots of wealth problems VERY quickly.  Using the following formula guarantees balance pretty much INFINITELY through the levels!

Here we go!

The formula itself is basically that, starting at Level 41, the increase in wealth is 1/Level.  This means that the increase from Level 40 to Level 41 is 1/41, the increase from Level 41 to Level 42 is 1/42, etc.  Basically, it's works as follows, where W is your new wealth, C is current wealth, and L is the level you are attaining.  If you were going from Level 40 to Level 41, it goes like this:

W = C * [(L + 1) / L]

Looks complicated?  That's what you think!  After doing the calculations, I have been able to figure out the EXACT numbers that make this SO SIMPLE!  First, I must point out that for all final calculation of wealth, I rounded to the nearest gold piece.  (If you don't do that, it IS 100% exact and thus more accurate, but then you must contend with fractions of a gold piece.  Rounding down, the loss of wealth is negligible and not at all a factor, like maybe 1 gold piece per 3 levels and that's about it.)

Do the math yourself if you'd like.  Using the EXACT formula (without rounding), the gain at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL is EXACTLY 331,707.3171!  That's right.  EXACTLY THAT.  You get this:

Level 41: 13,931,707.3171
Level 42: 14,263,414.6342
Level 43: 14,595,121.9513

It's that exact!  Of course, those franctions complicate matters unnecessarily, and as I said, the losses from rounding are so miniscule that they aren't even a factor.

That said, simply put, a character gains 331,707 gp per level from Level 41 through inifnity!  In this way, you still acquire more wealth, but the "gains" per level stop entirely, balancing everything out PERFECTLY!

Using the new formula, you get this through Level 60:




		Code:
	

Level 41: 13,931,707
Level 42: 14,263,414
Level 43: 14,595,121
Level 44: 14,926,828
Level 45: 15,258,535
Level 46: 15,590,242
Level 47: 15,921,949
Level 48: 16,253,656
Level 49: 16,585,363
Level 50: 16,917,070
Level 51: 17,248,777
Level 52: 17,580,484
Level 53: 17,912,191
Level 54: 18,243,898
Level 55: 18,575,605
Level 56: 18,907,312
Level 57: 19,239,019
Level 58: 19,570,726
Level 59: 19,902,433
Level 60: 20,234,140



A simple formula that can find the wealth at any level is as follows, where W is your wealth and L is the level you are attaining:

W = 13,600,000 + [331,707 * (L - 40)]

See?  I did it!  I found the perfect formula for wealth!  Simple, easy to use, accurate, PERFECT!  

ENJOY!

 

Whoops, one more thing.  Wealth for NPCs, starting at Level 41, would be exactly half of the wealth for PCs.  There!  All problems solved!


----------



## Knight Otu

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What are EDAs, ODAs, TDAs, and ZDAs? *




EDAs are Esoteric Divine Abilities. UK mentioned that a possible EDA might be: You kill the deities body, but the deity simply takes your body in return. (He can describe it better).

ODAs are Omnific (Obscure ) Divine Abilities. Upper_Krust has not revealed an example, but they have to be pretty tough to deserve a +25.  

TDAs and the(!) ZDA have just been revealed. TDAs might be Temporal abilities, but I doubt that this is correct. 

Whatever the ZDA is, it is apparently unique. I will not speculate upon what it may be.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's what I thought, but Vegeta can EASILY drop even a Hecotoncheires or a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon WITH EASE, mainly thanks to the items!*




Actually Hecatonchieres get weaker the less opponents you attack them with since they can only ply a certain amount of arms against a single opponent.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Many things do not have access to Antimagic Field.  That is not meant to be a limiting factor for magical equipment.*




Virtually anything capable of challenging such an opponent will probably have anti-magic capabilities.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Item creation also is not meant to be a limiting factor.  Wealth is wealth.  It doesn't matter where the item came from, it's well below his wealth, as explained in the ELH>  (They say no items over 25% of total wealth, and no more than 3 items worth more than 10% of total wealth.  I followed those rules to the letter.)  If you have some alternative method for dealing with wealth, I would suggest that you tell us now, because going by the rules, this breaks down VERY easily after Level 40. *




I have some rules for assigning artifacts to gods. I don't advocate an endless stream of epic+ items. You really have to consider where deities are going to gain these artifacts, most will either create them or have them created by the pantheon 'blacksmith' or 'archmage' if applicable - even then the expenditure in resources; time and energy will be extensive.

So you don't have to impose a limit on wealth but certainly artifacts don't grow on trees.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis and Knight Otu! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *What are EDAs, ODAs, TDAs, and ZDAs?*






			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *EDAs are Esoteric Divine Abilities. UK mentioned that a possible EDA might be: You kill the deities body, but the deity simply takes your body in return. (He can describe it better).*




EDAs are indeed Esoteric Divine Abilities. These are the powers of the cosmic deities (though others can gain them).

Meginjarder was created using an EDA classed ability. The Magical Anti-Magic of the Iron and Stone Collosi is another example of an EDA.

Superluminal gives you infinite speed. Mentensomatosis allows you to switch bodies with your would be killer. Killer Instinct allows you to score a critical with every hit. etc. 

There are about 50 such abilities.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *ODAs are Omnific (Obscure ) Divine Abilities. Upper_Krust has not revealed an example, but they have to be pretty tough to deserve a +25.  *




ODA stands for Omnific Divine Abilities. I think I may have the ECL modifier may be wrong for these - it should perhaps be x2 ECL instead of +25 ECL.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *TDAs and the(!) ZDA have just been revealed. TDAs might be Temporal abilities, but I doubt that this is correct.  *




Am I allowed no secrets! 

Its not temporal. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Whatever the ZDA is, it is apparently unique. I will not speculate upon what it may be. *




I may change this to ADA. 

With this one the player tells the DM what happens next!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Okay, here's my solution to the wealth problem . . . I finally found the solution!  This just SCREAMS balance all the way!  Realize now that this is based on the logical conclusion that wealth gains decrease per level after Level 40, although wealth DOES still accumulate.  I have found a formula, a simple one, that works!  This is AWESOME!  Who says Ea is the only math expert around here?  *








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, use the rules and charts in the ELH as-is up through Level 40.
> 
> Above Level 40, however, the rules have to change for the sake of balance.  UK, as good as you usually are at balancing these things, the Level x Level x Level x Level x 5 formula simply does not work, giving away WAY too much wealth at higher levels and INCREASING the gains per level!
> 
> The balance is in listening to the ELH's explanation that wealth accumulates at a slower rate after Level 20.  Even more importantly, that rate slowly down once more at Level 40 to the point where the growth per level stops entirely.  Any other way, and you get lots of wealth problems VERY quickly.  Using the following formula guarantees balance pretty much INFINITELY through the levels!
> 
> Here we go!
> 
> The formula itself is basically that, starting at Level 41, the increase in wealth is 1/Level.  This means that the increase from Level 40 to Level 41 is 1/41, the increase from Level 41 to Level 42 is 1/42, etc.  Basically, it's works as follows, where W is your new wealth, C is current wealth, and L is the level you are attaining.  If you were going from Level 40 to Level 41, it goes like this:
> 
> W = C * [(L + 1) / L]
> 
> Looks complicated?  That's what you think!  After doing the calculations, I have been able to figure out the EXACT numbers that make this SO SIMPLE!  First, I must point out that for all final calculation of wealth, I rounded to the nearest gold piece.  (If you don't do that, it IS 100% exact and thus more accurate, but then you must contend with fractions of a gold piece.  Rounding down, the loss of wealth is negligible and not at all a factor, like maybe 1 gold piece per 3 levels and that's about it.)
> 
> Do the math yourself if you'd like.  Using the EXACT formula (without rounding), the gain at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL is EXACTLY 331,707.3171!  That's right.  EXACTLY THAT.  You get this:
> 
> Level 41: 13,931,707.3171
> Level 42: 14,263,414.6342
> Level 43: 14,595,121.9513
> 
> It's that exact!  Of course, those franctions complicate matters unnecessarily, and as I said, the losses from rounding are so miniscule that they aren't even a factor.
> 
> That said, simply put, a character gains 331,707 gp per level from Level 41 through inifnity!  In this way, you still acquire more wealth, but the "gains" per level stop entirely, balancing everything out PERFECTLY!
> 
> Using the new formula, you get this through Level 60:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Level 41: 13,931,707
> Level 42: 14,263,414
> Level 43: 14,595,121
> Level 44: 14,926,828
> Level 45: 15,258,535
> Level 46: 15,590,242
> Level 47: 15,921,949
> Level 48: 16,253,656
> Level 49: 16,585,363
> Level 50: 16,917,070
> Level 51: 17,248,777
> Level 52: 17,580,484
> Level 53: 17,912,191
> Level 54: 18,243,898
> Level 55: 18,575,605
> Level 56: 18,907,312
> Level 57: 19,239,019
> Level 58: 19,570,726
> Level 59: 19,902,433
> Level 60: 20,234,140
> 
> 
> 
> A simple formula that can find the wealth at any level is as follows, where W is your wealth and L is the level you are attaining:
> 
> W = 13,600,000 + [331,707 * (L - 40)]
> 
> See?  I did it!  I found the perfect formula for wealth!  Simple, easy to use, accurate, PERFECT!
> 
> ENJOY!
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops, one more thing.  Wealth for NPCs, starting at Level 41, would be exactly half of the wealth for PCs.  There!  All problems solved!  *




Certainly looks interesting. At first glance it seems to really impose itself perhaps too much.

I'm curious how this reverse engineers with regards the lower levels?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Certainly looks interesting. At first glance it seems to really impose itself perhaps too much.
> *




And yet, when considered as a whole, it's so simple!  That's the beauty of it, really.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'm curious how this reverse engineers with regards the lower levels?
> *




This does not work AT ALL at lower levels.  The system is dependent upon the 13,600,000 gp wealth of Level 40 shown in the ELH, and on top of that, the formula creates a zero-growth pattern above Level 40.  There is suppose to be an approximate 30%/level growth at Levels 1-20 and an approximate 10%/level growth at Levels 21-40, as the ELH states.  This formula is for Level 41+ ONLY.

Call it "Epic Wealth System".  Basically, if you continue stacking wealth up at the same rate as at lower levels, characters will have WAY too much wealth at higher levels.  This means that the system MUST change at higher levels.  This is for balance purposes, period, nothing more.

To offer proof, I revised my Vegeta according to the new numbers, and he is finally at the power level he is supposed to be at, which is under a Hecatoncheires or Prismatic Dragon, but still above most ELH monsters, Quasi-deities, Demigods, and Lesser Deities.

Check everything out, I think you'll find the numbers pretty perfect.  We may not be able to agree on the divinity issue (I can not concede any further on the power issue because I calculated it up EXACTLY based on the powers of divine ranks, and thus the numbers must be accurate.), but I think the wealth issue is now settled once and for all, with a good solution that keeps the game balanced at higher levels.


----------



## Kalanyr

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> In a one on one confrontation the 37th-level character could easily bypass a number of abilities (DR; SR etc) but that doesn't stop those abilities existing. *




While this is true, it misses one important bit, Epic Monsters are by the mandate of the ELH about all that an Epic Adventurer should face and these creatures should be close to his level. Therefore since all creatures bypass these abilities they effectively don't exist.


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, Upper_Krust! 


			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Superluminal gives you infinite speed. *



I have trouble visualizing how that would work... Now I'm here, after a free action I'm on the moon?



> *
> ODA stands for Omnific Divine Abilities. I think I may have the ECL modifier may be wrong for these - it should perhaps be x2 ECL instead of +25 ECL.*




(Would you say that the power of n ODA is about the same as the power of my planar ruler template, if you looked at it?)



> *
> Am I allowed no secrets!
> *




No 



> *
> Its not temporal.
> *



Maybe True? I'll look through my Oxford Concise Dictionary sometime.



> *
> I may change this to ADA. *



Absolute? (arg, I didn't want to spekulate...)



> *
> With this one the player tells the DM what happens next!  *



With other words, you become the DM.


----------



## S'mon

TDA - Time lord Divine Ability?

I think making wealth by level increase beyond level 40 arithmetic rather than geometric is the way to go.  I'd suggest a rounder figure like 300,000 gp/level, but that's just me.  Also I agree that level 41+ Epic NPCs should have at least 1/2 PC wealth, they should probably all be unique beings themselves, although I suppose you could make up the Thousand Sun Guards of Ormazd who are all 50th level NPC Fighters if you wanted...  
In that sort of case a lower NPC wealth by level would be reasonable.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Apologies for my sloth. These boards are like wading through treacle the last few days - it could be the 'News Ticker', so I think I will switch that off shortly.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This does not work AT ALL at lower levels.  The system is dependent upon the 13,600,000 gp wealth of Level 40 shown in the ELH, and on top of that, the formula creates a zero-growth pattern above Level 40.  There is suppose to be an approximate 30%/level growth at Levels 1-20 and an approximate 10%/level growth at Levels 21-40, as the ELH states.  This formula is for Level 41+ ONLY.
> 
> Call it "Epic Wealth System".  Basically, if you continue stacking wealth up at the same rate as at lower levels, characters will have WAY too much wealth at higher levels.  This means that the system MUST change at higher levels.  This is for balance purposes, period, nothing more.
> 
> To offer proof, I revised my Vegeta according to the new numbers, and he is finally at the power level he is supposed to be at, which is under a Hecatoncheires or Prismatic Dragon, but still above most ELH monsters, Quasi-deities, Demigods, and Lesser Deities.
> 
> Check everything out, I think you'll find the numbers pretty perfect.  We may not be able to agree on the divinity issue (I can not concede any further on the power issue because I calculated it up EXACTLY based on the powers of divine ranks, and thus the numbers must be accurate.), but I think the wealth issue is now settled once and for all, with a good solution that keeps the game balanced at higher levels. *




Okay, I'll go and check out the revised Vegeta.

Incidently I worked out a formula for the Epic Wealth Tables (which actually reverse engineers, I think) last night. 

Essentially you find where the table doubles over then note the number of intervening levels. Then the next time it doubles the number of intervening levels is +1. 

However I would still agree that the Epic Wealth tables are far too generous.

I may return to my initial idea of Level x Level x Level x 100 GP...?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Okay, I'll go and check out the revised Vegeta.
> 
> Incidently I worked out a formula for the Epic Wealth Tables (which actually reverse engineers, I think) last night.
> 
> Essentially you find where the table doubles over then note the number of intervening levels. Then the next time it doubles the number of intervening levels is +1.
> 
> However I would still agree that the Epic Wealth tables are far too generous.
> 
> I may return to my initial idea of Level x Level x Level x 100 GP...? *




What about my idea?  I think it works things out, well, perfectly.  Check it out.  Plain and simple, allowing the gains to continue increasing indefinitely will ALWAYS eventually unbalance the game.  Be it Level 100, Level 1000, or Level 10000, it ALWAYS breaks down eventually.

The ONLY way to keep balance is with a flat rate.


----------



## Anubis

Hey UK!  You should download ICQ some time.  I would like to have a chat with you and discuss the ECL/CR issue at length in real time instead of waiting to talk back and forth on the message board.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Kalanyr mate! 



			
				Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *While this is true, it misses one important bit, Epic Monsters are by the mandate of the ELH about all that an Epic Adventurer should face and these creatures should be close to his level. Therefore since all creatures bypass these abilities they effectively don't exist. *




I don't remember the ELH making such a claim and if it did it was in error.

12th-level+ characters (or any CR12+ monster) are still viable opponents for starting epic level characters.

Not to mention even lower CR opponents _en masse_.

I don't think Epic Monsters should be a common encounter, even at epic or divine levels of play. As I have mentioned in the past the focus of such play relies less and less upon the merely physical and more and more upon the political.

I think the analogy that deities are akin to nuclear weapons holds true.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, Upper_Krust! *




Hello mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I have trouble visualizing how that would work... Now I'm here, after a free action I'm on the moon?*




I thought it was pretty straightforward... 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *
> (Would you say that the power of in ODA is about the same as the power of my planar ruler template, if you looked at it?)*




Of course I looked at it, but I have a very poor short term memory for even the stuff I am working on; so the chances of me remembering such a thing is slim to none...as in this case. 

Do you still have the link?



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Maybe True? I'll look through my Oxford Concise Dictionary sometime.*








			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Absolute? (arg, I didn't want to spekulate...)*




Somantics are irrelevant...it does 'anything'. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *With other words, you become the DM.  *




Sort of.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *TDA - Time lord Divine Ability?*




Nope. Time Lords are not powerful enough to gain them! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I think making wealth by level increase beyond level 40 arithmetic rather than geometric is the way to go. I'd suggest a rounder figure like 300,000 gp/level, but that's just me. Also I agree that level 41+ Epic NPCs should have at least 1/2 PC wealth, they should probably all be unique beings themselves, although I suppose you could make up the Thousand Sun Guards of Ormazd who are all 50th level NPC Fighters if you wanted...
> In that sort of case a lower NPC wealth by level would be reasonable.*




I was thinking something along those lines. Perhaps 1.3 million GP at 21st and then 500,000 GP each subsequent level.

To be honest I am really fed up with the whole wealth issue.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What about my idea?  I think it works things out, well, perfectly.  Check it out.  Plain and simple, allowing the gains to continue increasing indefinitely will ALWAYS eventually unbalance the game.  Be it Level 100, Level 1000, or Level 10000, it ALWAYS breaks down eventually.
> 
> The ONLY way to keep balance is with a flat rate.*




The whole wealth issue is something I am just going to leave for a week or two (like I did with the Challenge Rating Issue) - the solution will present itself eventually.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hey UK! You should download ICQ some time.*




I have ICQ. I just never use it (I use MSN Messenger via my hotmail account).

I remember liking the typewriter noise on ICQ. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I would like to have a chat with you and discuss the ECL/CR issue at length in real time instead of waiting to talk back and forth on the message board. *




You mean our posting so far on the matter hasn't been extensive enough!?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You mean our posting so far on the matter hasn't been extensive enough!?
> *




That's not what I meant.  What I meant is that it may be more efficient, work-wise.  Instead of having to wait hours or days to hear replies back and forth, we can just address things right off.  That way, the work is done sooner, and people can start to finally use a system that works.


----------



## Anubis

There's a slight problem with both of our ECL systems . . . At VERY low levels, it doesn't work.

Take the Medium-Size Skeleton, not even CR 1.  By my system, the thing comes out as CR 2, and by your system, the thing comes out as CR 1.  Both of these numbers are far too high.

I think perhaps we should limit out systems to Celestials, Demons, Devils, Dragons, and Epic monsters . . . Most of the others, by the core rules, are already pretty accurate anyway, so there is no need for much adjustment.

What do you think about that, UK?  Skeletons, Zombies, most Vermin, even Elves and Dwarves come out overrated with our systems.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's not what I meant. What I meant is that it may be more efficient, work-wise. Instead of having to wait hours or days to hear replies back and forth, we can just address things right off. That way, the work is done sooner, and people can start to finally use a system that works.*




Well I already think I have solved the CR 'problem'. I'll post my findings soon enough. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There's a slight problem with both of our ECL systems . . . At VERY low levels, it doesn't work.*




Okay, what is it this time? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Take the Medium-Size Skeleton, not even CR 1.  By my system, the thing comes out as CR 2, and by your system, the thing comes out as CR 1.  Both of these numbers are far too high.*




(Medium Sized) Skeletons and Zombies are at least as tough as a CR1 character/monster. Of course such a system is going to be polarised at 1HD/1st-level but thats simply the way it is!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think perhaps we should limit out systems to Celestials, Demons, Devils, Dragons, and Epic monsters . . . Most of the others, by the core rules, are already pretty accurate anyway, so there is no need for much adjustment.*




Nonsense. Its all or nothing! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What do you think about that, UK?  Skeletons, Zombies, most Vermin, even Elves and Dwarves come out overrated with our systems. *




No they're not.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well I already think I have solved the CR 'problem'. I'll post my findings soon enough.
> *




I am very interested in seeing what your work has produced.  Afeter some studying, though, I have noticed that a MAJORITY of the CRs in the MM are accurate.  Only Celestials, Demons, Devils, Dragons, Titans, and Tarrasque are grossly incorrect.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Okay, what is it this time?
> *




This is serious!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> (Medium Sized) Skeletons and Zombies are at least as tough as a CR1 character/monster. Of course such a system is going to be polarised at 1HD/1st-level but thats simply the way it is!
> *




You're nuts.  I've use skeletons plenty, and a medium-size skeleton isn't a challenge for a Level 1 party AT ALL.  In fact, skeletons usually die in a single hit without a problem, using NONE of the party's resources.  How is a medium-size skeleton CR 1?

Same with zombies, except they take two hits before going down.  Still no resources are used.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Nonsense. Its all or nothing!
> *




I disagree.  It has slowly become obvious that there is NO system that works at low AND high levels.  A system that works at low levels breaks down at high levels, and a system that works right at high levels breaks down at low levels.

Would you like to test the skeleton theory?  I can GUARANTEE that a Level 1 party could beat one without taking a scratch 99% of the time.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> No they're not.
> *




Yep, they all come out with a higher ECL than they should get.  Dwarves and Elves both end up as ECL +1 when they should be ECL 0, meaning no ECL.  Skeletons and Zombies have a lot of immunities that break their ECL.


----------



## poilbrun

My players usually use slashing or piercing weapons, so skeletons are usually a good encounter against them... And I think that's the problem with a system to calculate ECL... A red dragon ECL is different if the wizard has fireballs prepared or if he has ice storms prepared... I don't think a unified system could possibly solve this.


----------



## Anubis

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *My players usually use slashing or piercing weapons, so skeletons are usually a good encounter against them... And I think that's the problem with a system to calculate ECL... A red dragon ECL is different if the wizard has fireballs prepared or if he has ice storms prepared... I don't think a unified system could possibly solve this. *




The average party will have at least one bludgeoning weapon, usually wielded by the party cleric.  Also, the cleric can easily turn the creatures and make them unable to do anything, although that is rarely necessary.  GROUPS of skeletons can cause trouble, but A skeleton, no way.


----------



## poilbrun

Anubis said:
			
		

> *The average party will have at least one bludgeoning weapon, usually wielded by the party cleric.*



I think that's exactly the problem. You seem to think everyone plays your way. Just as with the fighter who you thought would always have a weapon of sure striking. I mean no offense, but if you try to design new rules, you must not limit yourself to how you and the groups with which you play or the groups you saw playing, play. 

I began a new campaign as a player last Saturday (yes, I had been waiting for that for three years!  ), and there is still no cleric, although it is possible that for next time, a new player will arrive and he may play a cleric, but he may also play a paladin, which would give us some healing spells, but not for some time. And if that's what he does, he may well decide to use a greatsword or something the like. Which means we won't have any bludgeoning weapon in the group (except my quarterstaff, but since I'm a wizard with 11hp, ac12 and a 8 str, I sure as hell won't fight any monster!  ) since the other players are a ranger specialized in the bow who intends to specialize in two-weapon fighting as he advances and a halfling rogue using a shortsword. In a campaign I DMed some time ago, the five players were all playing elves (two fighter, one specialized in the bow, the other in the longsword, a rogue, a wizard and a priest), and they all fought with a longsword (because it is the favored weapon of Corellon Larethian) and a composite longbow. Were they wrong in doing so? Maybe, but it made much more sense roleplaywise. Did they fight no skeleton? Hell, no! But they certainly had more trouble than a group of dwarven followers of Moradin who decided to all fight with a warhammer.

All this boils down to one thing : no two groups have the same way of playing. So, you must not limit yourself to one way if you want your rules to encompass every group. Of course, if you were designing an ECL system for you and your group only, you'd not have to care about others' way of playing, but seeing the hard work you have put into this to bring the people here a good system, I believe that's not what you're aiming for.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I am very interested in seeing what your work has produced.*




Thanks! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *After some studying, though, I have noticed that a MAJORITY of the CRs in the MM are accurate.  Only Celestials, Demons, Devils, Dragons, Titans, and Tarrasque are grossly incorrect.*




Actually innacuracies will seem more glaring at high-level (and beyond).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This is serious!*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're nuts.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I've use skeletons plenty, and a medium-size skeleton isn't a challenge for a Level 1 party AT ALL.  In fact, skeletons usually die in a single hit without a problem, using NONE of the party's resources.  How is a medium-size skeleton CR 1?*




It could likely win initiative, gets two attacks, takes half damage from slashing or piercing weaponry. In my opinion it represents about the same challenge as a 1st-level character (given a weapon).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Same with zombies, except they take two hits before going down.  Still no resources are used.*




...and you think these resources would be used against a 1st-level NPC instead?

Try to think laterally.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I disagree.*




Thats your prerogative.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It has slowly become obvious that there is NO system that works at low AND high levels.  A system that works at low levels breaks down at high levels, and a system that works right at high levels breaks down at low levels.*




Feel free to give up at any time.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Would you like to test the skeleton theory?  I can GUARANTEE that a Level 1 party could beat one without taking a scratch 99% of the time.*




Can I have four skeletons with swords and shields? We could pay homage to Jason and the Argonauts. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yep, they all come out with a higher ECL than they should get.  Dwarves and Elves both end up as ECL +1 when they should be ECL 0, meaning no ECL.*




Did you deduct the fact that their Hit Dice won't figure into the equation?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Skeletons and Zombies have a lot of immunities that break their ECL. *




True but they do have a number of penalties also: Mindless; no Constitution; (partial actions for Zombies; though I think that changed in the errata?)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *My players usually use slashing or piercing weapons, so skeletons are usually a good encounter against them... And I think that's the problem with a system to calculate ECL... A red dragon ECL is different if the wizard has fireballs prepared or if he has ice storms prepared... I don't think a unified system could possibly solve this. *




Exactly. You have to be generic not circumstantial.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The average party will have at least one bludgeoning weapon, usually wielded by the party cleric. Also, the cleric can easily turn the creatures and make them unable to do anything, although that is rarely necessary. GROUPS of skeletons can cause trouble, but A skeleton, no way. *




The argument is that they can cause as much trouble as a 1st-level character; not whether they can defeat a 1st-level party.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I think that's exactly the problem. You seem to think everyone plays your way. Just as with the fighter who you thought would always have a weapon of sure striking. I mean no offense, but if you try to design new rules, you must not limit yourself to how you and the groups with which you play or the groups you saw playing, play.
> 
> I began a new campaign as a player last Saturday (yes, I had been waiting for that for three years!  ),*




Good luck with the new campaign mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *and there is still no cleric, although it is possible that for next time, a new player will arrive and he may play a cleric, but he may also play a paladin, which would give us some healing spells, but not for some time. And if that's what he does, he may well decide to use a greatsword or something the like. Which means we won't have any bludgeoning weapon in the group (except my quarterstaff, but since I'm a wizard with 11hp, ac12 and a 8 str, I sure as hell won't fight any monster!  ) since the other players are a ranger specialized in the bow who intends to specialize in two-weapon fighting as he advances and a halfling rogue using a shortsword. In a campaign I DMed some time ago, the five players were all playing elves (two fighter, one specialized in the bow, the other in the longsword, a rogue, a wizard and a priest), and they all fought with a longsword (because it is the favored weapon of Corellon Larethian) and a composite longbow. Were they wrong in doing so? Maybe, but it made much more sense roleplaywise. Did they fight no skeleton? Hell, no! But they certainly had more trouble than a group of dwarven followers of Moradin who decided to all fight with a warhammer.
> 
> All this boils down to one thing : no two groups have the same way of playing. So, you must not limit yourself to one way if you want your rules to encompass every group. Of course, if you were designing an ECL system for you and your group only, you'd not have to care about others' way of playing, but seeing the hard work you have put into this to bring the people here a good system, I believe that's not what you're aiming for.*




Absolutely.


----------



## -Eä-

> Incidently I worked out a formula for the Epic Wealth Tables (which actually reverse engineers, I think) last night.
> 
> Essentially you find where the table doubles over then note the number of intervening levels. Then the next time it doubles the number of intervening levels is +1.




And what is your conclusion?

Actually, that's the arithmetic sum-doubling formula of which I was speaking, from which I derived my (too complicated) system (-: This idea is the way to go to get results matching very well.

By the way: Using CR (with the appropriate decimals) instead of ECL is the best way to go from a pure mathematical viewpoint... This, however, is only valid if you set these premises:
1. Your CR-system is correct
2. WotC character wealth by level tables is the basis for character wealth.
If you don't agree with premise 2, then there is no problem devising a simple system that works for all levels: Just tell me from where to start, and a formula is to be devised pretty soon.

And for arithmetic increase proposed by Anubis and Simon: I agree, it is a simple and relatively accurate way to go (sometimes I get screwed, thinking all progressions need to be justified using some excisting system (-; ), so if you find using such a system simple and minimally time consuming, I say: Go for it! 
Personally I will not, but that's because I love having complicated systems (which only a handfull will use) (-: (You should also know that I like trying to find simpler approximations, which in essence is what I'm trying to do with character wealth now)


----------



## Anubis

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *
> I think that's exactly the problem. You seem to think everyone plays your way. Just as with the fighter who you thought would always have a weapon of sure striking. I mean no offense, but if you try to design new rules, you must not limit yourself to how you and the groups with which you play or the groups you saw playing, play.
> 
> I began a new campaign as a player last Saturday (yes, I had been waiting for that for three years!  ), and there is still no cleric, although it is possible that for next time, a new player will arrive and he may play a cleric, but he may also play a paladin, which would give us some healing spells, but not for some time. And if that's what he does, he may well decide to use a greatsword or something the like. Which means we won't have any bludgeoning weapon in the group (except my quarterstaff, but since I'm a wizard with 11hp, ac12 and a 8 str, I sure as hell won't fight any monster!  ) since the other players are a ranger specialized in the bow who intends to specialize in two-weapon fighting as he advances and a halfling rogue using a shortsword. In a campaign I DMed some time ago, the five players were all playing elves (two fighter, one specialized in the bow, the other in the longsword, a rogue, a wizard and a priest), and they all fought with a longsword (because it is the favored weapon of Corellon Larethian) and a composite longbow. Were they wrong in doing so? Maybe, but it made much more sense roleplaywise. Did they fight no skeleton? Hell, no! But they certainly had more trouble than a group of dwarven followers of Moradin who decided to all fight with a warhammer.
> 
> All this boils down to one thing : no two groups have the same way of playing. So, you must not limit yourself to one way if you want your rules to encompass every group. Of course, if you were designing an ECL system for you and your group only, you'd not have to care about others' way of playing, but seeing the hard work you have put into this to bring the people here a good system, I believe that's not what you're aiming for.  *




Actually, CR and ECL is supposed to be based on averages and how the average party is handled.  I recently figured out that the absolute best way to determine the average party is to take the four primary iconics.  Tordek, Jozan, Mialee, and Lidda.  Compare all things CR and ECL to these four iconics, the epitome of the normal/average party.  That is the basis for what I am saying.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Actually innacuracies will seem more glaring at high-level (and beyond).
> *




Yep.  It just so happens I may have a solution.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> It could likely win initiative, gets two attacks, takes half damage from slashing or piercing weaponry. In my opinion it represents about the same challenge as a 1st-level character (given a weapon).
> *




You're overlooking the fact that skeletons have an extremely poor attack bonus, and on average, will not hit the things fighting it.  The average AC on a Level 1 Fighter is 16, and a skeleton would need a 16 to hit that!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...and you think these resources would be used against a 1st-level NPC instead?
> 
> Try to think laterally.
> *




I am, and I know for a fact that a Level 1 NPC from the DMG would present a greater challenge than a single skeleton.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Can I have four skeletons with swords and shields? We could pay homage to Jason and the Argonauts.
> *




You're forgetting that we're arguing the CR of a medium-size skeleton, not the encounter level of a group of skeletons.  A single creature with a CR equal to the average party level should exhaust about 25% of the party's resources.  A single medium-size skeleton simply can't do that.  That is what this debate is about.  AT LEAST three medium-size skeletons is needed to give a Level 1 party any challenge.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Did you deduct the fact that their Hit Dice won't figure into the equation?
> *




Ah, I overlooked that.  Indeed, they get no "hit dice".  Okay, so that takes care of THAT, but it still doesn't take care of skeletons, zombies, and vermin.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> True but they do have a number of penalties also: Mindless; no Constitution; (partial actions for Zombies; though I think that changed in the errata?)
> *




Not that I am aware of.  There is no such errata.  Zombies do indeed get only partial actions.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Exactly. You have to be generic not circumstantial.
> *




As I said, I'm going on the normal/average party, which WILL have a cleric and at least one bludgeoning weapon.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The argument is that they can cause as much trouble as a 1st-level character; not whether they can defeat a 1st-level party.
> *




If a simgle skeleton were CR 1, it would exhaust 25% of the party's resources.  This is not the case.



Anyway, moving on, I would suggest basing the values of certain abilities on the hid dice modifier to ECL.  If this is 1 or less, all special abilities should be considered to be ECL +1/8.  If this is 2-4, all special abilities should be ECL +1/4.

This is just an idea, I have yet to test it in any way.  I may just be impossible to determine ECL in this way with things at low levels.  Any which way, the creatures with only 1 Level/Hit Die are gonna come out wrong.

I dunno . . . I'm about to just look at a creature, look at what it can do, and then use DM discretion to decide ECL/CR.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Of course I looked at it, but I have a very poor short term memory for even the stuff I am working on; so the chances of me remembering such a thing is slim to none...as in this case.
> *



Here it is. I'd say that there is the possibility that this template would be ECL*2, that's wjy I brought it up.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *And what is your conclusion?*




I haven't concluded anything yet - I am going to leave things for a week or so then return to them.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Actually, that's the arithmetic sum-doubling formula of which I was speaking, from which I derived my (too complicated) system (-: This idea is the way to go to get results matching very well.
> 
> By the way: Using CR (with the appropriate decimals) instead of ECL is the best way to go from a pure mathematical viewpoint... This, however, is only valid if you set these premises:
> 1. Your CR-system is correct
> 2. WotC character wealth by level tables is the basis for character wealth.
> If you don't agree with premise 2, then there is no problem devising a simple system that works for all levels: Just tell me from where to start, and a formula is to be devised pretty soon.*




I'm not going to worry about it now - I'll sort something out eventually. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *And for arithmetic increase proposed by Anubis and Simon: I agree, it is a simple and relatively accurate way to go (sometimes I get screwed, thinking all progressions need to be justified using some excisting system (-; ), so if you find using such a system simple and minimally time consuming, I say: Go for it!*




This could be the way to go...?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Personally I will not, but that's because I love having complicated systems (which only a handfull will use) (-: (You should also know that I like trying to find simpler approximations, which in essence is what I'm trying to do with character wealth now) *


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're overlooking the fact that skeletons have an extremely poor attack bonus, and on average, will not hit the things fighting it.  The average AC on a Level 1 Fighter is 16, and a skeleton would need a 16 to hit that!*




The difference between a skeleton and a 1st-level cleric is 0.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I am, and I know for a fact that a Level 1 NPC from the DMG would present a greater challenge than a single skeleton.*




I would certainly say that it could (dependant on how it was played) but not necessarily that it would.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're forgetting that we're arguing the CR of a medium-size skeleton, not the encounter level of a group of skeletons.  A single creature with a CR equal to the average party level should exhaust about 25% of the party's resources.  A single medium-size skeleton simply can't do that.  That is what this debate is about.  AT LEAST three medium-size skeletons is needed to give a Level 1 party any challenge.*




I just don't like this whole 25% resorces nonsense - its useless for equating CR.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ah, I overlooked that.  Indeed, they get no "hit dice".  Okay, so that takes care of THAT, but it still doesn't take care of skeletons, zombies, and vermin.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not that I am aware of.  There is no such errata.  Zombies do indeed get only partial actions.*




I am sure S'mon mentioned it to me not so long ago?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As I said, I'm going on the normal/average party, which WILL have a cleric and at least one bludgeoning weapon.*




So...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If a simgle skeleton were CR 1, it would exhaust 25% of the party's resources.  This is not the case.*




Then a 1st-level character is not CR1.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, moving on, I would suggest basing the values of certain abilities on the hid dice modifier to ECL.  If this is 1 or less, all special abilities should be considered to be ECL +1/8.  If this is 2-4, all special abilities should be ECL +1/4.
> 
> This is just an idea, I have yet to test it in any way.  I may just be impossible to determine ECL in this way with things at low levels.*




Okay, sounds interesting.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Any which way, the creatures with only 1 Level/Hit Die are gonna come out wrong.*




Nope.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I dunno . . . I'm about to just look at a creature, look at what it can do, and then use DM discretion to decide ECL/CR. *




In other words we just tell people to make their own system up! 

By the way Knight Otu mate - I will respond to your post in that thread.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Quick question...

Are you guys still heavily "in process" or approaching a completed product?

Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Quick question...
> 
> Are you guys still heavily "in process" or approaching a completed product?
> 
> Thanks. *




If Deities & Demigods entered the SRD today I could have the first section ready within two weeks; with each subsequent section about an extra two weeks.

I have practically all of it written; just not all of it, as yet, typed up. Also if I rework elements (which I constantly do) I always write the material on paper rather than type it (probably a habit I should try and shake). So if I have sections I think I might tweak I probably won't have typed it up fully yet until I'm totally happy with it.


----------



## Anubis

I think he was asking about the ECL/CR system.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think he was asking about the ECL/CR system. *




DOH! 

I thought the use of the phrase 'you guys' seemed a tad incongruous.

I think I have cracked the ECL/CR system. There could be some minutiae I have missed; I'll post my results when I am satisfied (and more to the point have them typed up, to facilitate a copy and paste job)


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Looking forward to it!

(Yes, the final product of the ECL/CR system you guys have been slowly buy surely cobbling together.


----------



## S'mon

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not that I am aware of.  There is no such errata.  Zombies do indeed get only partial actions.
> 
> *




Zombies only get partial actions.  However the rules on Charging (not properly explained in the PHB) allow for Partial Charges where you can move your base move in a straight line and attack (with +2 to-hit, -2 AC).  You can also attack once & 5' step in a partial action.  This rule works fine for man-sized zombies but makes giant zombies very weak because the MM puts most of a giant's power in its multiple attacks, somewhat illogically.  They would have done better to scale up damage for larger-than-mansized and restrict multiple attacks to those with a 'class' BAB of 6+, ie Monster HD BAB shouldn't have been granted multiple attacks.


----------



## S'mon

*CRs*

I don't think a Skeleton is CR1, it has poor hp and can easily be Turned by 1st level Cleric.  Indeed, a 2nd level cleric will Destroy it with a successful turn!  I'd say CR 1/2, the MM CR 1/3 does seem to assume an Iconic party of Jozan, Lidda, Tordek/Regdar & Mialee.  Zombies are tough though (16 hp!) the rated CR 1/2 is very low, more like 3/4 or a weak CR1.  Big problem is there's no CR 3/4 in the book.  MM orcs with their ATT+3/d12+3 dmg are also more like CR 3/4, especially if you're an evil DM like me who swaps their Alertness for Toughness...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi there! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Looking forward to it!
> 
> (Yes, the final product of the ECL/CR system you guys have been slowly buy surely cobbling together. *




Thanks mate! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *They would have done better to scale up damage for larger-than-mansized and restrict multiple attacks to those with a 'class' BAB of 6+, ie Monster HD BAB shouldn't have been granted multiple attacks. *




Absolutely.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I don't think a Skeleton is CR1, it has poor hp and can easily be Turned by 1st level Cleric. Indeed, a 2nd level cleric will Destroy it with a successful turn! I'd say CR 1/2, the MM CR 1/3 does seem to assume an Iconic party of Jozan, Lidda, Tordek/Regdar & Mialee. Zombies are tough though (16 hp!) the rated CR 1/2 is very low, more like 3/4 or a weak CR1. Big problem is there's no CR 3/4 in the book. MM orcs with their ATT+3/d12+3 dmg are also more like CR 3/4, especially if you're an evil DM like me who swaps their Alertness for Toughness.... *




This probably comes down to how you rate Undeath.

If we rate Undeath at +3 ECL then the Zombie is CR1/2. If we rate Undeath at +3.5 ECL then the Zombie is CR1.

Undeath

Immune to Mind-Influencing Effects +1/2 ECL
Immune to Poison & Disease +1/2 ECL
Immune to Critical Hits +1/2 ECL
Immune to Paralysis; Sleep; Stunning & Subdual Damage +1/2 ECL
Immune to Ability Score Damage +1/2 ECL
Immune to Energy Drain +1/2 ECL

So far +3 ECL.

But (even though its omitted from their individual desriptions) shouldn't they be Immune to Death Magic as well (as per MM pg.6)?

Of course the difference of CR1/2 is somewhat negligable.


----------



## Xeriar

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> This probably comes down to how you rate Undeath.
> 
> If we rate Undeath at +3 ECL then the Zombie is CR1/2. If we rate Undeath at +3.5 ECL then the Zombie is CR1.
> 
> Undeath
> 
> Immune to Mind-Influencing Effects +1/2 ECL
> Immune to Poison & Disease +1/2 ECL
> Immune to Critical Hits +1/2 ECL
> Immune to Paralysis; Sleep; Stunning & Subdual Damage +1/2 ECL
> Immune to Ability Score Damage +1/2 ECL
> Immune to Energy Drain +1/2 ECL
> 
> So far +3 ECL.
> 
> But (even though its omitted from their individual desriptions) shouldn't they be Immune to Death Magic as well (as per MM pg.6)?
> 
> Of course the difference of CR1/2 is somewhat negligable.




Immunity to energy drain and death magic really shouldn't count for undead - they are subject to these things the other way around - cure light wounds, raise dead, etc.  You should only give that bonus if the penalty doesn't overcome it.  Also, all undead are destroyed at 0 hp - no coming back for them, unless they're a vampire or lich, really.

Zombies also only get partial actions - they cannot run, and they're also mindless.  They don't avoid traps, they walk into ambushes, etc.  They do have an extra hit die, but that's about all they have going for them.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi there Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Immunity to energy drain and death magic really shouldn't count for undead - they are subject to these things the other way around - cure light wounds, raise dead, etc. You should only give that bonus if the penalty doesn't overcome it *




Interesting idea! I like it. 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Also, all undead are destroyed at 0 hp - no coming back for them, unless they're a vampire or lich, really.*




I had already taken that into consideration.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Zombies also only get partial actions - they cannot run, and they're also mindless.  They don't avoid traps, they walk into ambushes, etc.  They do have an extra hit die, but that's about all they have going for them. *




I had taken all the zombies bonuses and penalties into account. Like I said the rating of Undeath was the only partially ambiguous factor.

Thanks for the help mate!


----------



## S'mon

*Rating CRs vs Iconics*

Of course if you take it that CRs need to be rated vs a 'Core' PC party comprising Tordek, Mialee, Jozan & Lidda, you can't then start giving them non-Core Book stuff like Weapons of True Striking!  The default is PHB & DMG only.  Balancing CRs against PCs using every supplement out there (whether WotC or not) is an impossible and thankless task.  This is one reason I wasn't happy with the playtest 'deity vs PCs' match we did.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Rating CRs vs Iconics*

Hi S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Of course if you take it that CRs need to be rated vs a 'Core' PC party comprising Tordek, Mialee, Jozan & Lidda, you can't then start giving them non-Core Book stuff like Weapons of True Striking!  The default is PHB & DMG only.  Balancing CRs against PCs using every supplement out there (whether WotC or not) is an impossible and thankless task.*




Agreed. 

However, I think what we can do is measure a monster or character in and of themselves to find the ECL. The CR derives from this figure but is subject to a situation modifier* at the DMs discretion.

*eg. If none of the PCs could bypass a certain monsters DR (or SR) then seemingly that encounter should have an increased CR. Likewise if all the PCs can defeat a monsters DR or SR then that should have its CR decreased. etc.

Perhaps an _ad hoc_ -1 direct to CR for every countered factor; +1 direct to CR for an impervious ability.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Yes. That way there is a point to having the Intermediate Status.
> 
> The number of deities (Demi/Lesser/Inter: not counting quasi-deities) in the Pantheon is equal to the Divine Rank of its most powerful god.
> *




About this subtracting 3 ranks from all deities, having only 4 ranks above 15 worth of greater deities, and the number of deities equally the number of divine ranks of the most powerful deity . . .

That doesn't work for the Greyhawk Pantheon, does it?  I tried it out, but with over 100 deities in the Greyhawk Pantheon (all of which are divine rank 1 or highter), it just simple doesn't work.  What would you advocate doing for the Greyhawk Pantheon?

For now, I'm only going to consider the 23 from Deities & Demigods, for simplicity's sake.  How would you advocate handling the divine ranks, though?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Wealth*

Hi all! 

I thought I would let you know I think I have solved the whole wealth issue (which had also been raised in the 'Fast Healing' thread).

Anyway its sort of a return to my initial ideas with a twist.

Firstly you determine overall wealth:

ECL x ECL x ECL x 100 GP

Then you determine how much wealth is personal equipment:

CR* x CR* x CR* x 100 GP

*My modified Challenge Rating that is.

Also both figures are identical up to 20th-level. So no problems therein.

eg. 40th-level PC (ECL 40 = CR* 30)

Total Wealth: 40 x 40 x 40 x 100 = 6.4 million GP
Personal Equipment: 30 x 30 x 30 x 100 = 2.7 million GP

Any comments?

Incidently I haven't set on NPCs yet.

Edited because I neglected to mention that Artifacts are not relative to the above totals. There is a seperate mechanic for determining a deities artifacts.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *About this subtracting 3 ranks from all deities, having only 4 ranks above 15 worth of greater deities, and the number of deities equally the number of divine ranks of the most powerful deity . . .*




Yes. 

(Thats the total number of Demigod; Lesser God and Intermediate Gods is equal to the Divine Rank of the most powerful Greater God) Just to avoid confusion. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That doesn't work for the Greyhawk Pantheon, does it?*




Well, firstly there is no Greyhawk Pantheon its simply an open cosmology. Even the D&D Pantheon isn't really a pantheon.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I tried it out, but with over 100 deities in the Greyhawk Pantheon (all of which are divine rank 1 or highter), it just simple doesn't work.  What would you advocate doing for the Greyhawk Pantheon?*




One possibility is reducing the deities to their racial and sub-racial components. 

ie. You would have Suel Deities; Baklunish Deities etc.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For now, I'm only going to consider the 23 from Deities & Demigods, for simplicity's sake.  How would you advocate handling the divine ranks, though? *




Well I advocate each major race has its own Pantheon. So I would have Corellon; Garl Glittergold; Gruumsh; Maglubiyet; Moradin; Yondalla (etc.) all at Divine Rank 19. Perhaps even Kurtulmak depending on how prominent Kobolds are in your campaign.

Boccob; Nerull; Istus; Pelor (and one or two others) should remain Greater Gods at Divine Rank 17.

As for the others I think there are too many Divine Rank 15. WotC caused this problem by having the ability to bypass certain Divine Powers dependant on Divine Rank rather than Divine Status (as I advocate)


----------



## poilbrun

*Re: Wealth*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> I thought I would let you know I think I have solved the whole wealth issue (which had also been raised in the 'Fast Healing' thread).
> 
> Anyway its sort of a return to my initial ideas with a twist.
> 
> Firstly you determine overall wealth:
> 
> ECL x ECL x ECL x 100 GP
> 
> Then you determine how much wealth is personal equipment:
> 
> CR* x CR* x CR* x 100 GP
> 
> *My modified Challenge Rating that is.
> 
> Also both figures are identical up to 20th-level. So no problems therein.
> 
> eg. 40th-level PC (ECL 40 = CR* 30)
> 
> Total Wealth: 40 x 40 x 40 x 100 = 6.4 million GP
> Personal Equipment: 30 x 30 x 30 x 100 = 2.7 million GP
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Incidently I haven't set on NPCs yet. *



That would really give strange results at very high level, wouldn't it? An ECL 200 creature (CR 53 if I'm right), would have a total wealth of 200 x 200 x 200 x 100 = 800 million GP of total wealth, but his personal equipment will only be 53 x 53 x 53 x 100 = 14,887,700 GP, less than 2% of his total wealth! Things would only get worse at even higher level...


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Wealth*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Anyway its sort of a return to my initial ideas with a twist.
> 
> Firstly you determine overall wealth:
> 
> ECL x ECL x ECL x 100 GP
> 
> Then you determine how much wealth is personal equipment:
> 
> CR* x CR* x CR* x 100 GP
> 
> *My modified Challenge Rating that is.
> 
> Also both figures are identical up to 20th-level. So no problems therein.
> 
> eg. 40th-level PC (ECL 40 = CR* 30)
> 
> Total Wealth: 40 x 40 x 40 x 100 = 6.4 million GP
> Personal Equipment: 30 x 30 x 30 x 100 = 2.7 million GP
> 
> Any comments?
> *




It's already silly at 40th level - what's he doing with 3.7 million GP in cash and equity?  I mean, some people might dump their wealth into holdings, but not everyone.

In addition, a linear power increase (by ECL) requires squaring the cash.  That is, it should be ECL*ECL*Constant - where constant is some nice big number, 1000-2000 is fine.

With a cubing approach you will outstrip the higher prices charged for epic-level items, and eventually it's no longer a contest between ECL but how well said god has spent its cash.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Wealth*

Hi poilbrun and Xeriar! 

Incidently, in case you hadn't noticed I edited the original post to take into account this wealth system doesn't concern the artifacts a deity possesses.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *That would really give strange results at very high level, wouldn't it? An ECL 200 creature (CR 53 if I'm right), would have a total wealth of 200 x 200 x 200 x 100 = 800 million GP of total wealth, but his personal equipment will only be 53 x 53 x 53 x 100 = 14,887,700 GP, less than 2% of his total wealth! Things would only get worse at even higher level... *






			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *It's already silly at 40th level - what's he doing with 3.7 million GP in cash and equity? I mean, some people might dump their wealth into holdings, but not everyone.*




Think about it though. What does a character gain from their adventures!? Do they automatically always gain just the items they need or want? No. Can they simply convert cash into the magic items they want. Only within certain parameters (Cities have a GP limit for items; as does even a Planar Metropolis).

You cannot buy items above 600,000 GP. You either have to find them; create them or commision them to be created (and good luck finding a spellcaster willing to waste the time and effort on an epic item just for you! Thats going to represent a handful of adventures in itself as payment up front depending on what the spellcaster needs; don't think its simply a matter of handing over the cash - anyone capable of making epic items is already epic level and no doubt rolling in cash as it is!)



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *In addition, a linear power increase (by ECL) requires squaring the cash. That is, it should be ECL*ECL*Constant - where constant is some nice big number, 1000-2000 is fine.*




Not sure I understand your point here?



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *With a cubing approach you will outstrip the higher prices charged for epic-level items, and eventually it's no longer a contest between ECL but how well said god has spent its cash.*




Surely this way places the emphasis on personal power rather than who has what magic items.


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Re: Wealth*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Think about it though. What does a character gain from their adventures!? Do they automatically always gain just the items they need or want? No. Can they simply convert cash into the magic items they want. Only within certain parameters (Cities have a GP limit for items; as does even a Planar Metropolis).




An arsenal of minor magical items, probably doled out to a legion of followers.  They still 'posess' them, though.



> You cannot buy items above 600,000 GP. You either have to find them; create them or commision them to be created (and good luck finding a spellcaster willing to waste the time and effort on an epic item just for you! Thats going to represent a handful of adventures in itself as payment up front depending on what the spellcaster needs; don't think its simply a matter of handing over the cash - anyone capable of making epic items is already epic level and no doubt rolling in cash as it is!)




I'm redoing the whole city generation/economics thing to reflect the more ridiculous situations that the WotC system causes.  I jst need to get off my be-hind and reinstall builder to write the damn thing, actually 

Regardless, at the more ridulous levels we speak of, these people are holding more coin than ever could have been minted in history.



> Not sure I understand your point here?




To increase the power granted by an item one step, it goes up to the next squared value.

Ie, a +11 item is 11^2 times some value, a +12 item is 12^2 times the same value, and so on.

If you increase monetary wealth based on a squares system (ECL * ECL * constant), then their equipment keeps pace with them.  If you increase faster than that (like your insistance on ECL^3, or dear heavenly gods, ECL^4 earlier) than their items may outstrip their power.



> Surely this way places the emphasis on personal power rather than who has what magic items.




You could refine CR^CR*constant to refer to their own personal gear, and not backup items, holdings, or stuff handed out to followers.  I would agree with that.

But an ever smaller percentage of their wealth is going to be coin.  And it's important to keep a squared system or less, especially with the ECLs you talk about in this Immortal's Handbook of yours...


----------



## poilbrun

*Re: Re: Wealth*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Think about it though. What does a character gain from their adventures!? Do they automatically always gain just the items they need or want? No. Can they simply convert cash into the magic items they want. Only within certain parameters (Cities have a GP limit for items; as does even a Planar Metropolis).
> 
> You cannot buy items above 600,000 GP. You either have to find them; create them or commision them to be created (and good luck finding a spellcaster willing to waste the time and effort on an epic item just for you! Thats going to represent a handful of adventures in itself as payment up front depending on what the spellcaster needs; don't think its simply a matter of handing over the cash - anyone capable of making epic items is already epic level and no doubt rolling in cash as it is!)*



While I agree with you, since that's the way I play too, your system cannot be designed to be played YOUR way. It is true that it seems that WotC wants characters to be able to buy their magic items (e.g. in the Forgotten Realms, the Red Wizards of Thay now have enclaves in cities in other countries where they sell magic items), and even though in my games the most expensive item a player can find easily is around 2.000 GP. But that does not mean that another DM acts like this. And you should not force them to change their style of DMing to play with your rules...

That's about the same problems there was when Anubis thought every fighter would have Sure Striking on his weapon. You should not design rules to be only playable to your style, or else only people with the same style of play will be interested in them.  

But, hey, that's easy for me. I'm much better at criticizing other people's rules than at creating rules myself!  At least, I hope I help a little


----------



## Necropolis

Hi upper krust
i wanted to ask if something has changed about the release date for the immortal handbook and if you can give us a preview or a teaser from you book
by the way do you have some artworks from your book that you can show to us ?
thanks


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Wealth*

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *An arsenal of minor magical items, probably doled out to a legion of followers.  They still 'posess' them, though.*




Exactly. But the items borrowed by cohorts/followers are obviously not representative of 'personal' items, so they don't derive from the CR^3 x 100 GP table.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *I'm redoing the whole city generation/economics thing to reflect the more ridiculous situations that the WotC system causes.  I jst need to get off my be-hind and reinstall builder to write the damn thing, actually *




Good luck with that! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Regardless, at the more ridulous levels we speak of, these people are holding more coin than ever could have been minted in history.*




Looking at the demographics*. A population of 6 billion could support (approx.) 19 characters of 30th or higher level (as high as 43rd-level)

*Incidently just noticed you would need at least 23+ million to support Elminster as a 35th-level NPC (if hes the highest level).

Anyway. Our own planet has wealth akin to 100 trillion dollars (?) which is about 200 billion GP.

Then of course you have to take into account other worlds; other planes; other realities etc.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *To increase the power granted by an item one step, it goes up to the next squared value.
> 
> Ie, a +11 item is 11^2 times some value, a +12 item is 12^2 times the same value, and so on.
> 
> If you increase monetary wealth based on a squares system (ECL * ECL * constant), then their equipment keeps pace with them.  If you increase faster than that (like your insistance on ECL^3, or dear heavenly gods, ECL^4 earlier) than their items may outstrip their power.*




I see what you mean now; I'll look into it, although I am happy with this current solution until I find a fault with it.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *You could refine CR^CR*constant to refer to their own personal gear, and not backup items, holdings, or stuff handed out to followers.  I would agree with that.*




But thats what it does refer to. Only personal gear/equipment. Secondary equipment/wealth/property is all handled with the other table (ECL^3 x 100)



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *But an ever smaller percentage of their wealth is going to be coin.*




Above 20th-level when NPC items start to bottom out at DMG limits; PCs are going to gain more and more items they won't personally use because they already own better equipment.

These secondary items are counted as wealth; not personal items.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *And it's important to keep a squared system or less, especially with the ECLs you talk about in this Immortal's Handbook of yours...  *




Above 200 ECL the beings are going to be so powerful they won't bother with anything less than artifacts, if even then.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Wealth*

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *While I agree with you, since that's the way I play too, your system cannot be designed to be played YOUR way.*




Well actually its not about my way; your way; or anybody elses way - its about the right way! 

Every rule in the IH is there because its the right rule (as I see it). If I find a superior rule then I'll use it. If someone shows me a fault - I'll fix it. This is all about creating the best tools for the job. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *It is true that it seems that WotC wants characters to be able to buy their magic items (e.g. in the Forgotten Realms, the Red Wizards of Thay now have enclaves in cities in other countries where they sell magic items), and even though in my games the most expensive item a player can find easily is around 2.000 GP. But that does not mean that another DM acts like this. And you should not force them to change their style of DMing to play with your rules...*




If I don't give DMs the best advice I can, then I am just wasting my time. These are not simply wild notions conjured up out of the blue. There is reason and logic behind these decisions. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *That's about the same problems there was when Anubis thought every fighter would have Sure Striking on his weapon. You should not design rules to be only playable to your style, or else only people with the same style of play will be interested in them.  *




Anubis position was logically flawed though.

Even with access to sufficient funds a player should not be able to simply buy any item they wish. Even in a metropolis (100,000 GP limit in the DMG*) every item up to that figure has only a chance of being available; its not a certainty by any means!

*300,000 GP limit in the ELH



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *But, hey, that's easy for me. I'm much better at criticizing other people's rules than at creating rules myself!  At least, I hope I help a little  *


----------



## Upper_Krust

Necropolis said:
			
		

> *Hi upper krust*




Hi Necropolis mate! 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *i wanted to ask if something has changed about the release date for the immortal handbook*




No - its still dependant on WotC releasing D&Dg into the SRD. 



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *and if you can give us a preview or a teaser from you book*




I will be posting a preview/teaser when I have a definate date for release. Certain elements may still be subject to change in the interim and theres also that pesky OGL to worry about.



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *by the way do you have some artworks from your book that you can show to us ?*




I have a couple of illustrations floating about though they were only 50% finished. I showed one to poilbrun last week although I may not be using it in the final work (it was for a Prestige Class that I may end up not including, I haven't decided).

I also have a large number of preliminary sketches for illustrations (mostly for the monsters section it must be said, and the covers).



			
				Necropolis said:
			
		

> *thanks *




Sorry I couldn't give you more at this stage mate!


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Re: Wealth*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Looking at the demographics*. A population of 6 billion could support (approx.) 19 characters of 30th or higher level (as high as 43rd-level)
> 
> *Incidently just noticed you would need at least 23+ million to support Elminster as a 35th-level NPC (if hes the highest level).
> 
> Anyway. Our own planet has wealth akin to 100 trillion dollars (?) which is about 200 billion GP.




Depends on how you count it.  The total value of the United States infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc) is worth some 120 trillion alone, the whole world more than four times that.  Wealth that is more imaginary and 'priceless' skyrockets this value into the quadrillions.

So, at a modern-day value of 60$ per GP, that's 90 trillion gold coins alright, -but- there isn't enough gold on the planet to represent that.

The amount of liquid cash is far smaller - in the US, a half trillion dollars or so.  Our wealth is largely based on how fast this money gets moved around, as this half trillion gets spent through twice a month.

Between the US Treasury and other sources, the total amount of actual 'wealth', as in money or something that represents money, is about four or five trillion dollars.  Most of this is actually invested elsewhere, though, and 'already spent' in a way.

It's not that we have more physical, actual cash, just that the US moves it around faster than anyone else does, or has ever done.  So you get a kind of super-economy because of its infrastructure.


----------



## Anubis

I had a HUGE rant I was gonna post here as to what all is wrong with UK's latest theory about wealth, but others have already pretty much said it all.  Obviously, the theory simply does not work.  I was also gonna rant about the arithmatic system, but I have decided not to.  Instead, I am gonna go over several points I do feel need to be addressed.

1) Forget about realism, real-life economic issues, and all other such silly things, as they have no place in Dungeons & Dragons.  Apples and oranges, people.  The goal here is to figire out where the BALANCE is, simply put, and debating economic issues only complicates matters to an unnecessary degree.

2) Cubic and quadratic formulas have been proven to break the system time and time again, so how about we drop any such formulas from the debate as having been exhausted?

3) The sqare system has potential, but I fear that it may eventually break down as well.  It has potential, though, as does an arithmatic system.

Okay, all that said, here is what I propose.  First, forget about any cubic or quadratic formula, those things simply don't work no matter how you look at it.  The brings us down to an arithmatic formula or the square formula.

The arithmatic system has already been shown to work well, so what number do we use for the square system?  For the answer to that, simply calculate the current wealth table using the system and find out what multiplier would have been needed.  Do this by squaring the level and dividing the wealth of that level by the number you get.

Level 21: 975,000 gp . . . 21^2=441 . . . 975000/441=2211
Level 31: 4,900,000 gp . . . 31^2=961 . . . 4900000/961=5099
Level 40: 13,600,000 gp . . . 40^2=1600 . . . 13600000/1600=8500

As you can see, the factor keeps going up.  In order to curb the gross increase in wealth, turn that variable that goes up each level into a constant.  It is 8500 at Level 40, so the best bet is obviously to stick the constant at a flat 10000 for Level 41 and above.  Use the system in the ELH until you reach Level 41, as you would with the arithmatic system.

Honestly, they both have their good points and their bad points, and without EXTENSIVE playtesting against monsters in the Immortal's Handbook, the ELH, and others using the revised ECL rules, the perfect solution is impossible to find.  It is one of these two, however, that much is certain.

Here is what I propose:

TOTAL wealth, including "intangibles": (Level^2)*10000
Wealth for equipment and money: 13600000+[(Level-40)*331707]

In other words, combine both systems!  The squared result will be total wealth, while the arithmatic result is used to purchase starting equipment!  (As always, though, no item can be worth more than 25% of that number, and no more than three items can be worth more than 10% of that number.)

Basically, it works.  It takes the best of both worlds, puts them together, and creates a simply system for determining wealth.

There, problem solved.  If anybody believes they can refute this system or show it to be broken, let them speak now.  I stand by this system 100% and will answer any and all challenges.


----------



## Anubis

On a side note, UK, when will you be able to get back to the question I asked you in order to help sort out the Saiyan ECL/CR?


----------



## Cheiromancer

I have to admit that (level^2)*10000 has a nice look about it.

But does the arithmetic part really have to involve such ugly numbers?


----------



## poilbrun

Anubis said:
			
		

> *1) Forget about realism, real-life economic issues, and all other such silly things, as they have no place in Dungeons & Dragons.  Apples and oranges, people.  The goal here is to figire out where the BALANCE is, simply put, and debating economic issues only complicates matters to an unnecessary degree.*



I do not totally agree with you. If you like to play in a game where things are explained when compared to balance, then do it. But I much prefer playing in as realistic a campaign as can be. If that means breaking balance a little, then so be it!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here is what I propose:
> 
> TOTAL wealth, including "intangibles": (Level^2)*10000
> Wealth for equipment and money: 13600000+[(Level-40)*331707]*



The thing I do not like about this system is that you would gain the same amount of money by going from level 40 to level 41 than you would by going from level 200 to 201! It means you should never be able to find a +6 longsword since it costs 720000 gp.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There, problem solved.  If anybody believes they can refute this system or show it to be broken, let them speak now.  I stand by this system 100% and will answer any and all challenges. *



I hesitated before replying, but I thought I'd be brave!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Wealth*

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Depends on how you count it.  The total value of the United States infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc) is worth some 120 trillion alone, the whole world more than four times that.  Wealth that is more imaginary and 'priceless' skyrockets this value into the quadrillions.*




I guesstimated the world wealth; I couldn't find an adequate resource on the net.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *So, at a modern-day value of 60$ per GP, that's 90 trillion gold coins alright, -but- there isn't enough gold on the planet to represent that.
> 
> The amount of liquid cash is far smaller - in the US, a half trillion dollars or so.  Our wealth is largely based on how fast this money gets moved around, as this half trillion gets spent through twice a month.
> 
> Between the US Treasury and other sources, the total amount of actual 'wealth', as in money or something that represents money, is about four or five trillion dollars.  Most of this is actually invested elsewhere, though, and 'already spent' in a way.
> 
> It's not that we have more physical, actual cash, just that the US moves it around faster than anyone else does, or has ever done.  So you get a kind of super-economy because of its infrastructure. *




The above has reinforced my views on the wealth issue.

ECL^3 x 100 = Wealth including: Monetary Wealth; Property Holdings; Secondary Magic Items (those items you don't carry with you when you go adventuring).

CR^3 x 100 = Wealth including: Primary Magic Items (the items you do take with you when you go adventuring).

None of the above represent a deities artifacts (which are technically 'priceless' and created from worship points anyway).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I had a HUGE rant I was gonna post here as to what all is wrong with UK's latest theory about wealth,*




...well if it makes you feel better go ahead. Though couldn't you just make it a short, succinct and factual rant? I dread to think what you would consider a huge post mate. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *but others have already pretty much said it all.*




...and been answered.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Obviously, the theory simply does not work.  I was also gonna rant about the arithmatic system, but I have decided not to.  Instead, I am gonna go over several points I do feel need to be addressed.*




Okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *1) Forget about realism, real-life economic issues, and all other such silly things, as they have no place in Dungeons & Dragons.*




I don't think you can forget about realism. We relate to fantasy through realistic elements.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Apples and oranges, people.*




Doesn't that phrase mean there is little difference between two elements so as to make arguing irrelevant? So that would imply you thought there was little difference between realism and Dungeons & Dragons?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The goal here is to figire out where the BALANCE is, simply put,*




I don't think that is the goal though.

The goal is to present a working Wealth system for characters of any level tempered by what we know are problematic issues at epic level (namely epic item acquisition).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and debating economic issues only complicates matters to an unnecessary degree.*




It all seems pretty straightforward up to now.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *2) Cubic and quadratic formulas have been proven to break the system time and time again, so how about we drop any such formulas from the debate as having been exhausted?*




The problem is never the system but the application thereof.

I simply changed the application to suit a more logical precedent.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *3) The sqare system has potential, but I fear that it may eventually break down as well.  It has potential, though, as does an arithmatic system.
> 
> Okay, all that said, here is what I propose.  First, forget about any cubic or quadratic formula, those things simply don't work no matter how you look at it.  The brings us down to an arithmatic formula or the square formula.
> 
> The arithmatic system has already been shown to work well, so what number do we use for the square system?  For the answer to that, simply calculate the current wealth table using the system and find out what multiplier would have been needed.  Do this by squaring the level and dividing the wealth of that level by the number you get.
> 
> Level 21: 975,000 gp . . . 21^2=441 . . . 975000/441=2211
> Level 31: 4,900,000 gp . . . 31^2=961 . . . 4900000/961=5099
> Level 40: 13,600,000 gp . . . 40^2=1600 . . . 13600000/1600=8500
> 
> As you can see, the factor keeps going up.  In order to curb the gross increase in wealth, turn that variable that goes up each level into a constant.  It is 8500 at Level 40, so the best bet is obviously to stick the constant at a flat 10000 for Level 41 and above.  Use the system in the ELH until you reach Level 41, as you would with the arithmatic system.
> 
> Honestly, they both have their good points and their bad points, and without EXTENSIVE playtesting against monsters in the Immortal's Handbook, the ELH, and others using the revised ECL rules, the perfect solution is impossible to find.  It is one of these two, however, that much is certain.
> 
> Here is what I propose:
> 
> TOTAL wealth, including "intangibles": (Level^2)*10000
> Wealth for equipment and money: 13600000+[(Level-40)*331707]
> 
> In other words, combine both systems!  The squared result will be total wealth, while the arithmatic result is used to purchase starting equipment!  (As always, though, no item can be worth more than 25% of that number, and no more than three items can be worth more than 10% of that number.)
> 
> Basically, it works.  It takes the best of both worlds, puts them together, and creates a simply system for determining wealth.
> 
> There, problem solved.  If anybody believes they can refute this system or show it to be broken, let them speak now.  I stand by this system 100% and will answer any and all challenges. *




Okay try this:

If your system is balanced why doesn't it flow seemlessly with sub-40th levels? 

...and if the answer is that the sub-40th levels are unbalanced how can your system purport to be balanced if it still uses an unbalanced regime at its core?

I prefer my system - it works at any (even non-epic) levels.


----------



## Blacksad

*drow SR?*

Hi U_K!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Every rule in the IH is there because its the right rule (as I see it). If I find a superior rule then I'll use it. If someone shows me a fault - I'll fix it. This is all about creating the best tools for the job.
> 
> If I don't give DMs the best advice I can, then I am just wasting my time. These are not simply wild notions conjured up out of the blue. There is reason and logic behind these decisions.
> *




and the drow SR? 

a level 40 (ECL 42?) drow has SR 51 while a monster with a similar ECL should have a SR 43

I know, you said that SR has less and less importance at high-level, but it still bother me, and lead me to the thought that the IH rule didn't allowed some classic character concept like the invoker (big bad fireballs deal with SR), a bit like the ELH do not allow illusionist to be efficient at high-level (spot & listen skills), and that mage were all of the alteration/conjuration kind.

and I would like to know how SR becomes less and less meaningful, OK I'll try stop pestering you with SR


----------



## Anubis

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *
> I have to admit that (level^2)*10000 has a nice look about it.
> 
> But does the arithmetic part really have to involve such ugly numbers?
> *




The numbers aren't really that ugly.  I got it from a simple formula.  For instance, let's say you're going from Level 40 to Level 41.  Take the Level 40 wealth (13,600,000) and multiply it by 1/(Level+1), which in this case is 1/41.  You'll get the very ugly number to which you refer, 331,707, although there is a small fraction of course.  Every level thereafter, use the same formula, and you'll quickly see that you get the same number at every level!  Quite simple.  That's what makes it work, in fact.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *
> The thing I do not like about this system is that you would gain the same amount of money by going from level 40 to level 41 than you would by going from level 200 to 201! It means you should never be able to find a +6 longsword since it costs 720000 gp.
> *




Actually, you would indeed be able to find a longsword +6.  In fact, for the most part, there are no true limits on what you can find or make.  The 331,707 per level is a gain.  This includes all trading in of items for better items, spending money on one-use items, and all other such things that you use.  It's basically an overall average after everything is taken into account.

On a side note, you have a good point nonetheless, in that VERY expensive items, such as a longsword +20, would never be found.  Under UK's system, however, you may never GET a longsword +20 unless a god creates it for you as an artifact, so really the two systems aren't that much different.  I have considered a purely square formula, but am still looking into it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...and been answered.
> *




You may have answered those things, but you certainly haven't been able to show that your system doesn't completely break down eventually, whereas several people have shown that it WOULD.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I don't think you can forget about realism. We relate to fantasy through realistic elements.
> *




There are some things best left unexplained.  If everything was dealt with through realism, there would be no Immortal's Handbook because any deity could strike down any mortal with a thought!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Doesn't that phrase mean there is little difference between two elements so as to make arguing irrelevant? So that would imply you thought there was little difference between realism and Dungeons & Dragons?
> *




Actually, the phrase means you're comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other, making it invalid.  Economics has no place in D&D, and thus makes any economic reasoning for wealth invalid.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I don't think that is the goal though.
> 
> The goal is to present a working Wealth system for characters of any level tempered by what we know are problematic issues at epic level (namely epic item acquisition).
> *




One that is also balanced.  If you wanna give up balance for realism, go right ahead, but I imagine most people won't follow your lead in THAT area.  Plus, your "standards" can't be applied to even a NORMAL game, much less a magic-heavy game.  You need something that works for ALL games regardless, not just what works for UK.  I believe that has been stated more than once.

By your reasoning, even a Level 200 character will have no chance against a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon simply because he won't be able to have a +15 weapon because it's "more expensive than what UK feels a character could make in a given amount of time".  The same holds true for all of the more powerful Epic monsters.

Basically, you need to forget about "where does it come from" and just realize that characters keep needing more powerful items the more powerful they get, so putting a limit on any items just simply can't work!  On top of that, you have to have a standard to go by, and a simple formula, and you're just not coming up with one.  Yeah, you have formulas for the wealth, but as of yet, you have not given ANY formula or standard to limit magic items.

What I have done is extrapolatid the existing systems through their natural course.  Simple, see?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Okay try this:
> 
> If your system is balanced why doesn't it flow seemlessly with sub-40th levels?
> 
> ...and if the answer is that the sub-40th levels are unbalanced how can your system purport to be balanced if it still uses an unbalanced regime at its core?
> *




Um, the reason it doesn't "flow seemlessly" at levels below 40 is for the same reason the core rules don't work at Epic levels, the same reason base attack bonus no longer goes up after Level 20, the same reason CR breaks down after Level 20, the same reason NOTHING works at both low AND high levels!

The reason is simple: at higher levels, the system has to change, else you lose balance.  Fast Healing 10 is worth a lot at Level 1, but it's worth pretty much NOTHING at Level 41.  CR 20 is CR 20, but CR 40 is actually CR 30.  See what I'm getting at?  The previous systems were never broken . . . They simply fail to work after a SPECIFIC point.  Just the same, the core/standard wealth system works FINE and is PERFECTLY balanced up until Level 40, and in fact, would continue working past that if we left the ECL/CR system alone, but because the ECL/CR system is being changed to not be broken, we have to change the wealth to keep pace with it.

Until Level 40, the core system is just fine.  After Level 40, however, THERE IS NO CORE SYSTEM.  You see, yours may work fine at lower levels, but if you continue on that path, it's simply BROKEN, no way around it.  You advocate ad hoc limiting of all items to the point where some things will be truly unbeatable.  I advocate capping the wealth so that characters are an appropriate level before getting such items.  Simple.

You seem to be resisting the urge to actuall listen to anyone about the wealth issue, despite the fact that MANY things have been poited out wrong about it.  a cubic or quadratic formula has been proven to not work, so why not give the rest of us the benefit of the doubt and actually try it another way.

Heck, I challenge you to actually test it, in a game.  I know I have run some tests.  You say that your system works at sub-40 levels, that's fine.  We're not looking for a system that works at ALL levels, though!  The core rules already give us a good system that works through Level 40, so there simply is no need.  I challenge you to actually test this.  You'll see your cubic and quadratic formulas simply don't stand the test of time.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I prefer my system - it works at any (even non-epic) levels.
> *




A moot point, and irrelevent.  We're only looking for wealth past Level 40.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: drow SR?*



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hi U_K!*




Hi Blacksad mate! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *and the drow SR?
> 
> a level 40 (ECL 42?) drow has SR 51 while a monster with a similar ECL should have a SR 43*




Simply drop drow SR to (modified) Challenge Rating +11 if it bothers you.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I know, you said that SR has less and less importance at high-level, but it still bother me, and lead me to the thought that the IH rule didn't allowed some classic character concept like the invoker (big bad fireballs deal with SR), a bit like the ELH do not allow illusionist to be efficient at high-level (spot & listen skills), and that mage were all of the alteration/conjuration kind.*




Surely there is always going to be some versus check regarding DCs in such cases?



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *and I would like to know how SR becomes less and less meaningful,*




More and more access to abilities that block; impede or reflect spellcasting.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *OK I'll try stop pestering you with SR  *




Thats okay mate!


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

I have to interject on one point Upper_Krust.

As per the comments made by Anubis...

If you are indeed determined to perfect this CR/ECL, and (by extension) wealth system, then making it aplicable to "all campaign settings" rather than "your campaign setting in particular" would be infinitely more preferrable.

We play in an age of "Opening Gaming Content" after all. By creating generalized core rules, individual dungeon masters can always sculpt those rules to their individual game setting likings. That way, the greatest amount of game balance can serve the greatest amount of people.

(No, I did not intentionally mean to sound like Spock there).


----------



## Blacksad

*Re: Re: drow SR?*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi Blacksad mate!
> *




Salut Upper_Krust!



> *
> Simply drop drow SR to (modified) Challenge Rating +11 if it bothers you.
> *




but he won't have the SR of a monster of similar CR (unless you've changed the system) that's what bother me.



> *
> Surely there is always going to be some versus check regarding DCs in such cases?
> *




no, in the ELH a DC 100 allow you to recognize illusion, that's a stupid rule, but it is in (the skill section is full of fixed DC non-sense.



> *
> More and more access to abilities that block; impede or reflect spellcasting.
> *




but SR is still active if the spellcaster shrug off the impediment or the reflection, so it still has some importance, hasn't it?



> *
> Thats okay mate!  *




arg! I can't refrain myself 

A small comment on wealth, I have two level 11 characters who are the kind overlord of a metropolis, and thus have acces to much more resources than higher level characters.

That's why I think tying wealth to level is futile, especially when the high level looner ranger, will be able to buy a city with what he get in one month, it can't break a number of character concept.

Though, balancing useful magic items is important (with the ELH, you double your wealth every 8 levels), focusing only on that will prevent silly situation with wealth (perhaps instead of providing magic items with no use, expanding the hero points table from FCTF?).


----------



## epote

*newbie*

upper_krust:

i have some quetions for you. the probably have being answered so if you can give me links or reply.

i have been waching you here and in the wizards forum, and i have a huge question, what the hell does your nick name means!?

and second when is immortals handbook coming out (just a rough estimate since i know that deities and demigods have being publishes some time now) what format will it be, and how much will it cost


thanx in advance mate, keep up your excelent work


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 

Apologies for the tardy response. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You may have answered those things, but you certainly haven't been able to show that your system doesn't completely break down eventually, whereas several people have shown that it WOULD.*




I don't think anyone has shown that it breaks down. I think a few people don't understand my reasoning (either philosophically or mechanically) for the wealth table - so I'll have to work on making that clearer I think.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There are some things best left unexplained.  If everything was dealt with through realism, there would be no Immortal's Handbook because any deity could strike down any mortal with a thought!*




Incorrect.

Its the relationship between fantasy and reality that makes fantasy what it is. Realistic elements (such as wealth) need to be handled as such. Fantastical elements need to be explained within the framework of that particular roleplaying game (such explanations can be derived solely from balance, as with the magic system).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, the phrase means you're comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other, making it invalid.  Economics has no place in D&D, and thus makes any economic reasoning for wealth invalid.*




On the contrary, economics obviously have a place in D&D.

Why do you think equipment has a market price? Why do places have gold peice limits? Thats economics.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *One that is also balanced.  If you wanna give up balance for realism, go right ahead, but I imagine most people won't follow your lead in THAT area.*




Whether people decide to choose or ignore this or that idea is fully up to them. However, it would be nice to think they had a valid reason for doing so!?

So far no one seems to have posted one.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Plus, your "standards" can't be applied to even a NORMAL game, much less a magic-heavy game.  You need something that works for ALL games regardless, not just what works for UK.  I believe that has been stated more than once.*




I am working on something that works within what I perceive to be a 'standard' campaign framework. 

Its always possible for people to modify aspects to better suit their campaign. But always ask yourself why you are making such a change.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By your reasoning, even a Level 200 character will have no chance against a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon simply because he won't be able to have a +15 weapon because it's "more expensive than what UK feels a character could make in a given amount of time".  The same holds true for all of the more powerful Epic monsters.*




You fail to understand that it is the hero who wields the sword; not the sword who wields the hero.

A 200th-level Fighter WITH NO MAGIC ITEMS could defeat a Prismatic Great Wyrm IN ONE HIT.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, you need to forget about "where does it come from" and just realize that characters keep needing more powerful items the more powerful they get, so putting a limit on any items just simply can't work!*




No. People need to steel themselves against the blinding allure of a bottomless pit of magic items; a neverending scaling of hardware will simply destroy campaigns; taking the focus inexorably off the characters themselves.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On top of that, you have to have a standard to go by, and a simple formula, and you're just not coming up with one.  Yeah, you have formulas for the wealth, but as of yet, you have not given ANY formula or standard to limit magic items.*




Both the DMG and the ELH already have a standard for this. Thats why I never mentioned it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, the reason it doesn't "flow seemlessly" at levels below 40 is for the same reason the core rules don't work at Epic levels, the same reason base attack bonus no longer goes up after Level 20, the same reason CR breaks down after Level 20, the same reason NOTHING works at both low AND high levels!*




Actually a number of things function at both high and low levels: Hit points; ability scores etc. You are only confusing people (including yourself) when you make these sweeping falsehoods mate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The reason is simple: at higher levels, the system has to change, else you lose balance.  Fast Healing 10 is worth a lot at Level 1, but it's worth pretty much NOTHING at Level 41.  CR 20 is CR 20, but CR 40 is actually CR 30.  See what I'm getting at?*




No...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The previous systems were never broken . . . They simply fail to work after a SPECIFIC point.*




...actually theres no 'specific' point where anything breaks down. Its simply a problem that compounds the longer you leave it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Just the same, the core/standard wealth system works FINE and is PERFECTLY balanced up until Level 40,*




Possibly (love the use of the word 'perfectly' in such an arbitrary mechanism by the way); but there is nowhere that says it all immediately breaks down at 41st-level.

The Challenge Ratings are modified arbitrarily; its more important that you have a mechanic for this rather than the mechanic itself.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and in fact, would continue working past that if we left the ECL/CR system alone, but because the ECL/CR system is being changed to not be broken, we have to change the wealth to keep pace with it. *




I have changed the wealth to keep pace with it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Until Level 40, the core system is just fine.  After Level 40, however, THERE IS NO CORE SYSTEM.  You see, yours may work fine at lower levels, but if you continue on that path, it's simply BROKEN, no way around it.  You advocate ad hoc limiting of all items to the point where some things will be truly unbeatable.*




That simply isn't the case. Your inherantly flawed Prismatic Great Wyrm vs. 200th-level character example shows that.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I advocate capping the wealth so that characters are an appropriate level before getting such items.  Simple.*




I don't see it working like that though. 

Firstly, a character will amass wealth that is not simply comprised of its first choice personal equipment. 

Secondly, the value of that personal equipment will virtually level off at a certain point (with the exception of artifacts) because such items simply won't exist due to the extensive time and energy necessary to create them.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You seem to be resisting the urge to actuall listen to anyone about the wealth issue, despite the fact that MANY things have been poited out wrong about it.*




Thats simply not true. I listen and respond to all points of view fairly and openly...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *a cubic or quadratic formula has been proven to not work, so why not give the rest of us the benefit of the doubt and actually try it another way.*




...I simply don't agree that anyone has proven a fault in either my reasoning or mechanics on this issue.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Heck, I challenge you to actually test it, in a game.  I know I have run some tests.  You say that your system works at sub-40 levels, that's fine.  We're not looking for a system that works at ALL levels, though!  The core rules already give us a good system that works through Level 40, so there simply is no need.  I challenge you to actually test this.  You'll see your cubic and quadratic formulas simply don't stand the test of time.*




I have tested them.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A moot point, and irrelevent.  We're only looking for wealth past Level 40. *




Perhaps you are. 

I however, am looking for a wealth system to accomodate all levels. For one thing I may not have the ELH to draw upon.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I have to interject on one point Upper_Krust.*




Sure, fire away mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *As per the comments made by Anubis...
> 
> If you are indeed determined to perfect this CR/ECL, and (by extension) wealth system, then making it aplicable to "all campaign settings" rather than "your campaign setting in particular" would be infinitely more preferrable.*




Absolutely.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *We play in an age of "Opening Gaming Content" after all. By creating generalized core rules, individual dungeon masters can always sculpt those rules to their individual game setting likings. That way, the greatest amount of game balance can serve the greatest amount of people.*




Indeed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *(No, I did not intentionally mean to sound like Spock there). *




What parts are you saying are illogical? 

I'm a game designer; not a mind reader! 

Incidently I may not be able to respond to the posts by Blacksad and epote for a while - I'm going to be away from the computer for at least a few hours. Later.


----------



## Xeriar

> You fail to understand that it is the hero who wields the sword; not the sword who wields the hero.
> 
> A 200th-level Fighter WITH NO MAGIC ITEMS could defeat a Prismatic Great Wyrm IN ONE HIT.




What Great Wyrm, what -anything- of such intelligence is going to be vulnerable to critical hits at that point?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: drow SR?*



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Salut Upper_Krust!*




Hi Blacksad matey! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *but he won't have the SR of a monster of similar CR (unless you've changed the system) that's what bother me.*




If a deity wants to make its spell resistance (at the expense of other abilities) virtually unassailable - then it can.

Likewise if a deity wants to make spell penetration a priority then typically any relative spell resistance will be defeated.

Its not a matter of having spell resistance balanced at any level. At a certain point you just have to let it go. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *no, in the ELH a DC 100 allow you to recognize illusion, that's a stupid rule, but it is in (the skill section is full of fixed DC non-sense.*




High-level Illusionists could always create Epic Illusions.

From my experience divine level characters will be packing some sort of true seeing capability though.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *but SR is still active if the spellcaster shrug off the impediment or the reflection, so it still has some importance, hasn't it?*




But its not AS important - which was my point.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *arg! I can't refrain myself *








			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *A small comment on wealth, I have two level 11 characters who are the kind overlord of a metropolis, and thus have acces to much more resources than higher level characters.
> 
> That's why I think tying wealth to level is futile, especially when the high level looner ranger, will be able to buy a city with what he get in one month, it can't break a number of character concept.*




Character development is all part of the reason why I always advocate playing characters from low-level rather than simply starting from epic or divine levels.

However, this is still a necessary resource for creating NPCs.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Though, balancing useful magic items is important (with the ELH, you double your wealth every 8 levels),*




Actually it approximately doubles at increased level increments (21st-25th-30th-36th-43rd?)



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *focusing only on that will prevent silly situation with wealth (perhaps instead of providing magic items with no use, expanding the hero points table from FCTF?). *




Exactly why I have divided the wealth and personal equipment tables.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> A 200th-level Fighter WITH NO MAGIC ITEMS could defeat a Prismatic Great Wyrm IN ONE HIT.
> *




With all do respect, with that statement, I now believe you have lost your grip on reality.

The ONLY way ANY Level 200 character with NO magic items could EVER kill a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon in a SINGLE hit would be to use the Intant Kill variant rule, which requires rolling two 20s in a row and then hitting on a third roll.  A Level 200 Fighter would have only a 0.2375% chance of pulling it off, so your statement is completely invalidated.

The system works on averages.  Using your system that limits the power of magical items by an ABSOLUTE, Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragons are pretty much invincible to *most* PCs because bypassing the damage reduction would be nigh impossible, although Sacred Fists and Monks could do it at some point.  My point is, an average party would never be able to get past the damage reduction.

Yet you say that the Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon would go down in a single hit?  What are you smoking?

As for limiting items, I have already proposed that better versions of Efficient Item Creation be made for higher levels.  I think that can take care of the costs of creating items.

Look, plain and simple, the ONLY way the game could balance if you take away all items that cost more than a certain amount is to create an insane number of feats that emulate what those magical items could do.  I see no such things being created, however, which makes me wonder how much thought you have put into this . . .


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: newbie*



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *upper_krust:*




hi there epote mate - nice to meet you! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *i have some quetions for you.*




Sure, fire away! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *the probably have being answered so if you can give me links or reply.*




Thats okay; I have probably forgotten where I last answered them anyway! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *i have been waching you here and in the wizards forum,*




You been spying on me then? 

You should have said hello earlier! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *and i have a huge question, what the hell does your nick name means!?  *




It was bestowed upon me by some of my friends; it corresponds to my superiority complex and delusions of grandeur* - probably stems from a result of playing a deity character for over fifteen years.

*that I often play up - just for fun. 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *and second when is immortals handbook coming out (just a rough estimate since i know that deities and demigods have being publishes some time now)*




Deities & Demigods has been available for over five months now - but I am still waiting for it to enter the System Reference Document. 

Its in the lap of the gods at the moment.

...or rather Wizards of the Coast.



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *what format will it be, *




Initially broken into four pdfs; then a single hardcover product.



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *and how much will it cost  *




Comparable to other pdfs and hardcovers of a similar page size.



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *thanx in advance mate,*




No problems. Anytime mate!



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *keep up your excelent work *




Thanks! I appreciate the support.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *What Great Wyrm, what -anything- of such intelligence is going to be vulnerable to critical hits at that point? *




The Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon in the book for one.


----------



## epote

*prismatic dragon*



> You been spying on me then?
> 
> You should have said hello earlier!




i believe i have



> It was bestowed upon me by some of my friends; it corresponds to my superiority complex and delusions of grandeur* - probably stems from a result of playing a deity character for over fifteen years.
> 
> *that I often play up - just for fun.




my kind of guy!!

well im very excited about the book, i remember you talking about your immortal rules even before you had the idea about put in it on paper. if worse is to come lets make a new company and buy wizards so you can publish it

oh yes one more, will it come hard cover to greece i know its a crazy question but hell i gotta ask



> With all do respect, with that statement, I now believe you have lost your grip on reality.
> 
> The ONLY way ANY Level 200 character with NO magic items could EVER kill a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon in a SINGLE hit would be to use the Intant Kill variant rule, which requires rolling two 20s in a row and then hitting on a third roll. A Level 200 Fighter would have only a 0.2375% chance of pulling it off, so your statement is completely invalidated.




well i guess uber_krust could have answered this but lets see if he agrees with me. btw i really dont know krust's rules for leveling up.

a prismatic dragon has 60/+15 DR a 200 level fighter would have a ridiculosly high strength an bonus damage. he could kill it with his fists, he would substract 60 from each hit, so what in +300, 60 is nothing


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *With all do respect, with that statement, I now believe you have lost your grip on reality.*




...but didn't you say reality has no place in D&D!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The ONLY way ANY Level 200 character with NO magic items could EVER kill a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon in a SINGLE hit would be to use the Intant Kill variant rule, which requires rolling two 20s in a row and then hitting on a third roll.  A Level 200 Fighter would have only a 0.2375% chance of pulling it off, so your statement is completely invalidated.*




I love the way you use upper case 'ONLY' and 'EVER'. How can you be so certain...yet still so wrong!? 

Are you ready for todays edification? If so then I'll begin...

Out of the 167 (or so) Feats available you need Power Attack; Power Critical and Devastating Critical (naturally with all prereqs) . Hit, and the opponent has to make a save with a DC of 110+STR Bonus (on average lets say about 130).

The attack is virtually a guaranteed to hit; critical and deliver at least 61 damage - thats not counting the fact that you could have easily taken the Penetrate Damage Reduction Feat ten times over. Or buffed your strength up considerably. Or used Power Attack. Or stacked the Epic Prowess feat dozens of times and used even more on the Power Attack. Or any of the myriad other options.

You could also take the Damage Reduction; Spell Resistance and Fast Healing Feats forty times each just for fun.

DR 120/-
SR 80
FH 120

Any way you slice it the end result is a dead Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon.

Do you concede the point!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The system works on averages.  Using your system that limits the power of magical items by an ABSOLUTE, Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragons are pretty much invincible to *most* PCs because bypassing the damage reduction would be nigh impossible, although Sacred Fists and Monks could do it at some point.  My point is, an average party would never be able to get past the damage reduction.*




LOL! 

See above.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yet you say that the Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon would go down in a single hit?  What are you smoking?*




Actually I'm not smoking, I'm cooking. Can you smell it!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for limiting items, I have already proposed that better versions of Efficient Item Creation be made for higher levels.  I think that can take care of the costs of creating items.*




Probably makes more sense to use the epic application (Quick Creation) of the Craft skill.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Look, plain and simple, the ONLY way the game could balance if you take away all items that cost more than a certain amount is to create an insane number of feats that emulate what those magical items could do.  I see no such things being created, however, which makes me wonder how much thought you have put into this . . . *




Seemingly more thought than you put into these comments.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: prismatic dragon*

Hello again epote mate! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *i believe i have *




I meant earlier as in months/years ago. 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *my kind of guy!!  *




I appreciate the love! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *well im very excited about the book, i remember you talking about your immortal rules even before you had the idea about put in it on paper.*




You've been around that long eh! Wow!

Yeah, I remember when I posted the entire Worship Points System here on these boards (must be two years ago now*). It was only about the equivalent of three or four pages of text back then. Ideas just seemed to snowball for about six months until the design called for 200+ pages of material.

*Shows what a procrastinating doofus I am if its taken me this long! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *if worse is to come lets make a new company and buy wizards so you can publish it *




Absolutely. If there are any rich lurkers out there who want to help publish it. Or if anyone personally knows H.R.Giger or Wayne Barlowe etc. 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *oh yes one more, will it come hard cover to greece - i know its a crazy question but hell i gotta ask  *




Well I'm not familiar with the disposition of roleplaying game distribution in the Mediterranean I must be honest. I can only assume it will be 'as available' as any other d20 product...?



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *btw i really dont know krust's rules for leveling up.*




Not sure what you mean mate? 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *well i guess uber_krust could have answered this but lets see if he agrees with me.
> 
> a prismatic dragon has 60/+15 DR a 200 level fighter would have a ridiculosly high strength an bonus damage. he could kill it with his fists, he would substract 60 from each hit, so what in +300, 60 is nothing *




There are at least a dozen different ways to pimp slap the Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon when you are 200th-level and _sans_ magic items.


----------



## Xeriar

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Xeriar mate!
> 
> The Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon in the book for one. *




Upper Krust, I have a serious problem with the idea of something supposedly smarter than the group of us combined not being aware of the tactics that could be used against it.

A Prismatic dragon of that level is going to have the spells and items necessary to deal with those kinds of problems, and various Sunder feats, etc.

The effect you are referring to is the Power Critical combined with the Devastating critical feat, right?  It can't even work with a bow, so he needs a close range weapon, how is he going to ever get that close without magic items?


----------



## epote

*upper_kase*



> I meant earlier as in months/years ago.




if i had would you remember it? i most certainly did, but since neither you or me remember it it never took place its all a big messy mater of plane of refference i tell ya!



> You've been around that long eh! Wow!
> 
> Yeah, I remember when I posted the entire Worship Points System here on these boards (must be two years ago now*). It was only about the equivalent of three or four pages of text back then. Ideas just seemed to snowball for about six months until the design called for 200+ pages of material.
> 
> *Shows what a procrastinating doofus I am if its taken me this long!




i sure do remember it actually it was the first text i ever read in this forum, i am an avid reader ever since i hope i know become an avid contributor as well at the time i thought wizards of the coast would be foolish not using such a marvelous system. now i dont think it, i am sure of it



> Well I'm not familiar with the disposition of roleplaying game distribution in the Mediterranean I must be honest. I can only assume it will be 'as available' as any other d20 product...?




lol! mate its greece, it probably would be published in ruanda first for both its role players to buy btw what publisher will publish you?



> Not sure what you mean mate?




actually it cleared up later, i thought you used another system of leveling for epic levels, but you dont so its cool



> There are at least a dozen different ways to pimp slap the Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon when you are 200th-level and sans magic items.




hell yeah! it was late at the time and was bored to figure oute everything, but i did later and an 130 streangth is very very reasonable (actually an 180 is reasonable also), along with an incredible amount of hit points.  and still having feats to spare


----------



## poilbrun

*Re: upper_kase*



			
				Zulkir said:
			
		

> *We couldn't be happier and are looking to expand the license not contract it. Thus when d20 Modern releases in November it will be SRDed immediately and a number of companies will have material and/or settings to support it. In addition, we hope to have the PH, DMG, MM and PsiHB all finalized in the SRD by November and then we will likely add another cap system book (we are still taking suggestions).*



Originally posted in this thread : http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27321
It seems we'll have to wait a little before seeing the IH...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Upper Krust, I have a serious problem with the idea of something supposedly smarter than the group of us combined not being aware of the tactics that could be used against it.*




I doubt a dragon would consider such an opponent a threat (you can't detect levels after all). An attacker/defender without magic items would probably lull it into a false sense of security; at least for one round...which is all thats needed.

That said epic dragon ability scores are ridiculous: more intelligent than Thoth; wiser than Odin; more charismatic than Aphrodite...I don't think so.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *A Prismatic dragon of that level is going to have the spells and items necessary to deal with those kinds of problems, and various Sunder feats, etc.*




Then have it try and deal with him.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *The effect you are referring to is the Power Critical combined with the Devastating critical feat, right?  It can't even work with a bow, so he needs a close range weapon, how is he going to ever get that close without magic items? *




He only needs to melee to kill it with one hit. 

Regardless, he is either still going to kill it or its going to fly away. I don't think the dragon could do more than fluke a victory in this instance.

...and remember this is all without ANY magic items!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: upper_kase*

Hello again mate! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *if i had would you remember it? i most certainly did, but since neither you or me remember it it never took place its all a big messy mater of plane of refference i tell ya!*




I have a terrible memory - so I probably wouldn't remember if it had been a fleeting conversation, sorry. 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *i sure do remember it, actually it was the first text i ever read in this forum, i am an avid reader ever since  *




Hey! You never forget your first text...as they say. 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *i hope i know become an avid contributor as well  *




Its always interesting to hear peoples points of view.



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *at the time i thought wizards of the coast would be foolish not using such a marvelous system. now i dont think it, i am sure of it  *




They were offered (about a year before Deities & Demigods was released); though at that time they already had the book finalised. 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *lol! mate its greece, it probably would be published in ruanda first for both its role players to buy  *




Greece probably gets RPG material before I see it here in Northern Ireland. 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *btw what publisher will publish you?*




I'll reveal that when I can give an official release date.



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *actually it cleared up later, i thought you used another system of leveling for epic levels, but you dont so its cool.*




Okay.



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *hell yeah! it was late at the time and was bored to figure oute everything, but i did later and an 130 streangth is very very reasonable (actually an 180 is reasonable also), along with an incredible amount of hit points.  and still having feats to spare *




Even without magic items you have so many options at that level of power its ridiculous.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Originally posted in this thread : http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27321
> It seems we'll have to wait a little before seeing the IH...  *




I saw that post from AV. I emailed him last night. It might be a few days before I get a reply (?) I'll let you know what transpires before any wrist slashing takes place.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Epiphany*

Hi all! 

I was pondering over the best course of action to take in the event that Deities & Demigods doesn't enter the System reference Document until sometime in 2003.

I reviewed a number of elements and I now believe (with a few minor modifications) I won't need to use ANY material from Deities & Demigods. However, theres a catch. Without the Epic Level Handbook to draw upon I won't be able to include any working examples of deities.* So I still need that book to enter the SRD.

*I have a roundabout solution to this too but I am not happy with it.

The changes I have made are the removal of Divine Rank (don't worry you won't miss it) a reworking of all Divine Powers and a reshaping of some of the central divine templates.

Divine Ranks are dropped in favour of a return to Divine Status. I will of course include a sidebar explaining how you can break things down into 'Divine Levels' if you wish. 

Divine Powers are reworked (something I realised I was virtually doing anyway so why not go all the way). Most of the abilities in D&Dg are generic anyway so expect a number of divine powers akin to salient divine abilities covering the basics.

Divine Templates don't require much reworking since I had already deviated from their ideas on a number of issues.

Any comments?


----------



## poilbrun

*Re: Epiphany*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> I was pondering over the best course of action to take in the event that Deities & Demigods doesn't enter the System reference Document until sometime in 2003.
> 
> I reviewed a number of elements and I now believe (with a few minor modifications) I won't need to use ANY material from Deities & Demigods. However, theres a catch. Without the Epic Level Handbook to draw upon I won't be able to include any working examples of deities.* So I still need that book to enter the SRD.
> 
> *I have a roundabout solution to this too but I am not happy with it.
> 
> The changes I have made are the removal of Divine Rank (don't worry you won't miss it) a reworking of all Divine Powers and a reshaping of some of the central divine templates.
> 
> Divine Ranks are dropped in favour of a return to Divine Status. I will of course include a sidebar explaining how you can break things down into 'Divine Levels' if you wish.
> 
> Divine Powers are reworked (something I realised I was virtually doing anyway so why not go all the way). Most of the abilities in D&Dg are generic anyway so expect a number of divine powers akin to salient divine abilities covering the basics.
> 
> Divine Templates don't require much reworking since I had already deviated from their ideas on a number of issues.
> 
> Any comments? *



Does this mean you've received an answer from AV and that it isn't very positive for the IH?  

Anyway, I would prefer if the IH was easily compatible with D&Dg (read - if I don't have too much time to spend to work with the deities inside D&Dg), but I'd also like to see the work sooner rather than later. As I said before, maybe a PDF version not compatible with D&Dg that could be updated to be compatible once D&Dg enters the SRD, and a compatible print version?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Epiphany*

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Does this mean you've received an answer from AV and that it isn't very positive for the IH?  *




No I haven't heard from AV yet. Simply that the circumstances made me postulate such a 'what if' scenario and I was happy with my solution.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I would prefer if the IH was easily compatible with D&Dg (read - if I don't have too much time to spend to work with the deities inside D&Dg), but I'd also like to see the work sooner rather than later. As I said before, maybe a PDF version not compatible with D&Dg that could be updated to be compatible once D&Dg enters the SRD, and a compatible print version?  *




Actually the way I have it set up its still pretty much compatible with D&Dg with the exception of a few minor modifications I was advocating anyway. 

Instead of having to errata fully a third of the SDAs in the book I am just rewriting them all. That way I can also cut out the obsolete ones as well. It also saves me having to assign an EX or SU moniker to a big list of SDAs.

So any actual difference will be negligable. I have also noticed everything becomes a lot simpler to generate and modify.

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.


----------



## poilbrun

*Re: Re: Epiphany*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Actually the way I have it set up its still pretty much compatible with D&Dg with the exception of a few minor modifications I was advocating anyway.
> 
> Instead of having to errata fully a third of the SDAs in the book I am just rewriting them all. That way I can also cut out the obsolete ones as well. It also saves me having to assign an EX or SU moniker to a big list of SDAs.
> 
> So any actual difference will be negligable. I have also noticed everything becomes a lot simpler to generate and modify.
> 
> Trust me, I know what I'm doing.  *



Then, publish it tomorrow, what are you waiting for!  

Seriously, though, if it means it'll be even easier, then by all means, publish it like that. That'll enable us to see it sooner, and if it is easier to use, that will be even better...


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Are you ready for todays edification? If so then I'll begin...
> 
> Out of the 167 (or so) Feats available you need Power Attack; Power Critical and Devastating Critical (naturally with all prereqs) . Hit, and the opponent has to make a save with a DC of 110+STR Bonus (on average lets say about 130).
> 
> The attack is virtually a guaranteed to hit; critical and deliver at least 61 damage - thats not counting the fact that you could have easily taken the Penetrate Damage Reduction Feat ten times over. Or buffed your strength up considerably. Or used Power Attack. Or stacked the Epic Prowess feat dozens of times and used even more on the Power Attack. Or any of the myriad other options.
> 
> You could also take the Damage Reduction; Spell Resistance and Fast Healing Feats forty times each just for fun.
> 
> DR 120/-
> SR 80
> FH 120
> 
> Any way you slice it the end result is a dead Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon.
> 
> Do you concede the point!?
> *




So you advocate that Devastating Critical, a feat which you yourself have said should be toned down a little, be the balancing factor for Epic characters?

Seems to be kinda fishy to me.  Besides, not all characters will have Devastating Critical.  Also, it's hard to hit something that can fly over your head and smack you around while you can do nothing to strike back . . . I think that kills your little idea . . .


----------



## Anubis

On a side note, I have thought about the SR issue, and I think perhaps it SHOULD be based on CR and not ECL.  Make caster level checks for SR and dispel be based on spellcaster SR, and base SR itself on actual CR, and SR actually continues to be useful.

As for the wealth issue, until you can come up with a system of limiting wealth that actually works for ALL campaigns, and actually let us know what it is, I will not be convinced that you know the answer.

Now on to the next issue . . . I said previously:

"On top of that, you have to have a standard to go by, and a simple formula, and you're just not coming up with one. Yeah, you have formulas for the wealth, but as of yet, you have not given ANY formula or standard to limit magic items."

Your reply was:

"Both the DMG and the ELH already have a standard for this. Thats why I never mentioned it."

The problem I have with that statement is simply that YOU advocate going up AGAINST the standard presented by the DMG and the ELH.  The ELH states that character can have up to three items worth between 10-20% of their wealth.  You advocate getting rid of that rule altogether.

So again, I will ask, what standard do you propose to FAIRLY limit magic items after a certain point?


----------



## Anubis

One more thing . . . When will you be able to get around to judging the base ECL/CR of the Saiyan race I posted?  This isn't just for me, but for all those interested in using Saiyans.  This is vitally important.

Anyway, thanks in advance.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Yes!  Post it tomorrow!  Or send me an advance copy and I'll send you money!


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Out of the 167 (or so) Feats available you need Power Attack; Power Critical and Devastating Critical (naturally with all prereqs) . Hit, and the opponent has to make a save with a DC of 110+STR Bonus (on average lets say about 130).
> 
> The attack is virtually a guaranteed to hit; critical and deliver at least 61 damage - thats not counting the fact that you could have easily taken the Penetrate Damage Reduction Feat ten times over. Or buffed your strength up considerably. Or used Power Attack. Or stacked the Epic Prowess feat dozens of times and used even more on the Power Attack. Or any of the myriad other options.
> *




By the way, sorry to nitpick, but . . .

Power Attack is limited by the base attack bonus, which stops increasing at Level 20.  (The ELH *only* allows the epic bonus to stack with the base attack bonus for purposes of feat prerequisites.)

Another note is that Penetrate Damage Reduction can only be taken once.


----------



## Xeriar

Upper Krust, the fighter can't take SR because he doesn't start with it, and can only take penetrate damage reduction once, by the rules.

In addition to the spells and magic items that negate critical hits, stop death effects, and make one-hit-wonders a far cry from a sure shot (even Mirror Image), there are also three spells - Maze, Legend Lore and Imprisonment, that can let the dragon take care of the fighter without so much as a saving throw.


----------



## epote

*200lv*

i dont have phb or elh with me right now (damn those players) but doesnt imprisoment need a touch atack? if it does how does the dragon would manage that?

i mean 170 feats is 170 feats plus he gets +50 to stats due to levels, and with a 16 con (wich most defently wont be 16 at 200 level!) he has 600 hit points only out the bonuses

so if he has something like +40 to dex and con (thats realy realy reasonable!!) he realy has ALOT of hp's (lets say at 56 con ( and an average 6 hp per level due to the dice) he has 200*6+200*21 to a total of 5400 hp the guy is moving mountain for crying out loud! (lol you could always Harm his ass of)

so we have left with +10 wich goes to a 14 dex along with an aditional +30 feat bonuses, to a 54 dex (+20) put some exceptional misile reflection (or what its called) along with that other feat that substructs 20 from your atack to put to your ac (fighting defesinvly) to a 50 ac (at least because i dont remember the feats) although at that level he sould already have ridicilusly high SR due to feats (where does it mention you sould already hav SR to take that feat?!)

i will make a 200lv fighter with no magic equipment when i get the time


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Epiphany*

Hi guys! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Then, publish it tomorrow, what are you waiting for!
> 
> Seriously, though, if it means it'll be even easier, then by all means, publish it like that. That'll enable us to see it sooner, and if it is easier to use, that will be even better... *






			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Yes! Post it tomorrow! Or send me an advance copy and I'll send you money!*




If only it were that simple. 

Like I said I don't think its a wise move to publish devoid of examples. So I still technically need the ELH in the SRD (I have a suspicion that it is more likely to be entered than D&Dg though).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So you advocate that Devastating Critical, a feat which you yourself have said should be toned down a little, be the balancing factor for Epic characters? *




Actually your confused (again) its Annihilating Strike thats broken, NOT Devastating Critical.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Seems to be kinda fishy to me.  Besides, not all characters will have Devastating Critical.*




Its pretty much guaranteed all 200th-level Barbarians; Fighters and Paladins will have it (Rangers have Death of Enemies).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, it's hard to hit something that can fly over your head and smack you around while you can do nothing to strike back . . . I think that kills your little idea . . . *




Am I not allowed any missile weapons now as well? 

Whats the next handicap. A 200th-level Wizard in an Anti-Magic Room with a dozen Hecatonchieres? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On a side note, I have thought about the SR issue, and I think perhaps it SHOULD be based on CR and not ECL. Make caster level checks for SR and dispel be based on spellcaster SR, and base SR itself on actual CR, and SR actually continues to be useful.*




I'm not sure yet if its wise to mess around with Spell Resistance?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for the wealth issue, until you can come up with a system of limiting wealth that actually works for ALL campaigns, and actually let us know what it is, I will not be convinced that you know the answer.*




I already did.

Seemingly either I'm not explaining it right (if so, sorry) or you're just not getting it? 

What mechanics or philosophy don't you understand?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now on to the next issue . . . I said previously:
> 
> "On top of that, you have to have a standard to go by, and a simple formula, and you're just not coming up with one. Yeah, you have formulas for the wealth, but as of yet, you have not given ANY formula or standard to limit magic items."
> 
> Your reply was:
> 
> "Both the DMG and the ELH already have a standard for this. Thats why I never mentioned it."
> 
> The problem I have with that statement is simply that YOU advocate going up AGAINST the standard presented by the DMG and the ELH. The ELH states that character can have up to three items worth between 10-20% of their wealth. You advocate getting rid of that rule altogether.
> 
> So again, I will ask, what standard do you propose to FAIRLY limit magic items after a certain point?*




I advocate using the '3 items between 10-25% rule' for my Personal Equipment Table (CR^3 x 100 GP). 

Since you already started the 200th-level character vs. a Prismatic Great Wyrm and used this exact formula to outline personal equipment I thought that much was obvious (my apologies if it wasn't).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *One more thing . . . When will you be able to get around to judging the base ECL/CR of the Saiyan race I posted? This isn't just for me, but for all those interested in using Saiyans. This is vitally important.*




I'll do it after I finish with this thread.

We sorted the half-saiyan and the different flavours of super-saiyans right!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, thanks in advance.*




No problem mate, sorry for my tardiness. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, sorry to nitpick, but . . .*




I wouldn't mind the nitpicks so much if they were ever right... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Power Attack is limited by the base attack bonus, which stops increasing at Level 20. (The ELH *only* allows the epic bonus to stack with the base attack bonus for purposes of feat prerequisites.)*




Actually if you had read the recent Epic Level Handbook Chat Night Transcript at Wizards site you would know that in the errata they are going to absorb EAB into BAB (to avoid confusion) and simply cap attacks at #4.

Also it makes no sense to allow monsters to have massive power attacks and not characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Another note is that Penetrate Damage Reduction can only be taken once.*




I don't see why? (though in fairness the ELH should have made it clear one way or the other that it either stacks or doesn't stack rather than simply leaving it blank)

The fact that it actually stacks with both _ki strike_ and magic weapons would seem to favour that it does in fact stack...and I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed to do so anyway!?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Upper Krust, the fighter can't take SR because he doesn't start with it,*




That rule seems somewhat irrelevant considering you could likely give yourself permanent Spell Resistance 1 using a wish (or two?) then start taking the feats.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *and can only take penetrate damage reduction once, by the rules.*




I must have missed where it specifically says this? Can you help me out? 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *In addition to the spells and magic items that negate critical hits, stop death effects, and make one-hit-wonders a far cry from a sure shot (even Mirror Image), there are also three spells - Maze, Legend Lore and Imprisonment, that can let the dragon take care of the fighter without so much as a saving throw. *




I am curious to hear how it protects itself versus critical hits? Not saying it couldn't be done, just interested to hear how? 

- Mirror Image is defeated by a Spot Check of 80.
- Maze won't kill the Fighter just delay the inevitable.
- Legend Lore: not exactly a spell to cast in combat and regardless won't kill the Fighter, simply lets the dragon know why it should run away.
- Imprisonment requires a touch attack.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: 200lv*

Hi epote mate! 



			
				epote said:
			
		

> *so if he has something like +40 to dex and con (thats realy realy reasonable!!) he realy has ALOT of hp's (lets say at 56 con ( and an average 6 hp per level due to the dice) he has 200*6+200*21 to a total of 5400 hp the guy is moving mountain for crying out loud! (lol you could always Harm his ass off   )*




Harm (and Heal too) is broken. Expect revisions in the IH.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I must have missed where it specifically says this? Can you help me out? *



Any feat that doesn't specifically say that it can be taken multiple times cannot be taken multiple times.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Any feat that doesn't specifically say that it can be taken multiple times cannot be taken multiple times.  *




Thanks! I must have missed that.

I was having second thoughts about that one anyway after double checking Improved _Ki Strike_ which does much the same thing as Penetrate Damage Reduction; does stack, yet is only half the power.

Fortunately that wasn't essential to my Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon chastisement!


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: 200lv*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Harm (and Heal too) is broken. Expect revisions in the IH.  *




I hope your revisions are better than the others proposed here, ridiculous things such as a flat save for half or that are UNPRECEDENTED by the rules such as limits of 10 hp/level, limiting the damage of a save to not go below 4 hp, and other such silly things.

Maybe something such as, for Heal, restores you to 240 hp or full, whichever is lower.  For Harm, perhaps reduce you to 1 hp or deal 240 damage, whichever is less.

Just PLEASE don't do one of those ridiculous set hp per level formulas or ones that limit by number AND damage.  The above would be my personal solution.  I once advocated a simple saving throw "for half damage or 100 damage, whichever is less" with no limit to heal, but seeing now how many hp Epic characters can have, I see that there is a need to limit it.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Actually if you had read the recent Epic Level Handbook Chat Night Transcript at Wizards site you would know that in the errata they are going to absorb EAB into BAB (to avoid confusion) and simply cap attacks at #4.
> *




Well, I never pay attention to chats and such, because those aren't official.  When I see the errata, then I'll accept it.  Personally, I think such a thing would have ups and downs.  I would suggest instead to have an Improved Power Attack that allows you BAB and EAB, similar to the new feat that makes Expertise unlimited.  (I can't recall the name of that one, though.)


----------



## Anubis

This message was originally about the Penetrate Damage Reduction thing, but I see that Knight Otu got to it before I did.  

Anyway, now that that's settled . . .

UK, feel free to use any or all of the feats in my "Big Book of Feats" in the IH.  Just make sure to note me (Brandon Harwell) in the credits.  

Just a preview, I totally fixed the entire Toughness chain of feats, dealth with death and dying in a way that is far more realistic than the core rules, and I also have a bunch of custom feats that treat KI the correct way (basing it on Con and hp instead of Wis).  Go check it out, I've already tested them all for balance, and they come out with a clean bill of health!

Besides, I would like to see some of my work published, even if not in my own work.  So like I said, feel free to include them.  Whatever we disagree on about wealth and ECL, I think you'll find those feats not only satisfactory, but even perfect.


----------



## Knight Otu

Anubis, I'm pretty sure that there is only a feat that allows you to ignore the +5/-5 limitation on Expertise, nothing more. Are you thinking of this one?


----------



## Anubis

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Anubis, I'm pretty sure that there is only a feat that allows you to ignore the +5/-5 limitation on Expertise, nothing more. Are you thinking of this one? *




Yep, that's what I said.  The new feat that takes away the limit on Expertise.  I can't remember the name of the feat, though.


----------



## Knight Otu

I believe that would be Improved Expertise, and if I'm not totally mistaken, it is still limited by BAB. (Not having the book in front of my, I'm only 60% sure, though)


----------



## Xeriar

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Xeriar mate!
> 
> That rule seems somewhat irrelevant considering you could likely give yourself permanent Spell Resistance 1 using a wish (or two?) then start taking the feats.




He gets no magic items - no magic period.  If you start throwing this type of thing into the situation, the Prismatic Dragon has to get equal benefit from this type of thing, and it spirals into giving him magic items anyway.

Plus, the dragon could wish the original away as well.



> I must have missed where it specifically says this? Can you help me out?




In the PHB - unless a feat specifically says it may be taken more than once, it may only be taken once.

Oddly enough, this arguement is about the fighter - the monk or even the ranger would have fewer issues of this type.



> I am curious to hear how it protects itself versus critical hits? Not saying it couldn't be done, just interested to hear how?




The spell Iron Body, in the PHB, does it, albeit with penalties.  There are other spells from less official sources as well, of course.  By rights, the dragon should have an item granting it the same properties that Heavy Fortification does (as per armors in the DMG).



> - Mirror Image is defeated by a Spot Check of 80.




I was just listing an example - it is one of a number of spells, blink, etc.



> - Maze won't kill the Fighter just delay the inevitable.




It lets the dragon escape, and assuming it did not know such things as required already, cast:



> - Legend Lore: not exactly a spell to cast in combat and regardless won't kill the Fighter, simply lets the dragon know why it should run away.




In order to let the dragon prepare itself spell-wise, and cast:



> - Imprisonment requires a touch attack.




Which the fighter, even at level 200, is going to have a hard time being prepared for.  The dragon gets to rack up its attack bonus to ridiculously high levels, with spells like True Strike and Limited wish alone, its attack bonus starts at +78 before strength modifiers, +20 from true strike, +20 from limited wish, +31 from strength,  in addition to whatever other minor buffing spells it may choose to use on itself, and other feats/epic abilities.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hope your revisions are better than the others proposed here, ridiculous things such as a flat save for half or that are UNPRECEDENTED by the rules such as limits of 10 hp/level, limiting the damage of a save to not go below 4 hp, and other such silly things.
> 
> Maybe something such as, for Heal, restores you to 240 hp or full, whichever is lower.  For Harm, perhaps reduce you to 1 hp or deal 240 damage, whichever is less.
> 
> Just PLEASE don't do one of those ridiculous set hp per level formulas or ones that limit by number AND damage.  The above would be my personal solution.  I once advocated a simple saving throw "for half damage or 100 damage, whichever is less" with no limit to heal, but seeing now how many hp Epic characters can have, I see that there is a need to limit it. *




I essentially want to get Heal and Harm balanced with similar spells.

Since, as you and I both know, unlike realistic elements, unrealistic elements (such as magic) can be determined by balance alone! 

I am toying with the idea of 1d8/level - if we apply that to the reverse of Mass Heal (Mass Harm) at 8th-level you get something akin to Horrid Wilting but without the saving throw (though admittedly the range/area is less). So that might work?

I am also considering a Fast Healing (9th-level) spell (and its reverse which I hope to name something other than Fast Harming) that lets you heal 1/level/round for an amount of time I have not yet decided upon.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, feel free to use any or all of the feats in my "Big Book of Feats" in the IH.*




Hey! Thanks! 

At one stage I had somewhere close to 200 feats in the IH but I have either amalgamated them into various divine powers or seen identical feats detailed within the ELH.

eg. They have Spectral Strike and I had the exact same feat called Blind Faith. 

So I am not sure if theres a place for feats (in any great numbers at least) but I may change my mind if I see anything that tickles my fancy. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Just make sure to note me (Brandon Harwell) in the credits.*




Hey you were already going into my credits for helping me with the whole CR/ECL matter.  



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Just a preview, I totally fixed the entire Toughness chain of feats, dealth with death and dying in a way that is far more realistic than the core rules, and I also have a bunch of custom feats that treat KI the correct way (basing it on Con and hp instead of Wis). Go check it out, I've already tested them all for balance, and they come out with a clean bill of health!*




Sounds interesting.

I checked the thread out before - I seem to recall a large number of feats you were using in your DragonballZ antics.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Besides, I would like to see some of my work published, even if not in my own work.*




I know what you mean - I'd like to see some of my work published too! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So like I said, feel free to include them.*




I appreciate the offer mate. I'll get back to you.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Whatever we disagree on about wealth and ECL,*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think you'll find those feats not only satisfactory, but even perfect. *




At the very least your enthusiasm always brings a smile to my face mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *He gets no magic items - no magic period.*




Well you don't get to 200th-level living in a bubble! 

However, I'll humour you - since otherwise you don't even have a whisker of a chance.

But I initially stated 'with no magic items', thats not to say he doesn't own them; simply that he doesn't have them with him.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *If you start throwing this type of thing into the situation, the Prismatic Dragon has to get equal benefit from this type of thing, and it spirals into giving him magic items anyway.*




Seemingly you are already giving the Prismatic Dragon 'equal benefit' with its immunity to critical hits.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Plus, the dragon could wish the original away as well.*




Really!? How would it beat his Spell Resistance to do so!? 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *In the PHB - unless a feat specifically says it may be taken more than once, it may only be taken once.*




Thanks.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Oddly enough, this arguement is about the fighter - the monk or even the ranger would have fewer issues of this type.*




Have you extrapolated a 200th-level Monk or Ranger - they are just as frightening!



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *There are other spells from less official sources as well, of course.*




Naturally. In that case there may be feats from other sources too! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *By rights, the dragon should have an item granting it the same properties that Heavy Fortification does (as per armors in the DMG).*




In my estimation non-standard items levels out with the Fighter having Spell Resistance.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Which the fighter, even at level 200, is going to have a hard time being prepared for.  The dragon gets to rack up its attack bonus to ridiculously high levels, with spells like True Strike and Limited wish alone, its attack bonus starts at +78 before strength modifiers, +20 from true strike, +20 from limited wish, +31 from strength,  in addition to whatever other minor buffing spells it may choose to use on itself, and other feats/epic abilities. *




I'm not really concerned about the dragons attacks. 

Seemingly Imprisonment is the only shadow of a chance (provided the Fighter doesn't have Spell Resistance) the dragon has.

If we start buffing the dragon with non-standard items AND disallow the Fighter any Spell Resistance then hes seemingly going to succumb to the Imprisonment spell* before he can effectively eliminate the dragon.

*which doesn't actually kill the Fighter lets add! 

Any other way you slice it the Fighter wins, devoid of any magic items. Of course the initial supposition was that even with their items (assigned under the auspices of my equipment formula) a 200th-level character could NEVER defeat a Great Prismatic Wyrm - something I have categorically proven to be inaccurate.


----------



## Xeriar

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Xeriar mate!
> 
> Well you don't get to 200th-level living in a bubble!




Well, you don't get to 200th level much at all, period .  It wasn't my number, anyway.  A hundredth-level character would be more definate.



> However, I'll humour you - since otherwise you don't even have a whisker of a chance.




If given nonstandard items, the dragon has different chances.  Dropping the fighter in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and preventing his access to food or water for one 



> But I initially stated 'with no magic items', thats not to say he doesn't own them; simply that he doesn't have them with him.




This was Anubis's deal.  You kinda hafta construct the fighter to beat the Dragon, rather than have just any odd assortmant of feats.



> Seemingly you are already giving the Prismatic Dragon 'equal benefit' with its immunity to critical hits.




Not exactly -  if we're to assume that said dragon has his treasure, or with his auto-sorcerer levels knows a spell that grants him immunity to critical hits.



> Really!? How would it beat his Spell Resistance to do so!?




Not all spells are affected by spell resistance - Maze, etc.

Especially as the spell is targetting spell resistance itself   Wishes can restore Dead Magic Feilds in FR - why do they need to be subject to SR?



> Have you extrapolated a 200th-level Monk or Ranger - they are just as frightening!




The Ranger is nasty because he can get around the critical hits, and has that auto-bane feat.  The Monk is just... wrong. 



> Naturally. In that case there may be feats from other sources too!




True dat, I think this would be a more applicable source of the original spell resistance, myself.



> In my estimation non-standard items levels out with the Fighter having Spell Resistance.




Without the ability to deal critical hits, the fighter and the dragon are at an impasse - they still can damage eachother, but the damage is meaningless.  In order to damage the dragon, the fighter has to sacrifice too much of his BAB to hit often enough, and of course whatever damage the dragon's breath deals the poor sap is going to get healed in short order anyway.



> I'm not really concerned about the dragons attacks.




The dragon has a vast array of abilities available to it, I don't think the fighter could say, both spot illusions and break through a Wall of Force, and all the other neat tricks the dragon could pull off...



> Seemingly Imprisonment is the only shadow of a chance (provided the Fighter doesn't have Spell Resistance) the dragon has.




Wall of Force, pemenance, then let him starve to death 



> If we start buffing the dragon with non-standard items AND disallow the Fighter any Spell Resistance then hes seemingly going to succumb to the Imprisonment spell* before he can effectively eliminate the dragon.




He doesn't need non-standard spells or items, jjust Iron Body.



> *which doesn't actually kill the Fighter lets add!




Nope, unfortunately, but it gives the dragon an eternity to prepare something the fighter can't deal with.



> Any other way you slice it the Fighter wins, devoid of any magic items. Of course the initial supposition was that even with their items (assigned under the auspices of my equipment formula) a 200th-level character could NEVER defeat a Great Prismatic Wyrm - something I have categorically proven to be inaccurate.




I did not make that claim - but you made it out to be far easier than it would actually be.


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Re: 200lv*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I hope your revisions are better than the others proposed here, ridiculous things such as a flat save for half or that are UNPRECEDENTED by the rules such as limits of 10 hp/level, limiting the damage of a save to not go below 4 hp, and other such silly things.
> *




This attitude really annoys me - why does something being  UNPRECEDENTED (nice use of caps) make it unworthy of consideration?  Everything's unprecedented until it's been tried.  But if you want to stick close to 'precedent', simply apply the DMG's own by-level damage caps for clerical spells, so Harm cast at 6th level does max 15d6 dmg as per pg 96 DMG.
Personally I think an uncapped 10hp/level would work fine, UNPRECEDENTED though it is.


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Re: 200lv*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Maybe something such as, for Heal, restores you to 240 hp or full, whichever is lower.  For Harm, perhaps reduce you to 1 hp or deal 240 damage, whichever is less.
> 
> Just PLEASE don't do one of those ridiculous set hp per level formulas or ones that limit by number AND damage.  The above would be my personal solution.  I once advocated a simple saving throw "for half damage or 100 damage, whichever is less" with no limit to heal, but seeing now how many hp Epic characters can have, I see that there is a need to limit it. *




Oh, and what's the PRECEDENT for this, anyway?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Well, you don't get to 200th level much at all, period . *




Agreed! 

Though I'll make it someday! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *It wasn't my number, anyway.  A hundredth-level character would be more definate.*




Yes. A Prismatic Great Wyrm is (approx.) ECL 100/CR42. A 100th-level PC (with items) would be slightly higher ECL (thanks to ability scores) but maybe not more than CR43 (unless they averaged 30+ on their scores?).

More or less a 50/50 encounter.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *If given nonstandard items, the dragon has different chances. *




Depending on the items yes.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Dropping the fighter in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and preventing his access to food or water for one  *




You mean the dragon was able to teleport him to the planet Earth!? 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *This was Anubis's deal.  You kinda hafta construct the fighter to beat the Dragon, rather than have just any odd assortmant of feats.*




Not necessarily. 

At about 60th-level the Fighter is going to have all the relevant feats in both the PHB and ELH. So essentially whats left are the stackable feats.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Not exactly -  if we're to assume that said dragon has his treasure, or with his auto-sorcerer levels knows a spell that grants him immunity to critical hits.*




I'm sure theres one out there somewhere.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Not all spells are affected by spell resistance - Maze, etc.
> 
> Especially as the spell is targetting spell resistance itself   Wishes can restore Dead Magic Feilds in FR - why do they need to be subject to SR?*




Dead Magic Fields are simply permanent extensions of Anti-Magic.

In my opinion you still need to overcome a creatures SR to indulge in such an enterprise.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *The Ranger is nasty because he can get around the critical hits, and has that auto-bane feat.  The Monk is just... wrong.*




The Monk does seem somewhat over the top. Notably its Spell Resistance - this should perhaps be +1/2 Levels above 20th (same with the Drow)



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *True dat, I think this would be a more applicable source of the original spell resistance, myself.*




I just think the Improved Spell Resistance feat in the ELH is badly worded, the 'Improved' is just a stalling tactic. Personally I would just let this affect any (epic) character or creature - you could explain it as a resistance built up over the years (and levels) of encountering and being struck by magic.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Without the ability to deal critical hits, the fighter and the dragon are at an impasse - they still can damage each other, but the damage is meaningless.  In order to damage the dragon, the fighter has to sacrifice too much of his BAB to hit often enough, and of course whatever damage the dragon's breath deals the poor sap is going to get healed in short order anyway.*




As far as I can tell, unless you really set about min/maxing the fighters strength hes going to be lucky to deal 100 Dmg/Round (assuming 50 strength).

But the dragon is going to be lucky to do any damage!

Even so the dragon can likely retreat before facing serious problems.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *The dragon has a vast array of abilities available to it, I don't think the fighter could say, both spot illusions and break through a Wall of Force, and all the other neat tricks the dragon could pull off...
> 
> Wall of Force, pemenance, then let him starve to death *




Yes I recently noticed the annoyance of the Wall of Force stall tactic first hand. 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *He doesn't need non-standard spells or items, jjust Iron Body.*




With Iron Body in effect theres no way the Dragon would be able to fly and with its move already halved the Fighter would be far more fleet of foot. Also the Dragon now has spell failure chance of 50%! Not sure how much of a boon that really grants under the circumstances.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *I did not make that claim - but you made it out to be far easier than it would actually be. *




I simply stated the Fighter (devoid of Magic Items) could kill a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon in one hit - which is true.

Of course the great thing about high-level gaming is the variety of powers available. Rarely are things ever guaranteed one way or the other (Hence the slowdown in CR).


----------



## -Eä-

*HaY*

Greetings, all!

I hope you are all keeping well and prosper privately (-:



I see you have come to a conclusion regarding chracter wealth, and while I heartily disagree with your conclusion, I can see the logic behind it. I just hope it won't be a major issue of the given examples that you will provide in the IH, for that would make the process lengthy for us using another wealth system to assign appropriate amounts of wealth to a given character. Personally I'm considering a new system that is adaptable to heritage and such (you just change the constants). 
In my opinion there should be a separate book containing rules for character wealth and medieval economics and magic's influence on that... Actually, I'm considering taking a half-semester course on mathematical economics, for the processes behind are quite intriguing, and perhaps it'll help me privately as well (-; But I will probably not have the time.

What I'm concerned about is SR and penetration of that. I think there should be som link to CR in this, or else the variations would be too great to estimate and there would only be a slim chance (that only gets slimmer at higher levels) that a random spellcaster would have the chance to penetrate the SR of a creature/character with approximatelly the same CR. Penetration should also have a link, in that case, so that the variations will remain more or less the same as in the first 20-30 levels. Also: if this isn't adressed, a whole lot of feats will be useless at higher levels, at they will only affect the variations marginally. Hopefully this can be solved easily with a link to CR, but I'm not sure... There are very many aspects to account for when considering such a thing, so if there is to be a change, be sure to adress all implications first.

By the way, the 168 feats a fighter of level 200 gets is more than the qualities that the prismatic dragon possesses. Chosen at random, he would probably have a fair chance beating it, considering the fact that the diversity is a great advantage.

I guess there will some more things to consider, eventually, but I want to congratulate Upper Krust and Anubis on the great work on ECLs. I think it's most vital to have a system like that. Have you asked WotC about making it official? (The ECL part, that is)


----------



## Anubis

Wall of Force IS quite nifty, ain't it?  

Hey, Ea, which of our systems were you disagreeing with?  Was it my (ECL^2)*10000 system, of UK's multiple system of (ECL^3)*100 and (CR^3)*100?

I do believe that UK's system is way off, as it gives too much wealth of any sort to characters of Levels 100+.  By the way, UK, there is another reason I do not like the system you proposed.  By your system, a character at Level 80 will have the SAME amount of personaly equipment as someone at Level 87, which I think highly inaccurate.

If you made some special calculation that would take fractions of a CR into account (such as ECL 80=CR 40, ECL 81=CR 40.125, ECL 82=CR 40.250, etc.) for purposes of determining wealth, then your system may be able to work, because the personal equipment numbers would be close to the numbers that I got, if not lower, which would balance things decently as long as there are new feats that can emulate some magical item powers.



Moving on to the SR, I have agreed with Ea from the beginning.  Take for instance a Level 160 character, who is CR 50.  If he tries to cast a spell at a Level 175 character with SR 185, he has almost no chance of breaking through the SR, and only a minimal chance with various feats added.  Another level 175 character with the same feats, however, would almost never fail in breaking through the SR.  Yet these two are the exact same SR.

This means the whole system breaks down once you're in triple-digit levels, even though it is still starting to break down around Level 50.

What I have proposed is make all caster level numbers for SR a function of CR instead of Level.  Base all SR on the CR of the creature (for instance, make a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon SR 50 or so since it is about CR 45).  Next, make the caster level check for penetrating SR based on the CR of the spellcasting class (a Level 100 Wizard is CR 42, so the check would be 1d20+42).  For multi-classed characters, take the CR function of only the spellcasting class (for instance, a Ftr50/Wiz100 would still have CR 42 in the spellcasting class, and thus make a check at 1d20+42, regardless of when those wizard levels are gained).

On a side note, I highly suggest doing the same thing to dispel checks.  If you don't, a CR 50 Level 160 Wizard would have no chance of dispelling magic cast by a Level 175 Wizard, despite the CR being exactly the same.  Basically, make all caster level checks a function of CR, regardless of what the check is for.

Note, however, that the actual caster level for spells is still the level, so spells wouldn't lose any power under this rule.



By the way, UK, I posted a question for you on the Saiyans thread.  I'm still trying to perfect things, you know how it is!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: HaY*



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings, all!*




Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I hope you are all keeping well and prosper privately (-:*








			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I see you have come to a conclusion regarding chracter wealth,*




Unless someone can point out some frailty in either the mechanic or philosophy involved...anyone?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *and while I heartily disagree with your conclusion,*




I can see some players disagreeing with (since the power of the items they recieve is lessened) but not DMs.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I can see the logic behind it.*




Thanks mate. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I just hope it won't be a major issue of the given examples that you will provide in the IH, for that would make the process lengthy for us using another wealth system to assign appropriate amounts of wealth to a given character.*




Wealth is not relative to Artifacts (power or number) so I can't see how it will unduly affect the example deities.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Personally I'm considering a new system that is adaptable to heritage and such (you just change the constants).
> In my opinion there should be a separate book containing rules for character wealth and medieval economics and magic's influence on that... Actually, I'm considering taking a half-semester course on mathematical economics, for the processes behind are quite intriguing, and perhaps it'll help me privately as well (-; But I will probably not have the time.*




Time is ever against us! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *What I'm concerned about is SR and penetration of that. I think there should be som link to CR in this, or else the variations would be too great to estimate and there would only be a slim chance (that only gets slimmer at higher levels) that a random spellcaster would have the chance to penetrate the SR of a creature/character with approximatelly the same CR. Penetration should also have a link, in that case, so that the variations will remain more or less the same as in the first 20-30 levels. Also: if this isn't adressed, a whole lot of feats will be useless at higher levels, at they will only affect the variations marginally. Hopefully this can be solved easily with a link to CR, but I'm not sure... There are very many aspects to account for when considering such a thing, so if there is to be a change, be sure to adress all implications first.*




People are really blowing this perceived spell resistance 'problem' out of all proportion.

I remember (back in the old days) when people didn't give Magic Resistance (as it was called back then) a second thought!

Either you couldn't defeat it; you could defeat it or you had a chance of defeating it. Deal with it and move on.

In fact converting 1st Ed. to 3rd Ed. and a Greater God on their home plane only has SR35.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *By the way, the 168 feats a fighter of level 200 gets is more than the qualities that the prismatic dragon possesses. Chosen at random, he would probably have a fair chance beating it, considering the fact that the diversity is a great advantage.*




Absolutely.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I guess there will some more things to consider, eventually, but I want to congratulate Upper Krust and Anubis on the great work on ECLs. I think it's most vital to have a system like that.*




Its certainly vital when dealing with Immortals. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Have you asked WotC about making it official? (The ECL part, that is) *




I was thinking of maybe submitting it to Dragon Magazine...?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Upper_Krust.

Spell Resistance may not have been as big a deal before, and by before we're talking about 1st and 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons. We're thoroughly in the thick of 3rd edition at his point and Spell Resistance can make or break a character, especially with multiclassing becoming so prominent (spellcasters are everywhere now). So I think you’re absolutely wrong to make light of it.

I can't help but notice that you have developed a nasty "if-it's-promblematic-to-my-design-then-I'll-ignore-it-and-keep-pretending-that-my-system-is-perfect" attitude. People are dropping well researched data at your footsteps ("gifts" as I call them) that offer concrete proof indicating where exactly your system breaks down... but you choose to remain oblivious to it, claiming that people have yet to prove your theories wrong. How much more proof do you need?

Take off your blinders! These people have done all the hard work for you! If you have to hit the drafting boards again to make your system work, based on their research, then so be it. Your willful ignorance of late hasn't been flattering. Your latest statement about Spell Resistance only points that fact up.

What you are attempting to balance isn't easy (even through it might have looked that way at first) but "it is" worth doing. Assuming you're not exhausted yet, I don't know why you can't see the forest through the trees here. Your critics are your best allies. Start listening to them again. They're not trying to undo your work. They're trying to shore it up by pointing out the flaws. Now it's up to you. Fix the flaws.

Think of it like this. Why publish an imperfect system? What a waste of time that would be...


----------



## -Eä-

*On SR*

On wealth system: I think both yours and UK's system of calculating character wealth is broken, although the second part of UK's system CR^3*100 may actually work. ECL^3*100 is plain silly, in my opinion. Given that CR^3*100 is a wealth so that all this wealth may be used on a single item, it is kind of OK (for lower levels). ECL^2*10000 is ok at "lower levels" as well, but both systems break down to quickly in my opinion. In fact, the simple 5*CR^4 breaks down after approximatelly 160 levels, which isn't that bad. The system I'm currently using is one that requires a calculator, but at least the system never breaks down. The more simple way of my system is given by
9375*2^(1/2*(7 + Sqrt(-127 + 8*CR)))
But it isn't more than 87% accurate. However, note that it's 87% or more accurate at any arbritrary CR, say 24 or 65. The system does, however work only from CR 20. I do have a weighted system as well, which is 96% or more accurate at any arbitrary CR, but that system isn't convenient to use, even on a calculator.

I think Anubis has pointed out the best way of doing the SR issue for now. It's both simple and it behaves appropriately at every level. I know that I will be using this system if someone can't come up with a better one, and I think that the last comment "Note, however, that the actual caster level for spells is still the level, so spells wouldn't lose any power under this rule." is paramount to the implications of this, so that the system is relatively balanced at any given encounter.

And UK, you should remember that magic resistance is no way equivalent to spell resistance, as magic resistance was given as a percentage that was randomly rolled for every spell, no matter the opponent (except if you had "Lower Magic Resistance"), so while it was no problem in previous issues, it is a problem now.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Haven't been able to access the boards much over the past few days, hence the delay in responding to some posts. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Wall of Force IS quite nifty, ain't it? *




Annoyingly you can't just walk through it anymore. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I do believe that UK's system is way off, as it gives too much wealth of any sort to characters of Levels 100+.*




Well firstly 100th-level is going to be almost impossible to fairly attain. 

Secondly that figure represents the total wealth attributed from all adventures and exploits. It represents what happens to that +4 suit of armour when you gain that +5 suit. Or that +5 suit of armour when you gain that +5 Heavy Fortitude Armour. You may still have three (or more) suits of armour but only one represents your personal equipment - the others represent wealth.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, UK, there is another reason I do not like the system you proposed.  By your system, a character at Level 80 will have the SAME amount of personaly equipment as someone at Level 87, which I think highly inaccurate.*




Would the actual value of personal equipment of a character be likely to change between those levels? On average probably not; unless the DM is stocking dungeons and NPCs with just the items you need. Whereas at relatively lower levels characters will not have 'maxed out' their magic item slots with standard DMG items.

Take any of the named NPCs in the back of the ELH. They have very few epic items, if any! (In fact there are only four epic items amongst fifteen characters!) Or look at the first Epic Adventure in Dungeon Magazine (The Storm Lords Keep) there is only one epic item and the PCs can't use it anyway! 

Epic Items are rare, very rare! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you made some special calculation that would take fractions of a CR into account (such as ECL 80=CR 40, ECL 81=CR 40.125, ECL 82=CR 40.250, etc.) for purposes of determining wealth, then your system may be able to work, because the personal equipment numbers would be close to the numbers that I got, if not lower, which would balance things decently as long as there are new feats that can emulate some magical item powers.*




Seems a bit pedantic and unneccessary.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Moving on to the SR, I have agreed with Ea from the beginning.*




I still haven't decided (one way or the other) whats best.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Take for instance a Level 160 character, who is CR 50.  If he tries to cast a spell at a Level 175 character with SR 185, he has almost no chance of breaking through the SR, and only a minimal chance with various feats added.*




Telling it like that you make it seem such characters veritably grow on trees!  

I'm guessing the 160th-level character will have developed Epic Spells as his frontline attacks rather than relying on standard magic. So Spell Penetration is flexible.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Another level 175 character with the same feats, however, would almost never fail in breaking through the SR.  Yet these two are the exact same SR.*




Whose to say these characters will have spell resistance 185? Are they both drow for the purposes of this example?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This means the whole system breaks down once you're in triple-digit levels, even though it is still starting to break down around Level 50.*




I don't know if the term 'breaking down' is appropriate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What I have proposed is make all caster level numbers for SR a function of CR instead of Level.  Base all SR on the CR of the creature (for instance, make a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon SR 50 or so since it is about CR 45).  Next, make the caster level check for penetrating SR based on the CR of the spellcasting class (a Level 100 Wizard is CR 42, so the check would be 1d20+42).  For multi-classed characters, take the CR function of only the spellcasting class (for instance, a Ftr50/Wiz100 would still have CR 42 in the spellcasting class, and thus make a check at 1d20+42, regardless of when those wizard levels are gained).
> 
> On a side note, I highly suggest doing the same thing to dispel checks.  If you don't, a CR 50 Level 160 Wizard would have no chance of dispelling magic cast by a Level 175 Wizard, despite the CR being exactly the same.  Basically, make all caster level checks a function of CR, regardless of what the check is for.
> 
> Note, however, that the actual caster level for spells is still the level, so spells wouldn't lose any power under this rule.*




I'll have a think about it mate (actually in a hurry here to go out - hence the brevity herein). 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, UK, I posted a question for you on the Saiyans thread.  I'm still trying to perfect things, you know how it is!  *




I'll try and catch up with the rest of the posts here and elsewhere a bit later today.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Spell Resistance may not have been as big a deal before, and by before we're talking about 1st and 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons. We're thoroughly in the thick of 3rd edition at his point and Spell Resistance can make or break a character, especially with multiclassing becoming so prominent (spellcasters are everywhere now). So I think you’re absolutely wrong to make light of it.*




I think practically everyone here is making light of epic level characters and what it takes to become one. This subsequently leads to some quixotic balance bugbears.

Spell Resistance (in and of itself) is as prominent as before, however I think Spell Resistance can be exploited to a much greater degree in 3rd Ed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I can't help but notice that you have developed a nasty "if-it's-promblematic-to-my-design-then-I'll-ignore-it-and-keep-pretending-that-my-system-is-perfect" attitude. *




Well I apologise if that seems to be the case; such was never my intention. 

That said it doesn't help anyone when people refer to something being broken and then don't explain why. I always try and explain my reasoning and mechanics for any decision.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *People are dropping well researched data at your footsteps ("gifts" as I call them) that offer concrete proof indicating where exactly your system breaks down... but you choose to remain oblivious to it, claiming that people have yet to prove your theories wrong. How much more proof do you need?*




I'm pretty sure I respond to practically every post addressed towards either myself or my system. I would hope to have noticed any 'concrete proof' laid before me!?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Take off your blinders! These people have done all the hard work for you! If you have to hit the drafting boards again to make your system work, based on their research, then so be it.*




Spell Resistance is hardly an all-encompassing dilemma!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Your willful ignorance of late hasn't been flattering. Your latest statement about Spell Resistance only points that fact up.*




Actually my previous comments (regarding Spell Resistance) were meant to be 'tongue in cheek' in nature. However I didn't expect someone to overreact just because I neglected to add a smilie in the appropriate place. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *What you are attempting to balance isn't easy (even through it might have looked that way at first) but "it is" worth doing. Assuming you're not exhausted yet, I don't know why you can't see the forest through the trees here. Your critics are your best allies. Start listening to them again. They're not trying to undo your work. They're trying to shore it up by pointing out the flaws. Now it's up to you. Fix the flaws.*




I fail to see how you can even claim its a flaw of my system!? If such a flaw exists to begin with its WotCs doing.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Think of it like this. Why publish an imperfect system? What a waste of time that would be... *




Exactly why I haven't rushed any decision regarding Spell Resistance!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: On SR*

Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *ECL^3*100 is plain silly, in my opinion.*




May I ask why?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *On wealth system: I think both yours and UK's system of calculating character wealth is broken, although the second part of UK's system CR^3*100 may actually work.
> 
> Given that CR^3*100 is a wealth so that all this wealth may be used on a single item, it is kind of OK (for lower levels).*




Why should it though!? Thats not what happens at non-epic levels.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *ECL^2*10000 is ok at "lower levels" as well, but both systems break down to quickly in my opinion.*




10,000 GP at 1st-level
40,000 GP at 2nd
90,000 GP at 3rd
etc.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *In fact, the simple 5*CR^4 breaks down after approximatelly 160 levels, which isn't that bad.*




How can you say that yet advocate that ECL^3*100 is 'silly'!?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *The system I'm currently using is one that requires a calculator, but at least the system never breaks down. The more simple way of my system is given by
> 9375*2^(1/2*(7 + Sqrt(-127 + 8*CR)))
> But it isn't more than 87% accurate. However, note that it's 87% or more accurate at any arbritrary CR, say 24 or 65. The system does, however work only from CR 20. I do have a weighted system as well, which is 96% or more accurate at any arbitrary CR, but that system isn't convenient to use, even on a calculator.*




Accurate to what...the personal equipment tables in the DMG/ELH?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I think Anubis has pointed out the best way of doing the SR issue for now. It's both simple and it behaves appropriately at every level. I know that I will be using this system if someone can't come up with a better one, and I think that the last comment "Note, however, that the actual caster level for spells is still the level, so spells wouldn't lose any power under this rule." is paramount to the implications of this, so that the system is relatively balanced at any given encounter.*




Possibly. I'm still not convinced this is necessary though. I'll reply in detail to Anubis points in a moment (I was only able to gloss over them earlier).



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *And UK, you should remember that magic resistance is no way equivalent to spell resistance, as magic resistance was given as a percentage that was randomly rolled for every spell, no matter the opponent (except if you had "Lower Magic Resistance"), so while it was no problem in previous issues, it is a problem now. *




Actually you are confusing 2nd Ed. Magic Resistance with 1st Ed. Magic Resistance.

In 1st Ed. Magic Resistance was given against 11th-level casters. With a 5% penalty or bonus for every level above or below 11th.

eg. MR 100% was only 45% effective against 20th-level casters.

MR 75% was 100% effective against 6th-level casters.

In 3rd Ed. SR 31 is equivalent to 1st Ed. MR 100%

By 1st Ed. standards the Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon has MR 375%


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Spell Resistance*

Hi Anubis mate! 

I'll check into your DragonballZ thread right after this. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Moving on to the SR, I have agreed with Ea from the beginning.  Take for instance a Level 160 character, who is CR 50.  If he tries to cast a spell at a Level 175 character with SR 185, he has almost no chance of breaking through the SR, and only a minimal chance with various feats added.*




Well firstly how exactly are these characters gaining this Spell Resistance, are they both drow? Seemingly this facet of the dark elf race adds 10% to its ECL.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Another level 175 character with the same feats, however, would almost never fail in breaking through the SR.*




I see...and how exactly will this unbalance the proceedings?

At this level its almost guaranteed that epic spells will dominate the proceedings - don't you agree!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yet these two are the exact same SR.*




I presume you mean the same CR?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This means the whole system breaks down once you're in triple-digit levels, even though it is still starting to break down around Level 50.*




Lets look past these Drow (or Monks I suppose) with their uber spell resistance for a moment.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What I have proposed is make all caster level numbers for SR a function of CR instead of Level.*




If I'm reading you right (?) I actually agree with you! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Base all SR on the CR of the creature (for instance, make a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon SR 50 or so since it is about CR 45). *




I can see a case for SR being akin to (modified) CR+11

eg. Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (CR42) = SR 53.

However, I don't believe all monsters should be so formulaic, most, but certainly not all. You also have the situation of epic monsters with the spell resistance feat.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Next, make the caster level check for penetrating SR based on the CR of the spellcasting class (a Level 100 Wizard is CR 42, so the check would be 1d20+42).
> 
> For multi-classed characters, take the CR function of only the spellcasting class (for instance, a Ftr50/Wiz100 would still have CR 42 in the spellcasting class, and thus make a check at 1d20+42, regardless of when those wizard levels are gained).*




A very interesting idea, now that I analyse its simplicity. Of course it means having to rework all the SRs in the MM and ELH.

I'm still not convinced taking balance to such extremes is actually necessary though. Also the Spell Resistance Feat becomes very, very powerful. As do items or spells that grant Spell Resistance.

Also, what next. Do we balance attack bonus to armour class? Do we balance damage to hit points. Its very easy to get enthralled by balance to the extent that it dominates the proceedings. Isn't it better to just accept that some monsters have high armour classes; some characters have high attack bonuses; some monsters have high spell resistance and epic wizards don't care! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On a side note, I highly suggest doing the same thing to dispel checks.  If you don't, a CR 50 Level 160 Wizard would have no chance of dispelling magic cast by a Level 175 Wizard, despite the CR being exactly the same.  Basically, make all caster level checks a function of CR, regardless of what the check is for.*




They could always use the Superb Dispelling epic spell (or a variation thereof).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Note, however, that the actual caster level for spells is still the level, so spells wouldn't lose any power under this rule.*




It still seemingly cheapens single class spellcasters.

But its definately an idea I am considering.


----------



## Blacksad

*Re: Spell Resistance*

Hi Upper_Krust!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well firstly how exactly are these characters gaining this Spell Resistance, are they both drow? Seemingly this facet of the dark elf race adds 10% to its ECL.
> *




I haven't followed the update in the ECL/CR system, but don't you keep a system with fixed ECL? (ie the drow is +2 ECL, not an ECL based on a formula function of ECL itself).  

Also remember that drow aren't alone in this matter, githzerai and githyanki have a similar SR.



> *
> I see...and how exactly will this unbalance the proceedings?
> 
> At this level its almost guaranteed that epic spells will dominate the proceedings - don't you agree!?
> *




there is a limited number of epic spell per spellcaster, so a fight between a very high level caster and several high level caster might see some non-epic spells.



> *
> [snip]
> I can see a case for SR being akin to (modified) CR+11
> 
> eg. Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (CR42) = SR 53.
> 
> However, I don't believe all monsters should be so formulaic, most, but certainly not all. You also have the situation of epic monsters with the spell resistance feat.
> 
> A very interesting idea, now that I analyse its simplicity. Of course it means having to rework all the SRs in the MM and ELH.
> *




yeah! at last! 

Though you won't have to change any SR in the MM, between level 1 and 20 ECL equal CR, and a quick way to find the new SR for Epic monster is (SR-ELH CR)+IH CR, and for the lazy just consider the ELH CR to be the IH ECL (it gives relatively good results).



> *
> I'm still not convinced taking balance to such extremes is actually necessary though. Also the Spell Resistance Feat becomes very, very powerful. As do items or spells that grant Spell Resistance.
> *






> *
> Also, what next. Do we balance attack bonus to armour class? Do we balance damage to hit points. Its very easy to get enthralled by balance to the extent that it dominates the proceedings. Isn't it better to just accept that some monsters have high armour classes; some characters have high attack bonuses; some monsters have high spell resistance and epic wizards don't care!
> *




Yes, we need to balance everything!
More seriously, the SR was problematic because while some monster do have high SR, for a similar CR with the same monster parties of different ECL but similar CR faced different challenge, due to the change in CR calculation, a silly situation isn't it?



> *
> [snip]
> It still seemingly cheapens single class spellcasters.
> 
> But its definately an idea I am considering.  *




You just have to base the caster level check on the CR of its spellcasting class a wizard 20/fighter 20 would have a caster level check of 1d20+20 while a wizard 40 would have 1d20+30.


----------



## -Eä-

*Character wealth...again (-;*

Ahh!

Always nice to have a little chatter on how things gets when scaling systems. It increases the understanding of the system... 




I'm saying that ECL^3*100 is silly because it represent too much planetary inflasion if you are to consider high level characters. Taken that they have accumulated that much wealth during their career, all else will be negligible. There is no problem for a 60th level character to rise 4 levels after a battle, as per experience points. That's an increase of 4 ECLs and for each ECL the rise in wealth per level is equal to ECL^2*300, i.e. rising, and in my opinion, this should not be the case, because the power of the character per level is NOT increasing per ECL, and therefore it is plain silly that character wealth per ECL should do that.
However, this is just the ECL part. 

The reason I say that both CR^4*5 is OK and ECL^3*100 is plain silly is that CR and ECL is conected in a logarithmic way, and to make such assumptions that you make in character wealth assignment makes no sense, as the "total wealth" (ECL^3*100) grows exponentially compared to "equipment wealth" (CR^3*100). In a "normal" fantasy world the inflation would be too great in my opnion, as to minor magic items, castles, gold and so on.

And when I say "accurate" I have made the two simple assumptions that: 
1. Your CR system is correct
2. The wealth per level given in the ELH is that which is to represent the current power level of a given character with respect to magic items.
If you don't make assumptions, any arbritrary system may be correct. 
I did, however, see another assumption here, that the increase should be equivalent to a factor of how much more magic weapons are to cost. (i.e ECL^2*Z, where Z is a constant). While it's a valid assumption, this is not a system which accounts for the increase in power of the character. It's *impossible* to relate exponential growth to polynomial growth (unless you have an infinite polynomial.)

As for magic resistenace: Now I see what you mean! Thanks for pointing that out.



SR again: I agree that monsters should not be formulaic. But one needs to see how SR affects things: 
I think one of the major points that has been pointed out is the same CR-thingy. If you take Anubis' example: The one you can penetrate the SR to, you can kill in a instant kill spell, giving the character almost no chance, then if you meet a character that is 30 levels higher, yet no change in CR, you won't have a chance doing that. That's an oversimplification, of course, but it is a valid point, still. 

I can see your point on how it "cheapens" single classed spellcasters, as if a non-spellcaster takes spellcaster classes later on, the increase in efficiency in penetrating SR will be much greater. But if you base all this off CR, those characters will have almost no chance penetrating the tougher SR challenges, when the single classed character will have a more than fair chance.

By the way AB compared to AC isn't the same issue as we here have Hit Points and feats like Power Attack and Expertise to compensate.



By the way: In the IH, you should print the ECL as well as the CR. Some people (like I) use a slightly different system than you when calculating CR.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Spell Resistance*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I see...and how exactly will this unbalance the proceedings?
> *




The thing that is unbalanced is that fact that two different characters of the same CR have widely different chances of penetrating the same SR, despite being generally at the same power level for purposes of CR.

In other words, two characters of the same CR should have roughly equal chances of penetrating the same SR.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> At this level its almost guaranteed that epic spells will dominate the proceedings - don't you agree!?
> *




I doubt that very much, actually.  From what I've seen, the normal spells are still far more powerful, usually.  There are some exceptions, but all things considered, I think metamagic spells of Levels 1-9 are still the most potent.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I presume you mean the same CR?
> *




Yep, that's what I meant.  It was a typo. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Lets look past these Drow (or Monks I suppose) with their uber spell resistance for a moment.
> *




There were no specific characters, really.  Just something with SR 175.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I can see a case for SR being akin to (modified) CR+11
> 
> eg. Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (CR42) = SR 53.
> 
> However, I don't believe all monsters should be so formulaic, most, but certainly not all. You also have the situation of epic monsters with the spell resistance feat.
> *




Ah, now I understand your hesitation.  You thought I was proposing a formula for determining SR!  That's not at all what I propose.  Some thigns will have an SR formula, of course, such as monks and drow.  For these, I suggest taking their SR based on their CR as well, so as not to make them too powerful.  In other words, a Mnk30 won't have SR 40 but rather SR 35.)

For all other monsters with SR, you just need to assign a new SR, if necessary, to fit the challenge of the encounter.  First off, let me state that I believe there is no need to change ANY of the SR numbers in the MM, although you MAY need to change quite a few in the ELH.

Actually, upon actually looking at the numbers in the ELH, you may not need to change many of them either.  Just the most powerful creatures', such as the Prismatic Dragon and the Hecatoncheires.  Even then, you may not have to change things by much.

What I'm saying is, pretend you make an all new creature, and it turns out to be, oh, ECL 200, which is CR 52.  Now SR should change the difficulty too much.  Just assign an arbitrary number that fits.  Perhaps, in this case, the new monster would have SR 70, or something like that.  As long as it is within 16-26 of the CR, you should be okay, more than that if characters aren't supposed to be able to break through SR very easily.  See what I'm saying?  In other words, you're right, a formula for determining SR simply does not work.  You gotta make a judgment call.

The MM is okay, either which way, and most of the ELH is okay as well.  It's just something worth mentioning, because that's what I'm actually saying.

Don't misunderstand me, however.  I'm not saying there is no formula for PENETRATING SR, just no formula for reassigning SR to creatures who may have too much or too little.  Assign SR by judgment.  For penetration, dispel, and everything else, use CR instead of level.

As always, this does not change hte power of spells, which is still based on level for determining range, damage, etc.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> A very interesting idea, now that I analyse its simplicity. Of course it means having to rework all the SRs in the MM and ELH.
> *




Like I said, it IS simple, and you wouldn't have to reassign hardly anything.  Everything in the MM save for MAYBE the Solar is probably already perfect.

For the ones you DO have to reassign, forget formulas and reassign based on your best judgment byu taking the CR and adding a number to it to be the average chance of penetrating.  (Be CERTAIN to take Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, and Epic Spell Penetration into consideration when assigning these numbers!)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'm still not convinced taking balance to such extremes is actually necessary though. Also the Spell Resistance Feat becomes very, very powerful. As do items or spells that grant Spell Resistance.
> *




This isn't taking it to the extreme, this is simply making SR relevent at higher levels.  As it is, with two people with the *same CR*, one could have a 100% chance of penetrating while the other has a 0% chance of penetrating!  Certainly that does not work?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Also, what next. Do we balance attack bonus to armour class? Do we balance damage to hit points. Its very easy to get enthralled by balance to the extent that it dominates the proceedings. Isn't it better to just accept that some monsters have high armour classes; some characters have high attack bonuses; some monsters have high spell resistance and epic wizards don't care!
> *




Attack and AC and damage and hp are already balanced.  That's why the more powerful you get, the higher these numbers get. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> It still seemingly cheapens single class spellcasters.
> *




How so?!  This makes levels of the class worth exactly the same no matter when you get the levels, that's all.  Makes multiclassing into spellcasting actually worth it (eventually).  If you didn't do this, the Ftr40/Wiz4 would only get +1 to penetrate SR while a Wiz4/Ftr 40 gets +4 to penetrate SR, despite them having equal training in spellcasting!  No, best to take the levels as they are and determing only that class's CR for penetration.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> But its definately an idea I am considering.
> *




It's the only way for SR to have meaning at higher levels.  I hope my answers here haven't injected any confusion into the matter . . . If you have ANY questions, just ask, and I'll explain point for point if necessary.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Re: Spell Resistance*



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hi Upper_Krust!*




Bonsoir mon ami Blacksad! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I haven't followed the update in the ECL/CR system, but don't you keep a system with fixed ECL? (ie the drow is +2 ECL, not an ECL based on a formula function of ECL itself).*




Yes. But Spell Resistance is a flexible component thereof. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Also remember that drow aren't alone in this matter, githzerai and githyanki have a similar SR.*




Indeed. Similarly extravagent.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *there is a limited number of epic spell per spellcaster, so a fight between a very high level caster and several high level caster might see some non-epic spells.*




Possibly - though not likely primarily.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *yeah! at last! *








			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Though you won't have to change any SR in the MM, between level 1 and 20 ECL equal CR, and a quick way to find the new SR for Epic monster is (SR-ELH CR)+IH CR, and for the lazy just consider the ELH CR to be the IH ECL (it gives relatively good results).*




Seemingly Dragons; Solars and the like may need changing to bring them in line.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Yes, we need to balance everything! *








			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *More seriously, the SR was problematic because while some monster do have high SR, for a similar CR with the same monster parties of different ECL but similar CR faced different challenge, due to the change in CR calculation, a silly situation isn't it?*




I'm still wondering if this is a balancing act too far...?



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *You just have to base the caster level check on the CR of its spellcasting class a wizard 20/fighter 20 would have a caster level check of 1d20+20 while a wizard 40 would have 1d20+30. *




What about the imbalancing of the Spell Resistance feat; as well as spells and items that convey it though!?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Character wealth...again (-;*

Hi Eä matey! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Ahh!
> 
> Always nice to have a little chatter on how things gets when scaling systems. It increases the understanding of the system...*




Absolutely. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I'm saying that ECL^3*100 is silly because it represent too much planetary inflasion if you are to consider high level characters.*




Lets look at some epic-level demographics then:

1 20th-level character for every 31,250 
1 25th-level character for every 1 million
1 39th-level character for every 1 billion
1 50th-level character for every 1 trillion

1 100th-level character for every (approx.) 1 octillion (166 quodrillion times earths population)

For Immortals you could feasibly halve the factor each time you doubled their age beyond 100 years.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Taken that they have accumulated that much wealth during their career, all else will be negligible. There is no problem for a 60th level character to rise 4 levels after a battle, as per experience points. *




Is this 'no problem' you speak of taking on a CR+8 encounter on your own! (a practically unwinnable situation)



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *That's an increase of 4 ECLs and for each ECL the rise in wealth per level is equal to ECL^2*300, i.e. rising, and in my opinion, this should not be the case, because the power of the character per level is NOT increasing per ECL, and therefore it is plain silly that character wealth per ECL should do that.
> However, this is just the ECL part.*




Well, beings are not very likely to ascend four levels in any battle.

Looking at the example presented in the Storm Lords Keep the PCs are going to end up with about 5 million GP worth of loot (mostly items, practically none of which will become personal equipment)



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *The reason I say that both CR^4*5 is OK and ECL^3*100 is plain silly is that CR and ECL is conected in a logarithmic way, and to make such assumptions that you make in character wealth assignment makes no sense, as the "total wealth" (ECL^3*100) grows exponentially compared to "equipment wealth" (CR^3*100). In a "normal" fantasy world the inflation would be too great in my opnion, as to minor magic items, castles, gold and so on.*




Thats because the value of primary equipment levels off, whereas wealth still accumulates!

The entirety of their wealth will not be comprised exclusively of personal equipment, but more and more secondary equipment; monetary wealth and property will build up.

They may have enough money to buy a small city; but even with planar metropolis access they still only have a chance of purchasing* the epic items they require - and then only up to 600,000 GP limit.

*subject to availability (perhaps a flat 10% chance of having a specific item per year)



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *And when I say "accurate" I have made the two simple assumptions that:
> 1. Your CR system is correct*




...just as long as its not incorrect.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *2. The wealth per level given in the ELH is that which is to represent the current power level of a given character with respect to magic items.
> If you don't make assumptions, any arbritrary system may be correct. *




The thing to do is make logical assumptions



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I did, however, see another assumption here, that the increase should be equivalent to a factor of how much more magic weapons are to cost. (i.e ECL^2*Z, where Z is a constant). While it's a valid assumption, this is not a system which accounts for the increase in power of the character. It's impossible to relate exponential growth to polynomial growth (unless you have an infinite polynomial.)*




Nope...you've lost me again mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *As for magic resistenace: Now I see what you mean! Thanks for pointing that out.*




No problem mate.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *SR again: I agree that monsters should not be formulaic. But one needs to see how SR affects things:
> 
> I think one of the major points that has been pointed out is the same CR-thingy. If you take Anubis' example: The one you can penetrate the SR to, you can kill in a instant kill spell, giving the character almost no chance, then if you meet a character that is 30 levels higher, yet no change in CR, you won't have a chance doing that. That's an oversimplification, of course, but it is a valid point, still.*




You shouldn't rely on spell resistance to solve all your problems. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I can see your point on how it "cheapens" single classed spellcasters, as if a non-spellcaster takes spellcaster classes later on, the increase in efficiency in penetrating SR will be much greater. But if you base all this off CR, those characters will have almost no chance penetrating the tougher SR challenges, when the single classed character will have a more than fair chance.*




Exactly, it benefits single class characters



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *By the way: In the IH, you should print the ECL as well as the CR. Some people (like I) use a slightly different system than you when calculating CR. *




I do.


----------



## -Eä-

*Epic Level Demographics*

Ahh! There is the long awaited assumption of which I was talking! Now I see what your second assumption is: The demographics. Well...given that, I agree: The WotC "way" isn't necessarily the correct one. Well, if that's the assumption you make, the system proposed by WotC is just to throw away. There is no point in using that...

By the way: Have you tried using encounters for calculating character wealth? Say, using the standard NPCs proposed at a given level and take the number of such a party has to face before ascending, and add the total worth of the goods they loot to be the character wealth at the next level? Actually, I think this is a nice little procedure I may indulge to, just to check what the numbers are.

(By the way, I suspect that most personal equipment will be specially made for that character, not simple loot found here and there, but the components needed to create such an item may be paid for by the actual loot...at least that's how I see it)

How do you calculate such demographics!? And why? It would be interested for me to see that.


----------



## Gez

I'm just saying "hello !", I'm a bit lost here in these astronomical numbers.

This discussion about SR reminds me of my first RPG: a little game known as Dragon Knights (or something like that). The rules were quite simple, everybody had attack (BAB) and defense (AC) scores, dodge (Reflex save) score, and magical attack (caster level ?) and magical defense (roughly SR + will save) scores.

Had D&D been built with a similar principle (SR as a sort of save or AC), this issue would have been, IMHO, much simplified -- if the BAB/AC values are on par, then the CL/SR would be appropriate also.


----------



## Knight Otu

*Re: Character wealth...again (-;*



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *
> There is no problem for a 60th level character to rise 4 levels after a battle, as per experience points.*



If I understand your point correctly, this is not correct. You cannot gain more than 1 level at once, according to the rules.


----------



## -Eä-

*Re: Re: Character wealth...again (-;*



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *
> If I understand your point correctly, this is not correct. You cannot gain more than 1 level at once, according to the rules. *




I  house rule that you can gain more than one level at once, which also UK has given his recomendations for in the past somewhere. The limitation is lame, in my opinion, because relative power needs to be considered.

As for the lvl 60 example, it was arbitrary, but you can take a more plausible example and still you have the same problem...


----------



## Blacksad

*Re: Re: Re: Spell Resistance*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Bonsoir mon ami Blacksad!
> *




Salut U_K! 



> *
> Seemingly Dragons; Solars and the like may need changing to bring them in line.
> *




I forgot those who have a CR well above 20, sorry



> *
> I'm still wondering if this is a balancing act too far...?
> *




It would be too far, if the improvement impeded game play, in this case, considering that you have to calculate the CR of the character to determine challenge, you already have the needed number for caster level check somewhere, and the way to roll doesn't involve additional formula.

The reader of the IH doesn't have to know how long it took to create an efficient new rule, he just need to know how to use it.

Perhaps alongside each monster with SR you could put "caster level check 1d20+CR of spellcasting class" in the pdf edition (you aren't really limited by space).



> *
> What about the imbalancing of the Spell Resistance feat; as well as spells and items that convey it though!? *




Using some of my own house rules in development, you might do something like what I do with the +2DC to spell feat, you can take it every 8 level, except that in the case of spell resistance it would be +2SR every 8 CR, what do you think?

On items that convey spell resistance, I'm not sure that there is an imbalance, IIRC with the maximum of 10% worth of personal gear for a given item (when it's not the primary item of the character), I think that in the ELH the SR was under the character level, thus it protect only against low level opponents. I'll need to check that.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Spell Resistance*

Hi all! 

Having trouble accessing the boards again - hence the delay in replying. Seems okay for the moment so lets get cracking... 

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The thing that is unbalanced is that fact that two different characters of the same CR have widely different chances of penetrating the same SR, despite being generally at the same power level for purposes of CR.
> 
> In other words, two characters of the same CR should have roughly equal chances of penetrating the same SR.*




How about a 50th-level Fighter and a 50th-level Wizard?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I doubt that very much, actually.  From what I've seen, the normal spells are still far more powerful, usually.  There are some exceptions, but all things considered, I think metamagic spells of Levels 1-9 are still the most potent.*




Depends on how much you allow metamagics to stack. Also at higher, epic levels expect foes to be immune or at least resistant to most damaging spells.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There were no specific characters, really.  Just something with SR 175.*




Doubtful anything would ever have SR 175 though! More likely it would simply be Magic Immune or Invulnerable to certain types of spells etc.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ah, now I understand your hesitation.  You thought I was proposing a formula for determining SR!*




No, I knew exactly what you were proposing.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's not at all what I propose.  Some thigns will have an SR formula, of course, such as monks and drow.  For these, I suggest taking their SR based on their CR as well, so as not to make them too powerful.  In other words, a Mnk30 won't have SR 40 but rather SR 35.)*




Makes sense for these characters. They can of course always boost their Spell Resistance with the aforementioned epic feat.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For all other monsters with SR, you just need to assign a new SR, if necessary, to fit the challenge of the encounter.*




(Using these ideas) You at least need to assign a new SR to those whose CR is modified.

This sort of upheaval is something that bothers me and unless I think its 100% necessary (as with Challenge Ratings) I won't advocate it.

I don't want to have to end up rewriting the core rulebooks here. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, let me state that I believe there is no need to change ANY of the SR numbers in the MM,*




Dragons; Solar...at the very least.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *although you MAY need to change quite a few in the ELH.*




Naturally.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, upon actually looking at the numbers in the ELH, you may not need to change many of them either.  Just the most powerful creatures', such as the Prismatic Dragon and the Hecatoncheires.  Even then, you may not have to change things by much.*




Depends on how stringently you adhere to any SR formula; CR+11 seems the average.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What I'm saying is, pretend you make an all new creature, and it turns out to be, oh, ECL 200, which is CR 52.  Now SR should change the difficulty too much.  Just assign an arbitrary number that fits.  Perhaps, in this case, the new monster would have SR 70, or something like that.  As long as it is within 16-26 of the CR, you should be okay, more than that if characters aren't supposed to be able to break through SR very easily.  See what I'm saying?  In other words, you're right, a formula for determining SR simply does not work.  You gotta make a judgment call.*




You see this bit I agree with.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The MM is okay, either which way, and most of the ELH is okay as well.  It's just something worth mentioning, because that's what I'm actually saying.*




Dragons are certainly not okay, neither is the Solar (if we advocate at least CR+10).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Don't misunderstand me, however.  I'm not saying there is no formula for PENETRATING SR, just no formula for reassigning SR to creatures who may have too much or too little.  Assign SR by judgment.*




SR = CR anywhere from +10 to +13 seems useful.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For penetration, dispel, and everything else, use CR instead of level.*




This is the bit I have issues with.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Like I said, it IS simple, and you wouldn't have to reassign hardly anything.*




Its simplicity is not in question, but its necessity is.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Everything in the MM save for MAYBE the Solar is probably already perfect.*




...and Dragons.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For the ones you DO have to reassign, forget formulas and reassign based on your best judgment byu taking the CR and adding a number to it to be the average chance of penetrating.  (Be CERTAIN to take Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, and Epic Spell Penetration into consideration when assigning these numbers!)*




In that case I would advocate SR = CR+11 (between CR1-10); CR+12 (between CR11-20) and CR+13 (CR21+).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This isn't taking it to the extreme, this is simply making SR relevent at higher levels. *




Which it probably won't be.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As it is, with two people with the *same CR*, one could have a 100% chance of penetrating while the other has a 0% chance of penetrating!  Certainly that does not work?*




The flip side of that being that you have spellcasters with potentially vast level differences both affecting Spell Resistance equally.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Attack and AC and damage and hp are already balanced.  That's why the more powerful you get, the higher these numbers get. *




Armour Class and Damage* (and Spell Resistance) don't go up with level though.

*Unless you're a Monk.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How so?!  This makes levels of the class worth exactly the same no matter when you get the levels, that's all.  Makes multiclassing into spellcasting actually worth it (eventually).  If you didn't do this, the Ftr40/Wiz4 would only get +1 to penetrate SR while a Wiz4/Ftr 40 gets +4 to penetrate SR, despite them having equal training in spellcasting!  No, best to take the levels as they are and determing only that class's CR for penetration.*




Spell Penetration is based on spellcaster level (and certain feats) - I don't see why you are trying to confuse yourself.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's the only way for SR to have meaning at higher levels.*




I think you mean balance at higher levels. Obviously it will still have meaning



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hope my answers here haven't injected any confusion into the matter*




No more than was already there - I assure you! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *. . . If you have ANY questions, just ask, and I'll explain point for point if necessary. *




I understand the what, where, why, when and how - I am just not convinced the 'why' is justified.

At the moment I see justification for changing certain monster and character class related spell resistances. But I am not sure I would advocate the changes to spell penetration for anything more than an optional rule at this point.

Also no one (as far as I have read) has seen fit to tackle the unbalancing issue of Spell Resistance feats; items and spells!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Epic Level Demographics*

Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Ahh! There is the long awaited assumption of which I was talking! Now I see what your second assumption is: The demographics.*




As with Challenge Ratings its more important to have a system in place rather than what that system actually is.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Well...given that, I agree: The WotC "way" isn't necessarily the correct one. Well, if that's the assumption you make, the system proposed by WotC is just to throw away. There is no point in using that.*




Are we talking about the Demographics in the Dungeon Masters Guide here?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *By the way: Have you tried using encounters for calculating character wealth? Say, using the standard NPCs proposed at a given level and take the number of such a party has to face before ascending, and add the total worth of the goods they loot to be the character wealth at the next level? Actually, I think this is a nice little procedure I may indulge to, just to check what the numbers are.*




Well I haven't decided upon NPC wealth or personal equipment yet.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *(By the way, I suspect that most personal equipment will be specially made for that character, not simple loot found here and there, but the components needed to create such an item may be paid for by the actual loot...at least that's how I see it)*




Exactly!

At a certain point the only way to obtain the magic items you want (short of DM generosity) is to either make them yourself or requisition them from other sources.

Which is why I have rules for requisitioning magic items...and its not simply a matter of meeting the Market Price and biding your time by the way! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *How do you calculate such demographics!? And why? It would be interested for me to see that. *




Simply divide the numbers for each level by half, round down and carry the difference at the end.

eg.

Population 250,000

1st-level = 125,000
2nd = 62,500
3rd = 31,250
4th = 15,625
5th = 7,812*
6th = 3,906
7th = 1,953
8th = 976*
9th = 488
10th = 244
11th = 122
12th = 61
13th = 30*
14th = 15
15th = 7*
16th = 3*
17th = 1*

*Add up the number of times you rounded down fractions. Each time represents a character of +1 level.

18th = 1
19th = 1
20th = 1
21st = 1
22nd = 1
23rd = 1


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Gez mate! 

I trust you are keeping well mate!? 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I'm just saying "hello !",*




Drop by anytime mate, you know that! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I'm a bit lost here in these astronomical numbers.*




Don't worry about any of the brainstorming done on this thread - the actual rules are simplicity itself. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *This discussion about SR reminds me of my first RPG: a little game known as Dragon Knights (or something like that). The rules were quite simple, everybody had attack (BAB) and defense (AC) scores, dodge (Reflex save) score, and magical attack (caster level ?) and magical defense (roughly SR + will save) scores.
> 
> Had D&D been built with a similar principle (SR as a sort of save or AC), this issue would have been, IMHO, much simplified -- if the BAB/AC values are on par, then the CL/SR would be appropriate also. *




I think a lot of people are making too much out of the balance issue. At a certain point specialisation will take over and at that point its about roleplaying - not roll-playing.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Spell Resistance*

To respond to the points raised by Knight Otu and Ea - I do advocate allowing characters to ascend more than one level per adventure/encounter; though rarely will they ever do so (given the CR system)!



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Salut U_K! *




Bonjour mon ami Blacksad! 

Avant que l'Immortals Handbook soit fini je peux etre a l'aise en francais...? 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I forgot those who have a CR well above 20, sorry*








			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *It would be too far, if the improvement impeded game play, in this case, considering that you have to calculate the CR of the character to determine challenge, you already have the needed number for caster level check somewhere, and the way to roll doesn't involve additional formula.*




I agree the rules are simple to implement.

My point is that (as per Occams Razor) assumptions should not be needlessly multiplied.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *The reader of the IH doesn't have to know how long it took to create an efficient new rule, he just need to know how to use it.*




Absolutely, the same point I made to Gez in fact. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Perhaps alongside each monster with SR you could put "caster level check 1d20+CR of spellcasting class" in the pdf edition (you aren't really limited by space).*




I don't see the concern being space (on this issue anyway).



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Using some of my own house rules in development , you might do something like what I do with the +2DC to spell feat, you can take it every 8 level, except that in the case of spell resistance it would be +2SR every 8 CR, what do you think?*




Is'nt this what the Spell Focus feats already accomplish?



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *On items that convey spell resistance, I'm not sure that there is an imbalance, IIRC with the maximum of 10% worth of personal gear for a given item (when it's not the primary item of the character), I think that in the ELH the SR was under the character level, thus it protect only against low level opponents. I'll need to check that. *




Looking at the Mantle of Epic Spell Resistance in the ELH it appears they have calculated its value incorrectly.

It should actually be 2,800,000 GP rather than the 290,000 GP they claim (unless I am missing something!?).

However, heres an example of a situation I am relating to:

95th-level Wizard = Spell Penetration 1d20+47 (with 3 spell penetration feats)

84th-level Drow Fighter = CR 40 uses 14 (of 70) feats on Improved Spell Resistance, now SR 68

A Demigod uses 3 SDAs (or equivalents) on improving Spell Resistance now has SR 67*

*I have changed the increase to +10 for that particular ability.


----------



## -Eä-

*Greetings!*

One thing about your demographics system: What do you do if the population is some power of 2:


Example: Population 524288

1st level: 262144
2nd: 131072
3rd: 65536
4th: 32768
5th: 16384
6th: 8192
7th: 4096
8th: 2048
9th: 1024
10th: 512
11th: 256
12th: 128
13th: 64
14th: 32
15th: 16
16th: 8
17th: 4
18th: 2
19th: 1

Here you have no fractions...

With 500 000 you have

Population 500 000

1st = 250,000
2nd = 125,000
3rd = 62,500
4th = 31,250
5th = 15,625
6th = 7,812*
7th = 3,906
8th = 1,953
9th = 976*
10th = 488
11th = 244
12th = 122
13th = 61
14th = 30*
15th = 15
16th = 7*
17th = 3*
18th = 1*

Leaving the highest at
24th = 1


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Greetings!*



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *One thing about your demographics system: What do you do if the population is some power of 2:
> 
> Example: Population 524288
> 
> 1st level: 262144
> 2nd: 131072
> 3rd: 65536
> 4th: 32768
> 5th: 16384
> 6th: 8192
> 7th: 4096
> 8th: 2048
> 9th: 1024
> 10th: 512
> 11th: 256
> 12th: 128
> 13th: 64
> 14th: 32
> 15th: 16
> 16th: 8
> 17th: 4
> 18th: 2
> 19th: 1
> *




You can do better than that 

Population 524,287
1st level: 262143*
2nd: 131071*
3rd: 65535*
4th: 32767*
5th: 16383*
6th: 8191*
7th: 4095*
8th: 2047*
9th: 1023*
10th: 511*
11th: 255*
12th: 127*
13th: 63*
14th: 31*
15th: 15*
16th: 7*
17th: 3*
18th: 1*
19th: 1

Leaving the highest at 36 

Someone has a kid, and 17 people experience some massive level-draining action.

It doesn't sum up, either - many, many communities had around a thousand people, but you can't look at them all at once, you have to look at each one, individually, with a static population.

I'm building a different system that tries to calculate based on age, age distribuition, class (sortof) and abilities (as in ability scores).  Really complex, that's why it's a computer program and not some silly equation


----------



## Knight Otu

I must admit that I have my problems with the system as well.
If you want to keep it, how about adding the fractions to the 1st level population?


----------



## Gez

*Teaching French to Upper Krust *

Salut mon pote !
_(Hello mate!)_



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Avant que l'Immortals Handbook soit fini je peux etre a l'aise en francais...?
> *




Ah, c'est pas mal, effectivement. 
Il manque juste un "ne" (avant que l'IH _ne_ soit fini, et la deuxième partie de la phrase serait plutôt formulée "je serais peut-être à l'aise en français".

Mais en langage parlé, ça pourrait passer sans problème.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Greetings!*

Hi Eä; Xeriar and Knight Otu! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *One thing about your demographics system: What do you do if the population is some power of 2:
> 
> Example: Population 524288
> 
> 1st level: 262144
> 2nd: 131072
> 3rd: 65536
> 4th: 32768
> 5th: 16384
> 6th: 8192
> 7th: 4096
> 8th: 2048
> 9th: 1024
> 10th: 512
> 11th: 256
> 12th: 128
> 13th: 64
> 14th: 32
> 15th: 16
> 16th: 8
> 17th: 4
> 18th: 2
> 19th: 1
> 
> Here you have no fractions...
> 
> With 500 000 you have
> 
> Population 500 000
> 
> 1st = 250,000
> 2nd = 125,000
> 3rd = 62,500
> 4th = 31,250
> 5th = 15,625
> 6th = 7,812*
> 7th = 3,906
> 8th = 1,953
> 9th = 976*
> 10th = 488
> 11th = 244
> 12th = 122
> 13th = 61
> 14th = 30*
> 15th = 15
> 16th = 7*
> 17th = 3*
> 18th = 1*
> 
> Leaving the highest at
> 24th = 1 *






			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *You can do better than that
> 
> Population 524,287
> 1st level: 262143*
> 2nd: 131071*
> 3rd: 65535*
> 4th: 32767*
> 5th: 16383*
> 6th: 8191*
> 7th: 4095*
> 8th: 2047*
> 9th: 1023*
> 10th: 511*
> 11th: 255*
> 12th: 127*
> 13th: 63*
> 14th: 31*
> 15th: 15*
> 16th: 7*
> 17th: 3*
> 18th: 1*
> 19th: 1
> 
> Leaving the highest at 36
> 
> Someone has a kid, and 17 people experience some massive level-draining action.
> 
> It doesn't sum up, either - many, many communities had around a thousand people, but you can't look at them all at once, you have to look at each one, individually, with a static population.
> 
> I'm building a different system that tries to calculate based on age, age distribuition, class (sortof) and abilities (as in ability scores). Really complex, that's why it's a computer program and not some silly equation  *






			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I must admit that I have my problems with the system as well.
> If you want to keep it, how about adding the fractions to the 1st level population? *




Unless the numbers are relatively small you shouldn't be able to do more than generalise the population.

I mean you can't know if there are exactly 524,287 people in a given area, what about visitors, some may be away travelling, new born children etc.

At most I suggest you only use the first three digits of a given number.

975 = 975
1,288 = 1,280
44,533 = 44,500
766,619 = 766,000
etc.


----------



## Blacksad

*Re: Re: Spell Resistance*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Bonjour mon ami Blacksad!
> 
> Avant que l'Immortals Handbook soit fini je peux etre a l'aise en francais...?
> *




Comme Gez l'a dit, il y a des chances que oui. 




> *
> Is'nt this what the Spell Focus feats already accomplish?
> *




Normally you can take spell focus only once, I've house ruled that and transformed the feat so that it can stack and be taken at level 1, 9, 17, 25... 
It remove the need for feats such as greater spell focus and epic spell focus, and allow to have an unlimited number of useful feats.



> *
> Looking at the Mantle of Epic Spell Resistance in the ELH it appears they have calculated its value incorrectly.
> 
> It should actually be 2,800,000 GP rather than the 290,000 GP they claim (unless I am missing something!?).
> *




I do not have my ELH at school, so I can't help.



> *
> However, heres an example of a situation I am relating to:
> 
> 95th-level Wizard = Spell Penetration 1d20+47 (with 3 spell penetration feats)
> 
> 84th-level Drow Fighter = CR 40 uses 14 (of 70) feats on Improved Spell Resistance, now SR 68
> 
> A Demigod uses 3 SDAs (or equivalents) on improving Spell Resistance now has SR 67*
> 
> *I have changed the increase to +10 for that particular ability. *




given that it is CR 40 with my house rule the drow would have been able to take the improved spell resistance feat 3 times, so it would be max SR 57

N.B. the spell penetration feat doesn't stack, unless you change it like what I've done with spell focus (and probably with a limit based on CR instead of level, plus it would be easier to use the feat with monster that way).

SDA stacks? Anyway, I still do not know the rules for gods, I'm waiting for the IH before memorizing anything, so I can't say if a demigod with SR 67 is good or bad (especially given that I don't know it's typical ECL/CR).

P.S. to calculate the new SR of monster above CR 20, the easiest formula is (old SR minus old CR) plus new CR


----------



## S'mon

*Demographics*

This is something I've worked on a lot, I've found that the following works well.

1. NPC classes: These make up 99% of the population, around 90% commoners and mostly 1st level.  The other 9% are Experts, Warriors, Aristocrats, Adepts etc.  Of this 9%, 75% are 1st level, 12.5% 2nd, 6.25% 3rd, etc (1/2 at each higher level, round fractions up or down to fit the total pop).

2.PC classes: 1% of population, or less in peaceful areas.  Of these 50% are 1st level, 25% 2nd, 12.5% 3rd, up through level 10.  Of those levels 10+, there are 1/3 as many 10th as 9th*, then the next level has 3/4 as many, every +2 levels halfs the number.  This gives a decent but not overwhelming number of high-level PC class characters.


*9th is a break-point, it's where CR 1 encounters no longer give XP, so there are far fewer 10th than 9th.

So in a population of 1 million there are 10,000 PC-class:

5,000 1st
2,500 2nd
1,250 3rd
625 4th
312 5th
156 6th
78   7th
39   8th
19   9th

19 10th+:

6 10th
4 11th
3 12th  
2 13th
2 14th
1 15th
1 16th


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Re: Greetings!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hi Eä; Xeriar and Knight Otu!




Hi UK!





> Unless the numbers are relatively small you shouldn't be able to do more than generalise the population.
> 
> I mean you can't know if there are exactly 524,287 people in a given area, what about visitors, some may be away travelling, new born children etc.
> 
> At most I suggest you only use the first three digits of a given number.
> 
> 975 = 975
> 1,288 = 1,280
> 44,533 = 44,500
> 766,619 = 766,000
> etc.




Ea's point still stands - the difference between 524,000 and 525,000 is drastic.  Same with 16,700,000 and 16,800,000, same with 16,300 and 16,400.  Even the first two digits present the same problem.

Why shouldn't you be able to combine an area?  Why should the populations for a city, state, nation, continent, world, system, galaxy, plane, multiverse and so on have to be calculated with different methods in order to add up?  This is my main beef with the WotC system - it scales even worse than yours does.

Nor does it give class, attribute, race, gender or wealth breakdown.  A city is meaningless without people to fill it with 

I need to dig up a list of names, too.  A lot of them.  I'll build it somehow...


----------



## S'mon

Breakdown by class will vary by area.  IMC I use the following:

Frequency of PC Class Characters
No more than 1% of the population belong to the 'elite' (PC) classes - less in peaceful areas. Distribution is as given above. Normally at least 50% of these are 1st level, with 25% 2nd level, 12.5% 3rd level, and so on, up through level 9. Of the remainder, typically between 2-10% are Warriors, 2-10% Expert, 1-5% Aristocrat, no more than 1% Adept or other spellcaster, and the rest Commoner.

For distribution of PC classes I use different numbers by area - eg for Greyhawk the breakdown in the 1983 WoG boxed set (50% Fighters, 1 % Monks, etc) is fine.  For a generic world the PC encounter table numbers in the 1e DMG etc are fine.  For south Ea I use:

10% Barbarian
2% Bard
5% Cleric
2% Druid
42% Fighter
2% Monk
2% Paladin
5% Ranger
10% Rogue
5% Sorcerer
5% Wizard
10% Other (prestige classes, variant classes, etc) or use Fighter


----------



## Xeriar

The thing about your system S'Mon is that you need to assign the real powerful people of an area somewhere.

Ie, you total up some cities, come up with some values, but the nation as a whole has more than the sum of its parts.

Not that it's a big deal 

For population distribution, my program will default to
75% commoners
15% experts
5% warriors
1% fighters
1% rogues

I forget the rest (all less than 1%), obviously these values can be changed.


----------



## S'mon

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *The thing about your system S'Mon is that you need to assign the real powerful people of an area somewhere.
> 
> Ie, you total up some cities, come up with some values, but the nation as a whole has more than the sum of its parts.
> 
> *




Well, yeah, but I don't see that that's a problem.  The really high level NPCs should generally be individually detailed anyway.  In my campaign world area of about 20 million population, the distribution gives only 4 NPCs of level 20+, and I know who they all are already (2 Sorcerers, a Conjurer, & a Necromancer-Lich) .


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Salut mon pote !
> (Hello mate!)*




Bonsoir mes ami Gez et Blacksad (you see I am okay on the simple stuff) 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Ah, c'est pas mal, effectivement.
> Il manque juste un "ne" (avant que l'IH ne soit fini, et la deuxième partie de la phrase serait plutôt formulée "je serais peut-être à l'aise en français".
> 
> Mais en langage parlé, ça pourrait passer sans problème. *




If I'm reading you right (?) there are two mistakes but I may be able to speak the language without too many problems (which I can assure you is definately not yet the case!) 

I definately need more studying. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Comme Gez l'a dit, il y a des chances que oui. *




Effronte  



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Normally you can take spell focus only once, I've house ruled that and transformed the feat so that it can stack and be taken at level 1, 9, 17, 25...
> It remove the need for feats such as greater spell focus and epic spell focus, and allow to have an unlimited number of useful feats.
> *




Won't you also then need to extend the Great Fortitude; Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes feats to compensate? 

Why not just leave it the way it is - seems well enough balanced.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *given that it is CR 40 with my house rule the drow would have been able to take the improved spell resistance feat 3 times, so it would be max SR 57*




Another house rule just to compensate for the initial addendums failings - you can see why I am reticent to advocate this!



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *N.B. the spell penetration feat doesn't stack, unless you change it like what I've done with spell focus (and probably with a limit based on CR instead of level, plus it would be easier to use the feat with monster that way).*




I don't know if theres a case for allowing Spell Penetration to stack indefinately though.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *SDA stacks? Anyway, I still do not know the rules for gods, I'm waiting for the IH before memorizing anything, so I can't say if a demigod with SR 67 is good or bad (especially given that I don't know it's typical ECL/CR). *




Yes that ability stacks. In fact in the book a Demigod (feasibly a 40th-level character) could have a Spell Resistance of 137 using Deities & Demigods alone. 

I have reduced the Increased Spell Resistance Salient Divine Ability to +10 (rather than +20).



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *P.S. to calculate the new SR of monster above CR 20, the easiest formula is (old SR minus old CR) plus new CR. *




Wouldn't that retain previous flaws though.

Surely (New)CR+11 is the easiest and most credible?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Re: Re: Greetings!*



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Hi UK!*




Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Ea's point still stands - the difference between 524,000 and 525,000 is drastic.*




I worked those out and 'drastic' is not the word that springs to mind. 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Why shouldn't you be able to combine an area?  Why should the populations for a city, state, nation, continent, world, system, galaxy, plane, multiverse and so on have to be calculated with different methods in order to add up?*




Exactly - it shouldn't.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *This is my main beef with the WotC system - it scales even worse than yours does.*




I'll take that as a compliment...I think! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Nor does it give class, attribute, race, gender or wealth breakdown.  A city is meaningless without people to fill it with  *




I have a table for class demographics in the Immortals Handbook, its a bit more straightforward than Simons ideas (less being more and all that) 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Well, yeah, but I don't see that that's a problem. The really high level NPCs should generally be individually detailed anyway.*




Absolutely!



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *In my campaign world area of about 20 million population, the distribution gives only 4 NPCs of level 20+,*




Of course once we add in the Thrinians!  



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *and I know who they all are already (2 Sorcerers, a Conjurer, & a Necromancer-Lich) .*




They can't hide forever! Their death is my salvation, so to speak.


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Greetings!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Of course once we add in the Thrinians!
> 
> They can't hide forever! Their death is my salvation, so to speak.  *





I wasn't counting Thrinia or the Albine cities, which have a higher number of powerful types.  The 4 I was thinking of were Marradin (Lich, 25th I think), Baba Yaga (Sorc 28), Omazad (Sorc 25) and your Clarendon (Conj 20/Rgr 3).  There are also quite a few in the 16-19 range, like Warmaster Kung & Ling Wa of Mount Fire, your Archduke Ulfius Bloodhammer, etc.  

Oh I forgot Kadai Khan - FTR 21 last I looked.  You'll note almost all the lvl 20+ NPCs are Mongali. 

Edit: all this talk of Mongali & Mt Fire makes me want to watch that Storm Riders CD.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Greetings!*

Hey Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I wasn't counting Thrinia or the Albine cities, which have a higher number of powerful types.*




So using my system (which is rightfully your system) we get:

20th = 18
21st = 9
22nd = 4
23rd = 2
24th = 1
25th-34th = +1 per level.

Total: 44 characters 20th-level or above.

Which, taking Thrinians; Albines and the Chaos Wastes into account is just about accurate don't you think!?

Hi Daemonbolo! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *The 4 I was thinking of were Marradin (Lich, 25th I think),*




How hes still alive (or rather dead) is beyond me. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Baba Yaga (Sorc 28),*




Tell me you have read those Hellboy Graphic novels I lent you (they have Baba Yaga in them)!?



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Omazad (Sorc 25)*




Another dude on my hit list and revenge is going to be sweet! I'm going to pimp slap that whole Mongali Pantheon of Ancestral Spirits and then roll over that 100,000+ mortal Mongali Army like a colossal lawnmower. That'll teach 'em!



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *and your Clarendon (Conj 20/Rgr 3).*




Hurrah for the Thrinians! Fight the good fight! No surrender! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *There are also quite a few in the 16-19 range, like Warmaster Kung & Ling Wa of Mount Fire, your Archduke Ulfius Bloodhammer, etc.*




Emperor Ulfius soon enough when the revolution comes! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Oh I forgot Kadai Khan - FTR 21 last I looked.  You'll note almost all the lvl 20+ NPCs are Mongali.  *




Or in the Chaos Wastes.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Edit: all this talk of Mongali & Mt Fire makes me want to watch that Storm Riders CD.  *




You should - its fantastic! I take it Jamz eventually returned it!?


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Greetings!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hey Simon!
> 
> So using my system (which is rightfully your system) we get:
> 
> 20th = 18
> 21st = 9
> 22nd = 4
> 23rd = 2
> 24th = 1
> 25th-34th = +1 per level.
> 
> Total: 44 characters 20th-level or above.
> 
> Which, taking Thrinians; Albines and the Chaos Wastes into account is just about accurate don't you think!?*
> 
> I don't think there are 44 level 20+ types on Ea unless you're including nonhumans (demons, dragons etc) with CRS 20+.  North Ea is much more high-powered than south Ea anyway, especially the bits you've detailed!
> I think the distribution over level 20 is also a bit flatter than your list, but certainly similar - a cluster around levels 21-22 then fairly flat distribution up to around level 31.*
> 
> 
> How hes still alive (or rather dead) is beyond me. *
> 
> Because you haven't killed him yet?  Of course Marradin has been around for centuries (since the original Farsorland campaign) and is clever & sneaky!
> 
> *
> Tell me you have read those Hellboy Graphic novels I lent you (they have Baba Yaga in them)!?*
> 
> Haven't read them yet.
> 
> *
> Another dude on my hit list and revenge is going to be sweet! I'm going to pimp slap that whole Mongali Pantheon of Ancestral Spirits and then roll over that 100,000+ mortal Mongali Army like a colossal lawnmower. That'll teach 'em!*
> 
> More like 200,000.  Well, good luck!
> 
> 
> *
> Hurrah for the Thrinians! Fight the good fight! No surrender! *
> 
> Interestingly, Tallarn/Matt's new PC for the game is a Thrinian cleric who saved the other PCs last Sunday - at 7th level he almost single-handedly defeated 2 10th, 1 9th, 1 7th & 1 6th level NPCs, after they'd defeated the rest of the PC group!
> He has a Transmuter cohort who's a member of the Blue Light Society that reveres Ksarul - bit of an 'odd couple' there!
> 
> 
> *
> Emperor Ulfius soon enough when the revolution comes!
> *
> 
> We'll see!  Imarr has been at peace for over a year (it's now M2 2738 YE) - a major war between Ulfius' Thrinists and Tarkane's forces would be nice.
> 
> *
> You should - its fantastic! I take it Jamz eventually returned it!? *




Yup - might watch it today.


----------



## S'mon

BTW I've put up a Word-format version of the Ea timeline at:
http://www.geocities.com/s.t.newman/EaTime.doc
Which is a lot easier to read than the previous one, and contains some new stuff.

Incidentally Craig I'm still waiting to get Ulfius' stat sheet - if you can't find it I'll use the default array from the DMG with a couple of magic item changes (Ioun stone +1 level & the Bloodhammer).


----------



## S'mon

On Tallarn's suggestion I've posted my Borderlands campaign saga to the Story Hour board at:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28405


----------



## Gez

*Re: Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Bonsoir mes ami Gez et Blacksad (you see I am okay on the simple stuff)  *




I similarly started in German and English. Now I estimate I'm reasonnably skilled at internet-based conversations in English, but in German, I'm ashamed I hadn't got past this point.





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *If I'm reading you right (?) there are two mistakes but I may be able to speak the language without too many problems (which I can assure you is definately not yet the case!) *




I was saying that these two minor mistakes would not be noticed in spoken language.

_Le monde est mal fait_: it's easier to write than to speak in a foreign tongue (since there are no problem of accent and pronounciation), but the errors are more visible (and longer lasting).

Maybe telepathy would solve this problem, but sadly I don't master this communication medium.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I definately need more studying.
> *




Nothing beats practicing, though. My best English lessons were provided by playing Ultima Underworld 2 (and having a good ol' big dictionnary nearby). Computer games have make me learn more English words than my teachers.
There's a French story hour (in the story hour forum) that could be a good start.
Here's da link: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3352






			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *This is something I've worked on a lot, I've found that the following works well.
> 
> 1. NPC classes: These make up 99% of the population, around 90% commoners and mostly 1st level. The other 9% are Experts, Warriors, Aristocrats, Adepts etc. Of this 9%, 75% are 1st level, 12.5% 2nd, 6.25% 3rd, etc (1/2 at each higher level, round fractions up or down to fit the total pop).
> 
> 2.PC classes: 1% of population, or less in peaceful areas. Of these 50% are 1st level, 25% 2nd, 12.5% 3rd, up through level 10. Of those levels 10+, there are 1/3 as many 10th as 9th*, then the next level has 3/4 as many, every +2 levels halfs the number. This gives a decent but not overwhelming number of high-level PC class characters.
> 
> 
> *9th is a break-point, it's where CR 1 encounters no longer give XP, so there are far fewer 10th than 9th.
> *




I tend to estimate it's a bit too much on the downside.

I consider commoners and warriors to be actually apprentice levels of expert and fighter. In other words, there's no such thing like a 20-th level commoner -- or even a 2nd level one. He'll become Expert instead.

PC classes are quite common actually, rather around 12% than 1. The 1% is for "Elite" characters (max first HD, better than average stats), but not all PC class are elite.

I found out I can't decently have several organizations like mages academy or fighter guild if the concerned niche of the population is less than 1 per 1000... And when you add prestige classes to the mix, things begin to get weird.


It's even worse in high-powered settings like the Forgotten Realms.

I try to have roughly 1/3 level 1, 1/3 level 2-4, 1/6 level 5-9, and the rest from 10 to 20.


To give some food for thoughts, here's an article written by Sean K. Reynolds: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/theoryaboutpeasants.html


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To give some food for thoughts, here's an article written by Sean K. Reynolds: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/theoryaboutpeasants.html *




I've seen that article but it doesn't make much sense to me - Commoners are not equipped to survive CR1 challenges; you'd have to say that CR1 for a commoner is a much easier challenge than CR1 for a PC, which goes against the spirit (and letter) of the XP rules IMO.


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I consider commoners and warriors to be actually apprentice levels of expert and fighter. In other words, there's no such thing like a 20-th level commoner -- or even a 2nd level one. He'll become Expert instead.
> 
> PC classes are quite common actually, rather around 12% than 1. The 1% is for "Elite" characters (max first HD, better than average stats), but not all PC class are elite.
> 
> *




You've essentially replaced the NPC classes with non-elite PC types.  I do wonder how the population supports 12% clerics, wizards, bards & all, it seems very high.  Are your populations very small?  Do you have huge numbers of level 16+ NPCs?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Greetings!*

Hey Simon.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I don't think there are 44 level 20+ types on Ea unless you're including nonhumans (demons, dragons etc) with CRS 20+. North Ea is much more high-powered than south Ea anyway, especially the bits you've detailed!*




The bits I detailed were fully in line with what you had already outlined regarding power levels.

In fact if anything the areas you detailed were far more grandiose: Or are you forgetting the Samurai champion of Demogorgon and his cohorts. The Demon Lord Nekir*. Jorak Fellblade. etc.

*R.I.P. scumbag  



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I think the distribution over level 20 is also a bit flatter than your list, but certainly similar - a cluster around levels 21-22 then fairly flat distribution up to around level 31.*




Isn't that what I suggested above though?

Karzalin is 34th and Vantor (converted) is 38th I think. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Because you haven't killed him yet? Of course Marradin has been around for centuries (since the original Farsorland campaign) and is clever & sneaky!*




Last I remember Marradin was 28th-level. Not that I try to keep tabs on these guys of course. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> **Hellboy Graphic Novels* Haven't read them yet.*




Theres just no educating some people! 

To quote Tom Cruise in the movie Jerry Maguire:

"Help me help you!"



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *More like 200,000. Well, good luck!*




Okay so it'll take a few extra rounds. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Interestingly, Tallarn/Matt's new PC for the game is a Thrinian cleric who saved the other PCs last Sunday - at 7th level he almost single-handedly defeated 2 10th, 1 9th, 1 7th & 1 6th level NPCs, after they'd defeated the rest of the PC group!
> He has a Transmuter cohort who's a member of the Blue Light Society that reveres Ksarul - bit of an 'odd couple' there!*




I just hope theres no friction come the revolution! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *We'll see! Imarr has been at peace for over a year (it's now M2 2738 YE) - a major war between Ulfius' Thrinists and Tarkane's forces would be nice.*




We're lawful good though - we need an excuse to *cough* assassinate Tarkane. 

Where are all the evil organisations when you need one!? I bet when Ulfius becomes Emperor we will be knee deep in assassination attempts! 

Evil. You just can't trust it!



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> **The Storm riders* Yup - might watch it today. *




Watch it when it gets dark - remember the difficulty we had trying to watch the film on your monitor during the daytime!  



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Incidentally Craig I'm still waiting to get Ulfius' stat sheet - if you can't find it I'll use the default array from the DMG with a couple of magic item changes (Ioun stone +1 level & the Bloodhammer).*




I'll have a look for it. Default array my ***.


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *



> _Originally posted by S'mon _*
> You've essentially replaced the NPC classes with non-elite PC types.  I do wonder how the population supports 12% clerics, wizards, bards & all, it seems very high.  Are your populations very small?  Do you have huge numbers of level 16+ NPCs? *




Well, considering the support rate is going to be 75% farmers in most reasonable campaigns, 10% PC classes certainly isn't out of the question.

The 90% farmers statistic would be for a 1200's era or other dark ages campaign.  It's not just because it takes so many to support so few, but it takes organization and planning.

And not-stupid rulers.  Not stupid rulers are important.  Stupid rulers would let their cities starve amidst the most bountiful harvests ever simply because they didn't know how to get people to bring food to the city.

It also depends on the crop and the quality of land you're on.   Growing maize and rice can be very effective.

Italy made it to 40% urban around 1500 or so.  I would think that centuries of work on the land would make that kind of ratio more pervasive.

Especially when any nation can put any  amount of water they want whereever they want.  That helps


----------



## Gez

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *You've essentially replaced the NPC classes with non-elite PC types.*



Roughly. I do have experts, adepts and aristocrats (although a bit modified, so that they could be seen as near PC-class in power -- for example, experts regularly get bonus feats they can use for Skill Focus and Greater Skill Focus, so that a talented potter is not necessarily a 11-HD character).



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I do wonder how the population supports 12% clerics, wizards, bards & all, it seems very high.  Are your populations very small?  Do you have huge numbers of level 16+ NPCs? *




First, PC classes includes class with less expensive requirements than clerics and especially wizards. Druids and rangers don't need to be supported by the population (to the contrary, they can help a population support itslef, especially the druids), monks need few things...

Secondly, 12% PC class don't means 12% adventurers. For example, most wizards have a profession (merchant, librarian, apothecary...) in their day-to-day life.


----------



## Blacksad

*Re: Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Bonsoir mes ami Gez et Blacksad (you see I am okay on the simple stuff)
> 
> *




Bonne Nuit U_K!



> *
> Effronte
> *








> *
> Won't you also then need to extend the Great Fortitude; Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes feats to compensate?
> *




why not, but only in my campaign I think (see below)



> *
> Why not just leave it the way it is - seems well enough balanced.
> 
> Another house rule just to compensate for the initial addendums failings - you can see why I am reticent to advocate this!
> 
> I don't know if theres a case for allowing Spell Penetration to stack indefinately though.
> *




I understand, so my house rule probably wouldn't fit in the IH, but the reverse might work: 

except improved spell resistance and the heightened abilities feats, no feats that increase save, skill, or DC stack

So simply disallowing improved spell resistance to be taken multiple times would work?



> *
> Wouldn't that retain previous flaws though.
> 
> Surely (New)CR+11 is the easiest and most credible? *




Some monster are inteded to have a good or bad SR vs character of the appropriate CR, with your formula all monster would have an average SR, while some monster where intended with a bad or good SR (dragon have a low SR for their relative power, I think that this was intentional, to make dragon a fun opponent: i.e. the fighter can hit the dragon with his sword the mage with her fireball, if it isn't too big the rogue can sneak, etc...


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Teaching French to Upper Krust *

Bonjour mes ami francais, je vous espere une bonne journee?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I similarly started in German and English. Now I estimate I'm reasonnably skilled at internet-based conversations in English, but in German, I'm ashamed I hadn't got past this point.*




I know some phrases and words but I wouldn't consider myself competant in any language other than english...and sometimes not even then. 

I was never very good at languages at school; poor short term memory unfortunately. 

...what were we just talking about? 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I was saying that these two minor mistakes would not be noticed in spoken language.*




I doubt I would have understood much of what you said in conversation (I'm not at that stage yet I'm afraid) 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Le monde est mal fait: it's easier to write than to speak in a foreign tongue (since there are no problem of accent and pronounciation), but the errors are more visible (and longer lasting).*




Agreed.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Maybe telepathy would solve this problem, but sadly I don't master this communication medium.*




DOH! There I was getting my hopes up too. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Nothing beats practicing, though. My best English lessons were provided by playing Ultima Underworld 2 (and having a good ol' big dictionnary nearby). Computer games have make me learn more English words than my teachers.*




Theres definately a difference between wanting to learn something and _having_ to learn something.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *There's a French story hour (in the story hour forum) that could be a good start.
> Here's da link: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3352 *




I had a look - the text was fightening _en masse_. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *To give some food for thoughts, here's an article written by Sean K. Reynolds: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/theoryaboutpeasants.html *




Nice article, thanks! Something akin to what I advocate.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*(Spell) Resistance is futile.*



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Bonne Nuit U_K!*




Au contraire, bonjour Blacksad! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *why not, but only in my campaign I think (see below)
> 
> I understand, so my house rule probably wouldn't fit in the IH, but the reverse might work:
> 
> except improved spell resistance and the heightened abilities feats, no feats that increase save, skill, or DC stack
> 
> So simply disallowing improved spell resistance to be taken multiple times would work?*




The problem I see with spell resistance is that unlike other changes I have made (such as Challenge Ratings; Harm/Heal; Multiple Attacks for Multi-Armed Opponents etc.), it is not clearly broken. So changing it is firstly unnecessary; and secondly forces you to change other things just to compensate - something that inevitably snowballs out of control.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Some monster are inteded to have a good or bad SR vs character of the appropriate CR, with your formula all monster would have an average SR, while some monster where intended with a bad or good SR (dragon have a low SR for their relative power, I think that this was intentional, to make dragon a fun opponent: i.e. the fighter can hit the dragon with his sword the mage with her fireball, if it isn't too big the rogue can sneak, etc... *




Not at all, I mentioned previously...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...I don't believe all monsters should be so formulaic, most, but certainly not all.  *




Regarding Dragons they are definately undersold compared to their challenge ratings! The fact that this was supposedly done on purpose is somewhat insulting.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*

Hi all! 

I was going over my Challenge Rating rules (not Effective Character Level you understand; but the CR modifier for high levels) yesterday and have decided to make a number of changes.

I know what you're all thinking, 'what has this doofus gone and done now!?'. 

Anyway, I have modified the framework somewhat above 20 AND I also now have the modifiers for under 20 as well! 

(I can just see it now) What do you mean a 5th-level character is CR10! Are you mad!? 

Anyway I am planning on submitting the totally revised material as an article to Dragon magazine on Monday. I'll let you know how that goes.

Incidently I have also noticed something else which is good news for people like CRGreathouse (hello mate) who were sceptical about my changing what constituted challenge ratings.

*My interpretation of ECL IS exactly the same as WotCs interpretation of CR!*

eg. A 30th-level character is ECL 30 in my system and CR 30 in theirs.

Lets just say I work out a Great Wyrm Red Dragon to be ECL 40; then by WotCs system it is effectively CR40. 

Don't be an idiot I hear you cry in unison.

But just think about what they claim CR to be. 

Its the average level at which point a party of four characters will defeat a monster using (approx.) only 25% of their resources.

It also (more obviously) means at what point is a single character 50/50 against another.

Trust me...I know what I'm doing.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*

FINALLY . . . THE ANUBIS HAS COME BACK TO EN WORLD!

After a week of the server being down on EN World, it's finally working again!  Now I can finally get back to business!



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> I've seen that article but it doesn't make much sense to me - Commoners are not equipped to survive CR1 challenges; you'd have to say that CR1 for a commoner is a much easier challenge than CR1 for a PC, which goes against the spirit (and letter) of the XP rules IMO.
> *




Of course he also advocates cutting the XP by half, so he's basically saying that the encoutners are not CR 1 but rather CR 1/2.  Sounds good enough to me.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi all!
> 
> I was going over my Challenge Rating rules (not Effective Character Level you understand; but the CR modifier for high levels) yesterday and have decided to make a number of changes.
> 
> I know what you're all thinking, 'what has this doofus gone and done now!?'.
> 
> Anyway, I have modified the framework somewhat above 20 AND I also now have the modifiers for under 20 as well!
> 
> (I can just see it now) What do you mean a 5th-level character is CR10! Are you mad!?
> 
> Anyway I am planning on submitting the totally revised material as an article to Dragon magazine on Monday. I'll let you know how that goes.
> 
> Incidently I have also noticed something else which is good news for people like CRGreathouse (hello mate) who were sceptical about my changing what constituted challenge ratings.
> 
> My interpretation of ECL IS exactly the same as WotCs interpretation of CR!
> 
> eg. A 30th-level character is ECL 30 in my system and CR 30 in theirs.
> 
> Lets just say I work out a Great Wyrm Red Dragon to be ECL 40; then by WotCs system it is effectively CR40.
> 
> Don't be an idiot I hear you cry in unison.
> 
> But just think about what they claim CR to be.
> 
> Its the average level at which point a party of four characters will defeat a monster using (approx.) only 25% of their resources.
> 
> It also (more obviously) means at what point is a single character 50/50 against another.
> 
> Trust me...I know what I'm doing.
> *




I think I'm losing faith in your system, man . . . The CRs in the MM are just fine except for some of the most powerful such as Solars and dragons . . . You're simply making this way too complicated!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *FINALLY . . . THE ANUBIS HAS COME BACK TO EN WORLD!*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *After a week of the server being down on EN World, it's finally working again!  Now I can finally get back to business!*




Good to have you back...I was starting to worry. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think I'm losing faith in your system, man . . .*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The CRs in the MM are just fine except for some of the most powerful such as Solars and dragons . . . *




Okay...and how has that changed with my recent revelations?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're simply making this way too complicated! *




What bit don't you understand? I actually didn't think I had revealed enough to confuse people at this stage. I'm confused at your confusion to be honest!


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Okay...and how has that changed with my recent revelations?
> 
> What bit don't you understand? I actually didn't think I had revealed enough to confuse people at this stage. I'm confused at your confusion to be honest!
> *




Changing things even below Level 20 isn't necessary in the least.  A Level 5 Fighter is still CR 5 any which way you slice it, yet now you're saying that ECL and CR are different once again and the whole system will get thrown out of whack.

On another note, have you decided whether or not to include my new feats in the Immortal's Handbook?  Only a select few have anything to do with Dragonball Z and Saiyans, to be honest.  (Only the actual Saiyan feats have anything to do with Dragonball Z and Saiyans.  The rest fit into any campaign!)

Seriously, they're not JUST for Saiyans and the such, they're good for ANY campaign, especially the Toughness chain of feats which is the work I am most proud of.  Also, the Ki feats are quite nice, and actually takes a MUCH better approach to ki than the ridiculous Wisdom nonsense.  ("Ki" translates literally to "Life Energy", or something like that, and thus has NOTHING to do with Wisdom, but rather the harnessing of your mind, body, and soul's full potential.  ANYONE with training can do it!)

By the way, I have fully playtested Energy Manipulation in an actual campaign now, and I must say, I am quite impressed.  The feat turned the tides of the party's most recent boss battle, which was against a Cleric of Vecna who had taken a Potion of Fly, and the party had pretty much no ranged weapons.  They have learned their lesson, believe me!  Anyway, Energy Manipulation for Blast and Explosion completely turned the tide of the battle from certain loss to a very close victory, but didn't throw everything out of proportion, thereby confirming the balance!  WHOOOOOOO! 

Anyway, try them out if you get a chance, I think you'll like them.  The party in my campaign, by the way, was a Level 2 Paladin, a Level 2 Rogue, a Level 2 Cleric, and a Level 2 Fighter.  The rogue has the Energy Manipulation, and they're all human.  The boss was a Level 5 Cleric with a Level 1 Monk and an Ogre . . . It was an ugly battle that ran a RECORD-BREAKING 59 ROUNDS!  Can you believe that?  I've never seen anything like it!  Anyway, enough of that . . . I'm just saying, put 'em in, you know you want to!  

By the way, do you and S'mon game in person or over the net?  Despite the rules disagreements, that campaign sounds hella fun, and if it were possible, I'd love to get in on the action!  Anyway, that's all for now . . .


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> By the way, do you and S'mon game in person or over the net?  Despite the rules disagreements, that campaign sounds hella fun, and if it were possible, I'd love to get in on the action!  Anyway, that's all for now . . . *




Craig's generally not keen on playing over the net.  We played a couple of good games when he was over for Gencon UK.

-Simon


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Changing things even below Level 20 isn't necessary in the least. *




On the contrary, it is necessary. 

Testing shows a 20th-level character is not equal to x4 16th-level characters (in fact thats something you agreed with not so long ago).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A Level 5 Fighter is still CR 5 any which way you slice it,*




No. A 5th-level Fighter is ECL 5. It is also (WotC)CR 5*; but it is more than the equivalent of x4 1st-level characters.

*Which I already explained; (WotC)CR IS the same as my ECL rating.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *yet now you're saying that ECL and CR are different once again and the whole system will get thrown out of whack.*




To use an analogy...

Have you ever heard the expression "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Before even seeing the facts of the case you have me convicted; sentenced; and on death row pending a grim demise with no chance of appeal.

Given your track record of jumping to conclusions (usually the wrong ones); don't you think it would be prudent to withold your scaremongering until you are privy to the facts!?

I appreciate your concern; but I don't rush in where wise men fear to tread.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On another note, have you decided whether or not to include my new feats in the Immortal's Handbook?*




I won't be including any I have seen.

Perhaps you should submit them to a d20 company thats interested in doing a martial arts based product?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Only a select few have anything to do with Dragonball Z and Saiyans, to be honest.  (Only the actual Saiyan feats have anything to do with Dragonball Z and Saiyans.  The rest fit into any campaign!)*




As far as I could tell you had three types of feats:

1. Toughness Feats: this has already been covered in various WotC products and I already have a 'Divine Toughness' SDA (+100 hp).

2. Ki Feats: mainly revolving around energy blasts and suchlike; something that is already covered in D&Dg with Divine Blast and certain other abilities I have already created.

3. Saiyan Feats/Template: obviously specific to DBZ campaigns.

So overall I didn't see anything that warranted inclusion; thats not to say they couldn't be included in another body of work (like I said; try a few d20 publishers); just that they were not really relevant to Immortals. Anything thats not really relevant is just going to dilute the focus of the book.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, do you and S'mon game in person or over the net?  Despite the rules disagreements, that campaign sounds hella fun, and if it were possible, I'd love to get in on the action!  Anyway, that's all for now . . . *




We tried some Play By EMail a few months ago but it was too time consuming. Though I totally loved the Battlecrusier 3000AD game he DMed online, despite the unrealistic ending.

As Simon mentioned; we got some gaming done when I was over in London for Gencon UK. I hope to go back over every few months (or so) when I have the cash.

I'm not sure if Simon is running any PBEM at the moment; probably says somewhere on his website? Simon?


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> On the contrary, it is necessary.
> 
> Testing shows a 20th-level character is not equal to x4 16th-level characters (in fact thats something you agreed with not so long ago).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always wondered why Epic levels didn't start at 19th...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. A 5th-level Fighter is ECL 5. It is also (WotC)CR 5*; but it is more than the equivalent of x4 1st-level characters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's most drastic at 2nd-level, where a 2nd-level character is fairly equivelant to 2 1st-level characters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Which I already explained; (WotC)CR IS the same as my ECL rating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe WotC CR will ever be the same as jack squat.
> 
> On another note, if I want realism and sense, I'll go with GURPS.  More people will understand what I'm doing then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To use an analogy...
> 
> Have you ever heard the expression "Innocent until proven guilty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Decreed in Boston after the Salem witch trials.  I didn't think it ever applied to you Europeans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before even seeing the facts of the case you have me convicted; sentenced; and on death row pending a grim demise with no chance of appeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've stated a number of facts - you intend to rerate CR according to actual power increase.  Fine, but you're keeping WotC CR around as ECL?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't be including any I have seen.
> 
> Perhaps you should submit them to a d20 company thats interested in doing a martial arts based product?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's good   I don't care for Dragonball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I could tell you had three types of feats:
> 
> 1. Toughness Feats: this has already been covered in various WotC products and I already have a 'Divine Toughness' SDA (+100 hp).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is +100 enough?  I mean, a SDA should be a bit more than an epic-level equivelant.  +100, and +1 DR (or whatever you're using now) for purposes of avoiding destruction, or something.
Click to expand...


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*

Hi Xeriar mate! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *It's most drastic at 2nd-level, where a 2nd-level character is fairly equivelant to 2 1st-level characters.*




ECL 1 = CR 2
ECL 2 = CR 4





			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *I don't believe WotC CR will ever be the same as jack squat.*




Well its the same as literal ECL.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *On another note, if I want realism and sense, I'll go with GURPS.*




...and if you want Immortals... 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *More people will understand what I'm doing then.*




I don't understand what you mean? 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Decreed in Boston after the Salem witch trials.  I didn't think it ever applied to you Europeans *




I had diplomatic immunity* that Anubis thought had just been revoked.

*Sounds like a Salient Divine Ability. 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *You've stated a number of facts - you intend to rerate CR according to actual power increase.*




I have, yes.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Fine, but you're keeping WotC CR around as ECL?*




Its not a matter of 'keeping it around' they are one and the same!



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *That's good   I don't care for Dragonball.*




I actually enjoy it in moderation...its perhaps a little repetitive after a while though, yet never less than fun. 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *Is +100 enough?*




Yes.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *I mean, a SDA should be a bit more than an epic-level equivelant.  +100, and +1 DR (or whatever you're using now) for purposes of avoiding destruction, or something. *




SDAs are 'roughly' the equivalent of 5 feats (epic or otherwise).


----------



## Anubis

UK, I thought you were gonna include stuff for mortals in the Immortal's Handbook?  You used SDAs as arguments against me, which was beside the point.  My custom feats are designed for regular mortal PCs primarily, and Improved Epic Toughness gives +100 hit points . . . That means your little SDA is quite weak . . . Maybe +500 would be better?

Trust me, I've tested my Toughness chain of feats, and they're perfectly balanced.  Prerequisites are high, you get plenty for taking them, but they don't give too much.  Yet your SDA for DEITIES gives the same?

Also, as for the Ki feats, these are also for mortals, who have NO access to Divine Blast and the like, so you're comparing apples and oranges there . . .

Now onto the ECL/CR thing . . . I've heard what you've said so far, and that's why I have my doubts.  You have stated enough already.  Just the ridiculous ECL 1 = CR 2 was enough to make me think that it's time I just used DM discretion for ECL and CR based on playtesting and no formulas.  Sorry, but a Level 1 character is NOT a normal challenge (25% resources) for a party of Level 2 characters.  Also, a Level 5 character has NEVER been the equivilant of four Level 1 characters.  A CR 5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters, but an equal challenge (50/50) for a Level 4 character and a Level 2 character.  Sounds right, and that's also how it plays.

I can tell you right now, however, that a single Level 5 character is a HUGE challenge for four Level 2 characters, although not impossible.  I just played that, and the Level 2 party won the battle.

Basically, if you're gonna do this ECL/CR thing, you need to IMMEDIATELY stop with the comparing based on 50/50 chances, because that's not how the system was designed.  The system was designed for four characters of Level X versus Level X challenge, and the party could win such a battle using 20-25% of their resources.  THAT is the basis you must design your system by, or it'll never work.  That's why you've had such trouble until now.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, I thought you were gonna include stuff for mortals in the Immortal's Handbook?*




Where relevant to either immortals or religion, yes. Otherwise no.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You used SDAs as arguments against me, which was beside the point. *




It was totally the point! You advocated the inclusion of feats that were more powerful than SDAs!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My custom feats are designed for regular mortal PCs primarily, and Improved Epic Toughness gives +100 hit points . . . *




I think that tells a story in itself! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That means your little SDA is quite weak . . . Maybe +500 would be better?*




I agree its quite weak compared to 'your' feat. Contrasted to any published material its perfectly balanced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Trust me, I've tested my Toughness chain of feats, and they're perfectly balanced.  Prerequisites are high, you get plenty for taking them, but they don't give too much.  Yet your SDA for DEITIES gives the same?*




I don't believe they are balanced. Not only are you giving away 265 hit points for a mere six feats but you are also increasing the deaths door range to -120 hp.

Thats effectively 375 hit points for SIX feats. I don't see any way to justify that!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, as for the Ki feats, these are also for mortals, who have NO access to Divine Blast and the like, so you're comparing apples and oranges there . . .*




I wouldn't include Apples in the Oranges Handbook either.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now onto the ECL/CR thing . . . I've heard what you've said so far, and that's why I have my doubts.*




Bit premature, but okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You have stated enough already.*




So you already know and understand the changes I have made before I have even revealed them!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Just the ridiculous ECL 1 = CR 2 was enough to make me think that it's time I just used DM discretion for ECL and CR based on playtesting and no formulas.*




What part of CR 'x+4' = x4 CR 'x' don't you understand!?

eg. CR 40 = x4 CR 36



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but a Level 1 character is NOT a normal challenge (25% resources) for a party of Level 2 characters.*




Never said it was.

I said a 1st-level character was CR 2.

Already you have forgotten the golden rule for modifying challenge ratings: YOU CHANGE THE PARTIES CR TOO!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, a Level 5 character has NEVER been the equivilant of four Level 1 characters.*




According to WotC (and everyone using their challenge ratings) it is!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A CR 5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters,*




A WotC CR5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *but an equal challenge (50/50) for a Level 4 character and a Level 2 character.  Sounds right, and that's also how it plays.*




A 50/50 challenge for a 5th-level character would be x4 3rd-level characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I can tell you right now, however, that a single Level 5 character is a HUGE challenge for four Level 2 characters, although not impossible.  I just played that, and the Level 2 party won the battle.*




Of course it is!

ECL 2 = CR 4
ECL 5 = CR 10
x4 ECL 2 = CR 8

A party of x4 ECL 2 characters would therefore be CR 4 for the purpose of determining opponents.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, if you're gonna do this ECL/CR thing, you need to IMMEDIATELY stop with the comparing based on 50/50 chances, because that's not how the system was designed.*




But I can compare and contrast based on either/or.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The system was designed for four characters of Level X versus Level X challenge, and the party could win such a battle using 20-25% of their resources.  THAT is the basis you must design your system by, or it'll never work.  That's why you've had such trouble until now. *




I haven't had any trouble.

My system works perfectly using this mantra.

What you don't seem to understand is that two characters of the same level (or ECL) are a 50/50 contest. If we have four such characters against one; the party of four should win using 25% of their resources.

Two monsters of the same ECL are +2 CR; Four monsters of the same ECL are +4 CR; Eight monsters of the same ECL are +6 CR; Sixteen monsters of the same ECL are CR +8.

Its simple.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I don't believe they are balanced. Not only are you giving away 265 hit points for a mere six feats but you are also increasing the deaths door range to -120 hp.
> 
> Thats effectively 375 hit points for SIX feats. I don't see any way to justify that!?
> *




Prerequisites.  You obviously haven't read them.  Do you realize that only those with a good Fortitude save can take ALL of these feats before like Level 44, and those characters would have NO OTHER FEATS?!  So far, I have seen very few actually take these feats, because of the insane prerequisites.  That's the balancing factor.  Do the math.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> What part of CR 'x+4' = x4 CR 'x' don't you understand!?
> 
> eg. CR 40 = x4 CR 36
> 
> Never said it was.
> 
> I said a 1st-level character was CR 2.
> 
> Already you have forgotten the golden rule for modifying challenge ratings: YOU CHANGE THE PARTIES CR TOO!
> 
> According to WotC (and everyone using their challenge ratings) it is!
> 
> A WotC CR5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters.
> 
> A 50/50 challenge for a 5th-level character would be x4 3rd-level characters.
> 
> Of course it is!
> 
> ECL 2 = CR 4
> ECL 5 = CR 10
> x4 ECL 2 = CR 8
> 
> A party of x4 ECL 2 characters would therefore be CR 4 for the purpose of determining opponents.
> *




You are making things overly complicated!  Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like your system comes up with the exact same results as normal, except it takes three or four more steps to get there.  Also, your party will never be Party Level 1 under your rules, because ECL 1 = CR 2, meaning they'll get less XP from the beginning, thus unbalancing the whole system.

In other words, you are now effectively creating an all new system that isn't the least bit compatible with the old one, that requires an inorinate amount of calculating to use.  And for what?  Things are already perfectly balanced at Levels 1-20, ya' know . . .

If you wanna clear everything up, why not post the system?


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *We tried some Play By EMail a few months ago but it was too time consuming. Though I totally loved the Battlecrusier 3000AD game he DMed online, despite the unrealistic ending.
> 
> As Simon mentioned; we got some gaming done when I was over in London for Gencon UK. I hope to go back over every few months (or so) when I have the cash.
> 
> I'm not sure if Simon is running any PBEM at the moment; probably says somewhere on his website? Simon? *





It was 'Battle for the Galaxy 3300 AD' actually. 
'Unrealistic ending' - Craig's Templars of Solaris' treachery backfired and he lost! 
I don't recall it being unrealistic, you annoyed the Organa Republic player who you betrayed so much that he went all out to do you maximum damage regardless of the cost, leaving the way clear for Dave's Aurum Syndicate to sweep to victory.

I'm not doing any PBEMing; too busy with my tabletop game - BTW following yesterday's game it looks like the PCs might be gunning for Overking Tarkane...


----------



## Gez

Salut Craig !

You probably know what you're doing, but I don't really understand.

From my experience (and experiments), two CR X monsters havn't a 50/50 chance of winning against each other. This is especially true when one has the ability to fly and a ranged attack (like an arrowhawk) and the other is landbound (like a dinosaur). 

Both may be equally challenging for a party of four adventurers made in the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard archetypes, but if they fight each other, one of them is toast 100% of case.

And this talk about using ECL for CR and vice-versa is confusing also... It would have been great if monsters had been made, like standard adventurers, in a way that made CR=ECL=HD, but only a rare few are; and merely by sheer coincidence. 

This seems a Don Quixotian crusade to sort the mess out of these numbers and force them to behave... I think we can trust you for making adequate rules, but here I'll be definitely interested in reading the actual thing. Just to know if you made it after a stroke of genius, or after smoking some dubious substance  (Just joking, of course, but yes I'm a bit surprised.)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Prerequisites.  You obviously haven't read them.  Do you realize that only those with a good Fortitude save can take ALL of these feats before like Level 44, and those characters would have NO OTHER FEATS?!  So far, I have seen very few actually take these feats, because of the insane prerequisites.  That's the balancing factor.  Do the math.*




They are totally unbalanced.

...and unless you are hiding prerequisites somewhere...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Toughness [General]
> You are tougher than normal.
> Benefit: You gain +5 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.
> 
> Dwarf's Toughness [General]
> You are tougher than you were before.
> Prerequisites: Base Fort save bonus +5, Toughness
> Benefit: You gain +10 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.
> 
> Giant's Toughness [General]
> You are amazingly tough.
> Prerequisites: Base Fort save bonus +8, Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness
> Benefit: You gain +20 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.
> 
> Dragon's Toughness [General]
> You are incredibly tough.
> Prerequisites: Base Fort save bonus +11, Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness
> Benefit: You gain +40 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.
> 
> Epic Toughness [Epic]
> You are preternaturally tough.
> Prerequisites: Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, Dragon's Toughness
> Benefit: You gain +80 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.
> 
> Improved Epic Toughness [Epic]
> You're extremely hard to kill, and your toughness amazes even the gods.
> Prerequisites: Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, Dragon's Toughness, Epic Toughness
> Benefit: You gain +100 hit points and your "death's door" range is doubled.*




...thats effectively +375 hit points at early epic levels.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you wanna clear everything up, why not post the system? *




ECL 1-5 = +2 CR
ECL 6-10 = +1 CR
ECL 11-20 = +1/2 CR
ECL 21-40 = +1/4 CR
ECL 41-80 = +1/8 CR
etc.

eg.
ECL 3 = CR 6
ECL 9 = CR 14
ECL 15 = CR 18
ECL 30 = CR 22
ECL 67 = CR 28

1. To gauge a battle where a party of four PCs will win using (approx.) 25% of their resources - USE ECL.

eg.
Party of x4 15th-level characters VS. an ECL 15 opponent.

2. An effective challenge ranges from CR-8 to CR+8.

eg.
So the effective range for x4 15th-level characters is CR10-26. That means ECL 5 (CR-8) to ECL 55 (CR+8)

CR+/-0 = Party victory using 25% of their resources.
CR+4 = 50/50 chance of victory.
CR+8 = Opponent victory using 25% of their resources.

3. To calculate experience points take party level (eg. '15') 
CR +/-0 = x300

eg.
15 x 300 = 4500 XP for a CR+/-0 battle. 

4. For uneven encounters:

CR -8 = divide by 16
CR -7 = divide by 12
CR -6 = divide by 8
CR -5 = divide by 6
CR -4 = divide by 4
CR -3 = divide by 3
CR -2 = divide by 2
CR -1 = divide by 1.5
CR +/-0 = EXP equals Party Average Level x 300
CR +1 = x1.5
CR +2 = x2
CR +3 = x3
CR +4 = x4
CR +5 = x6
CR +6 = x8
CR +7 = x12
CR +8 = x16



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You are making things overly complicated!*




You are being silly.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like your system comes up with the exact same results as normal, except it takes three or four more steps to get there.*




You are more silly than before.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, your party will never be Party Level 1 under your rules, because ECL 1 = CR 2, meaning they'll get less XP from the beginning, thus unbalancing the whole system.*




You are amazingly silly.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *In other words, you are now effectively creating an all new system that isn't the least bit compatible with the old one, that requires an inorinate amount of calculating to use.*




You are incredibly silly. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *And for what?  Things are already perfectly balanced at Levels 1-20, ya' know . . .*




You are preternaturally silly.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Gez said:
			
		

> *Salut Craig !*




Bonjour Gez! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *You probably know what you're doing,*




Yes. Trust me! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *but I don't really understand.*




Thats okay. 

It will be a lot clearer when you see the full rules; explanations and examples.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *From my experience (and experiments), two CR X monsters havn't a 50/50 chance of winning against each other. This is especially true when one has the ability to fly and a ranged attack (like an arrowhawk) and the other is landbound (like a dinosaur).
> 
> Both may be equally challenging for a party of four adventurers made in the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard archetypes, but if they fight each other, one of them is toast 100% of case.*




Handled through situational modifiers since its not a measure of actual power.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *And this talk about using ECL for CR and vice-versa is confusing also... *




Wait for the finished product before passing judgement. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *It would have been great if monsters had been made, like standard adventurers, in a way that made CR=ECL=HD, but only a rare few are; and merely by sheer coincidence.  *




The biggest confusion was made by WotC when they set their challenge ratings to the party average level; rather than individuals (then modify for number of party members).



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *This seems a Don Quixotian crusade to sort the mess out of these numbers and force them to behave... I think we can trust you for making adequate rules,*




Thank you. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *but here I'll be definitely interested in reading the actual thing. Just to know if you made it after a stroke of genius, or after smoking some dubious substance  (Just joking, of course, but yes I'm a bit surprised.) *






Considering whats happened over the past few days I doubt I will divulge any more specific ideas herein. Its time consuming; counter-productive and somewhat disheartening to have to explain myself over and over again. 

Something Gary Gygax posted the other day that I am in total agreement with...



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> *My belief is that the rules for an RPG should facilitate the enjoyment of the game for all concerned. If they get in the way then they are no good.
> 
> Whatever system brings fun for the group is fine. Hopefully the rules will be such as to enable that enjoyment to be for as long a period of play as the group wishes to experience.
> 
> Players who attempt to use the rules as a stick to beat players, or the GM, the latter thus enhancing their character in the game, are anethma to me. Hells bells! If some player in a game I am running demonstrates to me that some rule I have written makes no sense in the situation at hand. or I happen to discern that without such "encouragement," I toss the book out the proverbial window for the case at hand, and likely take a hard look at the material for continued application. Ecverybody makes errors...*




...except probably the whole 'everybody makes errors' bit.


----------



## Blacksad

*(Spell) Resistance is not futile.*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Au contraire, bonjour Blacksad!
> *




Hello Upper_Krust 



> *
> The problem I see with spell resistance is that unlike other changes I have made (such as Challenge Ratings; Harm/Heal; Multiple Attacks for Multi-Armed Opponents etc.), it is not clearly broken. So changing it is firstly unnecessary; and secondly forces you to change other things just to compensate - something that inevitably snowballs out of control.
> *




Hey, it's 2 changes only, the spell resistance itself, and the feat that increase spell resistance (just limit it to be taken three time max, like spell penetration, greater spell penetration and epic(?) spell penetration).

The pricing of the mantle of spell resistance is already broken any way you take it.

and on the first part, it is a problem that character of similar CR encounter different challenge with a monster of similar CR, due to level variation, and when a character one level before rising in CR face almost the same challenge regarding spell resistance than a character one CR higher, it might be a minor problem, but saying that it's importance lower at higher level won't make it disappear.

and you somehow contradict yourself, when you say that you don't want to change thing that aren't obviously broken, regarding CR between level 1 and 20: perhaps a level 2 character isn't CR 2, but a CR 2 monster certainly is CR 2 (per WotC way)(well is somewhat CR 2), and it is neither ECL 2 (per your way), as it might be way stronger than a level 2 character in some field (like hiding and such compared to a rogue).



> *
> Not at all, I mentioned previously...
> 
> Regarding Dragons they are definately undersold compared to their challenge ratings! The fact that this was supposedly done on purpose is somewhat insulting. *




I think that you want to imprint you're personal opinion of dragons on all campaign, while you mentioned previously that you didn't want to do so.

Plus if you want to make all monster SR = CR+11, you could as well give them 50% Magic Resistance, with modifier based on EL (-8CR=-50%MR,+8CR=+50%MR).

I'm serious when I say that some monster are intended with greater or lower resistance, variety is fun in monster abilities, so the formula (old SR-old CR)+new CR would allow to keep this variety.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Yes it is.*



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hello Upper_Krust  *




Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hey, it's 2 changes only, the spell resistance itself, and the feat that increase spell resistance (just limit it to be taken three time max, like spell penetration, greater spell penetration and epic(?) spell penetration).*




Two changes too many though. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *The pricing of the mantle of spell resistance is already broken any way you take it.*




Indeed. (Mantle of Epic Spell Resistance that is)



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *and on the first part, it is a problem that character of similar CR encounter different challenge with a monster of similar CR, due to level variation, and when a character one level before rising in CR face almost the same challenge regarding spell resistance than a character one CR higher, it might be a minor problem, but saying that it's importance lower at higher level won't make it disappear.*




But the affects become less and less relevant. 

Its like giving someone a million dollars. It means less if the character is already a millionaire and much less if they are already a billionaire.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *and you somehow contradict yourself, when you say that you don't want to change thing that aren't obviously broken, regarding CR between level 1 and 20:*




It is broken. I have changed it.

It always was broken; I just thought the difference was negligable and that we could get away without touching it because I hadn't determined a simple enough mechanism to deal with it...now I have.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *perhaps a level 2 character isn't CR 2, but a CR 2 monster certainly is CR 2 (per WotC way)(well is somewhat CR 2), and it is neither ECL 2 (per your way), as it might be way stronger than a level 2 character in some field (like hiding and such compared to a rogue).*




A (WotC) CR2 monster = (My) ECL 2 
(My) ECL 2 = CR 4 

Effective Character Level IS actual power.

Challenge Rating is about relative power, NOT actual power. 

Every time you ascend in Challenge Rating by +2 you are DOUBLING in power!

+2 CR = x2 power
+4 CR = x4 power
+6 CR = x8 power
+8 CR = x16 power



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I think that you want to imprint you're personal opinion of dragons on all campaign, while you mentioned previously that you didn't want to do so.*




Not at all.

Monte Cook already stated that the dragon challenge ratings were purposefully lowered to make them tougher. 

That defeats the whole purpose of challenge ratings in the first place! Secondly its like saying all DMs are too stupid to be able to determine challenges for themselves.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Plus if you want to make all monster SR = CR+11, you could as well give them 50% Magic Resistance, with modifier based on EL (-8CR=-50%MR,+8CR=+50%MR).
> 
> I'm serious when I say that some monster are intended with greater or lower resistance, variety is fun in monster abilities, so the formula (old SR-old CR)+new CR would allow to keep this variety. *




If you want to retain the original foibles for sentimental reasons thats up to you. 

Personally I would rather just leave them alone.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> They are totally unbalanced.
> 
> ...and unless you are hiding prerequisites somewhere...
> 
> ...thats effectively +375 hit points at early epic levels.
> *




I believe I have to agree here.



> *
> ECL 1-5 = +2 CR
> ECL 6-10 = +1 CR
> ECL 11-20 = +1/2 CR
> ECL 21-40 = +1/4 CR
> ECL 41-80 = +1/8 CR
> etc.
> 
> *




I have the vague feeling that +2 CR is a bit too high for ECL 1 - 5.



> *
> You are being silly.
> 
> You are more silly than before.
> 
> You are amazingly silly.
> 
> You are incredibly silly.
> 
> You are preternaturally silly. *



Please, calm down. 
You don't sound like yourself.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I believe I have to agree here.*




It is most apparent.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I have the vague feeling that +2 CR is a bit too high for ECL 1 - 5.*




I think for the most part they are fairly accurate (certainly more so than official interpretations).

To be totally accurate you have to use fractions which is far too pedantic, and irrelevant given any element of subjectivity as herein.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Please, calm down.
> You don't sound like yourself. *




The comments you were refering to were a light-hearted _pastiche_ of Anubis above Feat Prerequisites.

Apologies if the content or tone wasn't initially recognisable.


----------



## Blacksad

*Nooooooooooo!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Bonjour mon ami!
> *




Salut mon pôte!



> *
> Two changes too many though.
> *




nah, compared to the change on CR it's barely noticeable 




> *
> But the affects become less and less relevant.
> 
> Its like giving someone a million dollars. It means less if the character is already a millionaire and much less if they are already a billionaire.
> *




let suppose that all you possess has a value of $100'000
won't you notice it if someone gave you $1 ?



> *
> It is broken. I have changed it.
> 
> It always was broken; I just thought the difference was negligable and that we could get away without touching it because I hadn't determined a simple enough mechanism to deal with it...now I have.
> *




You don't find the new SR mechanic simple enough?

Here is a deal, if you find someone that is not you (or an alt ID), that agree that SR shouldn't be changed, I'll stop asking for a change, and will keep it as my own house rule. 

I think you won't be able to convince anyone 



> *
> A (WotC) CR2 monster = (My) ECL 2
> (My) ECL 2 = CR 4
> 
> Effective Character Level IS actual power.
> 
> Challenge Rating is about relative power, NOT actual power.
> *




So an ogre is equal in power to a level 2 fighter?

[snip]



> *
> Monte Cook already stated that the dragon challenge ratings were purposefully lowered to make them tougher.
> 
> That defeats the whole purpose of challenge ratings in the first place! Secondly its like saying all DMs are too stupid to be able to determine challenges for themselves.
> 
> If you want to retain the original foibles for sentimental reasons thats up to you.
> 
> Personally I would rather just leave them alone. *




If the dragon has an underated SR, increasing its SR will put it even farther from PC ability, that's what bother me.

Plus the formula isn't exclusivly for the few monster that have problem in the MM (otherwise it wouldn't be worth anything), it's especially for monster from other soucres (OA, monster of Rokugan, MM2, etc...). I think that among those some were meant to have a 25% chance to resist spell vs the apropriate party, and I want to keep that. I do not consider this a foible


----------



## S'mon

*Dragon CR*

Just a note on dragon CR - I used my first dragon on Sunday, a young adult red (officially CR 12) with SR 19, 5th level Sorcerer.  It was ambushed by a party of *13* PCs & NPCs levels 7-11, mostly fighters heavily buffed by their clerics and arcane casters (including Jamz's Sorc 10), backed up by two summoned avorrals.  The party were doing almost no damage until the avorrals dispelled its mage armor & shield.  The dragon quickly killed Tallarn's 7th level cleric, but took a lot of damage and had to retreat, escaping with 37hp out of ca 218 he started with.  
Conclusion: young adult red dragons are indeed roughly CR 16.


----------



## Gez

*Re: Yes it is.*

Salut UK,



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *It will be a lot clearer when you see the full rules; explanations and examples.*




I hope so!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Wait for the finished product before passing judgement.*




I will.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The biggest confusion was made by WotC when they set their challenge ratings to the party average level; rather than individuals (then modify for number of party members).*




I can see their reasons there... But if it can ease the work for a roughly standard party, it complexify it for an unbalanced one (like the famous problem of the "no healer" party).

If your system allows to fix that without too much asprin consumption, that would be great !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *A (WotC) CR2 monster = (My) ECL 2
> (My) ECL 2 = CR 4
> 
> Effective Character Level IS actual power.
> 
> Challenge Rating is about relative power, NOT actual power.
> 
> Every time you ascend in Challenge Rating by +2 you are DOUBLING in power!
> 
> +2 CR = x2 power
> +4 CR = x4 power
> +6 CR = x8 power
> +8 CR = x16 power
> *




Ah! Je crois que j'ai compris.

I think that you should use different terms than ECL and CR, this would clear the confusion. Maybe Power Ratings. Absolute Power Rating and Relative Power Rating. APR and RPR. Argh! No! No RPR. That would be just awful and vile.

Without the "rating" thing, then. AP and RP.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Monte Cook already stated that the dragon challenge ratings were purposefully lowered to make them tougher.
> 
> That defeats the whole purpose of challenge ratings in the first place! Secondly its like saying all DMs are too stupid to be able to determine challenges for themselves.
> *




I wholly agree. They used a needlessly useless system of "critter", "terror", "fiend" and "dragon" in their encounter calculations, and assigned wrong CRs based on these category. Thus, a CR 7 critter is a weaker opponent than a CR 6 terror. And dragons have all their CRs underrated.

Two problems here. The first is that this system force some monsters into some category of opponents. A DM is discouraged from using a creature in another role. The second, and main problem is that they should have associated the "challenge type" to the challenge rating, then. They havn't. Thus, monsters that don't appear on the encounter table on the DMG have no precise  category and we're screwed.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Hi Upper Krust


If you have time...

You don’t know me, but I’ve been looking into this thread occasionally and lurking on and off since way back when. Recently, I’ve lost track, so forgive me if the following analyses are out of date wrt your own system – you may have tweaked it, and my conception of it may be incomplete in any case.

I wonder if you’ve got hold of the BoVD yet? I thought that one of the complaints – that Graz’zt ‘got the shaft’ was probably a little unfair. Notwithstanding arguments against the power levels of _all_ the arch-fiends, I thought that their relative levels of power were not that dissimilar to 1E: but the WotC CR system was looking pretty arbitrary. I’d downloaded the Asgard mag with your CR system, and wondered if it would yield results similar to my gut feeling when applied to the Demon Princes.

I did _not_ apply the quasi-deity +8 to any of them – I’m not entirely sure what your criteria are for that and, if applied, what abilities would ‘carry over’ above and beyond the +8.

Also I realize that all special abilities are not the same – weighting them would be difficult.

That said, I wonder how you would react to this analysis using that system: 


*Graz’zt*

ECL = 27 (36 Outsider HD) + 5 (DR15/+6, fast healing 5, item master, outsider traits, see invisibility, SR 38, summon tanar’ri, fear, spell-like abilities) = 32

‡ CR 26

_Note_: He’s also got a mean sword and his spell-like abilities are pretty huge – perhaps enough to count for +2  ECL / +1 CR?

WotC peg Graz’zt at CR24.



*Demogorgon*

ECL = 30 (39 Outsider HD) + 7 (Energy Drain, 2 x  gaze attacks, rot, spell-like abilities, dual actions, fast healing 10, item master, mage armour, outsider traits, see invisibility, SR42, summon tanar’ri, tanar’ri traits) = 37

‡ CR 28

WotC peg Demogorgon at CR30



*Orcus*

ECL = 13 (13th Level Wizard) + 18 (24 Outsider HD above class levels) +5 (Poison, spell-like abilities, see invisibility, summon tanar’ri, summon undead, tanar’ri traits, DR 20/+7, SR41, outsider traits) +1 (Wand of Orcus) = 36

‡ CR 29

WotC place Orcus at CR 28.



*Juiblex*

ECL = 19 (26 Outsider HD) + 9 (Amorphous, blindsight 120, circle of darkness, DR 30/+5, ooze immunities, outsider traits, SR30, summon tanar’ri, summon oozes, tanar’ri traits, acid, circle of cold, constrict, create slime, drown, engulf, improved grab, spell-like abilities) = 28

‡ CR 24

WotC give Juiblex CR 20



*Yeenoghu*

ECL= 25 (33 Outsider HD) + 6 (DR15/+6, fast healing 5, outsider traits, scent, see invisibility, SR 32, summon ghouls, summon gnolls, summon tanar’ri, tanar’ri traits, spell-like abilities) = 31

‡ CR 25

or CR 22, according to WotC.


Feel free to dissect, correct and/or update. I’m interested by your rationale.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Mais qui!*



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Salut mon pôte!  *




Bonjour mon ami gallic! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *nah, compared to the change on CR it's barely noticeable.*




Yes but the CR improvements are a necessity.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *let suppose that all you possess has a value of $100'000
> won't you notice it if someone gave you $1 ?*




You might notice it but would it noticeably affect your buying power; no.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *You don't find the new SR mechanic simple enough?  *




Yes, its simple enough. 

Its just not (as I see it) a necessity.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Here is a deal, if you find someone that is not you (or an alt ID), that agree that SR shouldn't be changed, I'll stop asking for a change, and will keep it as my own house rule.
> 
> I think you won't be able to convince anyone *




If you find someone who has played an Immortal character for over ten years and agrees with you; I might consider taking up your offer. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *So an ogre is equal in power to a level 2 fighter? *




If we assume WotCs CRs are correct, then yes.

However, I work the Ogre out to be ECL 3. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *If the dragon has an underated SR, increasing its SR will put it even farther from PC ability, that's what bother me.*




I'm not planning on changing any dragon SRs though.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Plus the formula isn't exclusivly for the few monster that have problem in the MM (otherwise it wouldn't be worth anything), it's especially for monster from other soucres (OA, monster of Rokugan, MM2, etc...). I think that among those some were meant to have a 25% chance to resist spell vs the apropriate party, and I want to keep that. I do not consider this a foible *




I have no problem with anyone wanting to impose your changes.


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Mais qui!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> If we assume WotCs CRs are correct, then yes.
> 
> However, I work the Ogre out to be ECL 3.
> 
> *




WoTC is very obviously incorrect, ogres are obviously CR 3 - indeed they had ogres as CR 3 in the PHB's 2000 Survival Guide.  Try comparing a real CR 2 like a bugbear to an ogre!  Several of the giant-types are at least 1 CR too low - ettins definitely, trolls probably, hill giants maybe (but CR 7 vs CR 8 means a lot less than CR 2 vs CR 3!)


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Dragon CR*

Hi Simon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Just a note on dragon CR - I used my first dragon on Sunday, a young adult red (officially CR 12) with SR 19, 5th level Sorcerer.  It was ambushed by a party of *13* PCs & NPCs levels 7-11, mostly fighters heavily buffed by their clerics and arcane casters (including Jamz's Sorc 10), backed up by two summoned avorrals.  The party were doing almost no damage until the avorrals dispelled its mage armor & shield.  The dragon quickly killed Tallarn's 7th level cleric, but took a lot of damage and had to retreat, escaping with 37hp out of ca 218 he started with.*




Such an affront must not go unpunished. Let it be known Thrins gaze is far; his reach is wide and his vengeance terrible! 

Was Tallarns death heroic? If so it may be worth a raise dead...what do you say Simon?



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Conclusion: young adult red dragons are indeed roughly CR 16.  *




I seem to recall predicting something like ECL 17.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Yes it is.*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Salut UK,*




Bonjour mon ami! 

*I'm actually typing that with an accent* 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I hope so!*




When in doubt...trust me!



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I will.*








			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I can see their reasons there... But if it can ease the work for a roughly standard party, it complexify it for an unbalanced one (like the famous problem of the "no healer" party).*




If your system allows to fix that without too much asprin consumption, that would be great !

I think so!



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Ah! Je crois que j'ai compris.*




I told you it was easy! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I think that you should use different terms than ECL and CR, this would clear the confusion. Maybe Power Ratings. Absolute Power Rating and Relative Power Rating. APR and RPR. Argh! No! No RPR. That would be just awful and vile.
> 
> Without the "rating" thing, then. AP and RP.*




I'll consider optional terms - though it should really be WotC that should change their terms! 

At least when I use Effective Character Level and Challenge Rating 'it does exactly what it says on the tin!'



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I wholly agree. They used a needlessly useless system of "critter", "terror", "fiend" and "dragon" in their encounter calculations, and assigned wrong CRs based on these category. Thus, a CR 7 critter is a weaker opponent than a CR 6 terror. And dragons have all their CRs underrated.
> 
> Two problems here. The first is that this system force some monsters into some category of opponents. A DM is discouraged from using a creature in another role. The second, and main problem is that they should have associated the "challenge type" to the challenge rating, then. They havn't. Thus, monsters that don't appear on the encounter table on the DMG have no precise  category and we're screwed. *




Its a lot simpler to just rate them all under the same mechanics...so thats what I have done.


----------



## Blacksad

Hi Gez & U_K!



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *
> I think that you should use different terms than ECL and CR, this would clear the confusion. Maybe Power Ratings. Absolute Power Rating and Relative Power Rating. APR and RPR. Argh! No! No RPR. That would be just awful and vile.
> *




LOL 

As long as the whole system isn't called Force Notion 



> *Originally posted by Upper_Krust
> If you find someone who has played an Immortal character for over ten years and agrees with you; I might consider taking up your offer.
> *




If you find only one (including you) that has played 3rd edition for over ten years, I might agree with you 

The way AD&D worked at high-level seems a bit different than how it works now in 3rd edition, if only because it was less defined.

The current system is accessible to much more players, you can't know every way that the IH could be used (you're only omnipotent, not necessarily omniscient ), consider that it has to be clarified by the sage if iajitsu focus and sneak attack could stack or not.

I do not remember the answer, but it affect the ninja of the crane family, mentioned in way of the ninja, while in OA such concept (ninja in one of the 8 great clans) was out of place.

By letting a know minor bug in the book, you're bound to have multiple way for players to find it (for exemple, because some DM might want a game focused on rogue and fighter, doing so by removing additional roll in spellcasting and removing effect that impede spellcasting, keeping only saves & SR).

oh, and $2 represent a full meal for me


----------



## Upper_Krust

Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Hi Upper Krust*




Hi there! 



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *If you have time...*




Sure, fire away! 



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *You don’t know me, but I’ve been looking into this thread occasionally and lurking on and off since way back when.*




Well its nice to finally hear from you! 

Big hello to all the other lurkers! 



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Recently, I’ve lost track, so forgive me if the following analyses are out of date wrt your own system – you may have tweaked it, and my conception of it may be incomplete in any case.*




I have reworked both the ECL system and (within the last few days) the CR modifiers.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *I wonder if you’ve got hold of the BoVD yet?*




Nope. I'll be lucky to get it by Christmas to be honest. 

However some nice people were able to enlighten me on one or two points, so I'm not completely in the dark. 



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *I thought that one of the complaints – that Graz’zt ‘got the shaft’ was probably a little unfair. *




Any conversion where Graz'zt is not comparable to the likes of Demogorgon or Orcus means that he 'got the shaft'.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Notwithstanding arguments against the power levels of all the arch-fiends, I thought that their relative levels of power were not that dissimilar to 1E: but the WotC CR system was looking pretty arbitrary.*




Initially I was dismayed by Graz'zts CR; but I quickly ascertained WotC had made a mess of the CRs even before I saw them.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *I’d downloaded the Asgard mag with your CR system, and wondered if it would yield results similar to my gut feeling when applied to the Demon Princes.*




The old system should still work fairly well; though the new system/modifier is dead on the mark.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *I did not apply the quasi-deity +8 to any of them – I’m not entirely sure what your criteria are for that and, if applied, what abilities would ‘carry over’ above and beyond the +8.*




It can be tricky if its not totally spelt out for you. But after you understand the principles you will see its really simple.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Also I realize that all special abilities are not the same – weighting them would be difficult.*




The new system/modifiers takes everything into account.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *That said, I wonder how you would react to this analysis using that system:*




Lets take a look.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Graz’zt
> 
> ECL = 27 (36 Outsider HD) + 5 (DR15/+6, fast healing 5, item master, outsider traits, see invisibility, SR 38, summon tanar’ri, fear, spell-like abilities) = 32
> 
> ‡ CR 26
> 
> Note: He’s also got a mean sword and his spell-like abilities are pretty huge – perhaps enough to count for +2  ECL / +1 CR?
> 
> WotC peg Graz’zt at CR24.*




Okay, first things first. Using the new system I need the ability scores; however I will just assume they have an average of 30 in all abilities (I know Graz'zt has something like STR 26; CON 28; CHA 39).

That means Graz'zt (under the new system) is ECL 43.

Meaning a party of x4 40th-47th-level characters should defeat him using only 25% of their resources.

Meaning a party of x4 24th-27th-level characters should have a 50/50 chance against him.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Demogorgon
> 
> ECL = 30 (39 Outsider HD) + 7 (Energy Drain, 2 x  gaze attacks, rot, spell-like abilities, dual actions, fast healing 10, item master, mage armour, outsider traits, see invisibility, SR42, summon tanar’ri, tanar’ri traits) = 37
> 
> ‡ CR 28
> 
> WotC peg Demogorgon at CR30*




Using the new system (and again assuming a 30 point average for ability scores: I know Demogorgon has STR 28; CON 30). 

Incidently you forgot his Damage Reduction and he has three gaze attacks. 

Demogorgon works out at ECL 50 (not counting the dual actions ability; for which I am going to _ad hoc_ a +5 ECL bonus.

Total ECL 55.

Meaning a party of x4 48th-55th-level characters should defeat him using only 25% of their resources.

Meaning a party of x4 28th-31st-level characters should have a 50/50 chance against him.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Orcus
> 
> ECL = 13 (13th Level Wizard) + 18 (24 Outsider HD above class levels) +5 (Poison, spell-like abilities, see invisibility, summon tanar’ri, summon undead, tanar’ri traits, DR 20/+7, SR41, outsider traits) +1 (Wand of Orcus) = 36
> 
> ‡ CR 29
> 
> WotC place Orcus at CR 28.*




Again using the new system (and assuming an average of 30; knowing he has STR 39; CON 42; CHA 21)

Orcus works out at ECL 47 not counting the Wand of Orcus.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Juiblex
> 
> ECL = 19 (26 Outsider HD) + 9 (Amorphous, blindsight 120, circle of darkness, DR 30/+5, ooze immunities, outsider traits, SR30, summon tanar’ri, summon oozes, tanar’ri traits, acid, circle of cold, constrict, create slime, drown, engulf, improved grab, spell-like abilities) = 28
> 
> ‡ CR 24
> 
> WotC give Juiblex CR 20*




Juiblex works out at ECL 43 (same as Graz'zt)



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Yeenoghu
> 
> ECL= 25 (33 Outsider HD) + 6 (DR15/+6, fast healing 5, outsider traits, scent, see invisibility, SR 32, summon ghouls, summon gnolls, summon tanar’ri, tanar’ri traits, spell-like abilities) = 31
> 
> ‡ CR 25
> 
> or CR 22, according to WotC.*




Yeenoghu works out at ECL 41



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Feel free to dissect, correct and/or update. I’m interested by your rationale. *




So, using the new system (assuming 30 point ability score averages all round):

Graz'zt = ECL 43 (possibly 44 with sword)
Demogorgon = ECL 55
Orcus = ECL 48 (possibly up to 53 with wand, I'll have to check)
Juiblex = ECL 43
Yeenoghu = ECL 41 (possibly 42 with flail)

Incidently:

Asmodeus = ECL 51 (possibly up to 56 with rod)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *I did not apply the quasi-deity +8 to any of them – I’m not entirely sure what your criteria are for that and, if applied, what abilities would ‘carry over’ above and beyond the +8.
> 
> Also I realize that all special abilities are not the same – weighting them would be difficult. *




I actually forgot to mention earlier that applying the Quasi-deity Template to the Demon Princes adds +4 ECL (rather than +9).

Applying the Quasi-deity template to the Arch-Devils adds +5 ECL (rather than +9)

The difference is because the Immunities gained add more to Baatezu than Tanar'ri.

So... 

Quasi-deity Graz'zt = ECL 47 (possibly 48 w. sword)
Quasi-deity Asmodeus = ECL 56 (possibly 61 w. rod)

*Remember ECL is a measure of power.*

So Graz'zt ECL 43 = single 43rd-level character.

ECL is the same point at which a party of x4 PCs should defeat the opponent using 25% of their resources.

*We use CR to determine relative power.*

ECL 43 = CR 25

Every CR -2 = Half the power
Every CR +2 = Double the power

eg. 
- Graz'zt is DOUBLE the power of a 32nd-35th-level character (CR 23).
- Graz'zt is QUADRUPLE the power of a 24th-27th-level character (CR 21)
- Graz'zt is HALF the power of a 56th-63rd-level character (CR 27)
- Graz'zt is ONE QUARTER the power of a 72nd-79th-level character (CR 29)


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> They are totally unbalanced.
> 
> ...and unless you are hiding prerequisites somewhere...
> 
> ...thats effectively +375 hit points at early epic levels.
> *




Your math is WAY off.  You get 255 hit points for the cost of SIX FEATS, and the MINIMUM level for being able to pull this off is Level 24 IF you have a good Fort save AND spend ALL BUT TWO FEATS ON TOUGHNESS FEATS.

That is an incredibly expensive cost.  Yeah, fighters will still have plenty of feats, BUT not anywhere NEAR as many as before.  That's four less combat feats for the fighter, who can't use his bonus feats to get these Toughness feats.

Those without a good Fort save can't get this until Level 36!

Now take a look at what monsters in the ELH can do to you . . . Notice how the Devastation Vermin can do HUNDREDS of damage?  Notice how epic dragons can thrash character with 300+ hit points with ease?

You see, this is perfectly balanced because of the prerequisites.  Those prerequisites are very stiff, and most characters STILL don't take them as I've seen.  At Level 40+, those 255 hit points are chump change.  As for the extended death's door, well, when creatures can do hundreds of damage per hit, the -10 crap or -Constitution crap does NOTHING AT ALL.

Anyway, I've proven my point.  You're the one being silly here.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ECL 1-5 = +2 CR
> ECL 6-10 = +1 CR
> ECL 11-20 = +1/2 CR
> ECL 21-40 = +1/4 CR
> ECL 41-80 = +1/8 CR
> etc.
> 
> eg.
> ECL 3 = CR 6
> ECL 9 = CR 14
> ECL 15 = CR 18
> ECL 30 = CR 22
> ECL 67 = CR 28
> 
> 1. To gauge a battle where a party of four PCs will win using (approx.) 25% of their resources - USE ECL.
> 
> eg.
> Party of x4 15th-level characters VS. an ECL 15 opponent.
> 
> 2. An effective challenge ranges from CR-8 to CR+8.
> 
> eg.
> So the effective range for x4 15th-level characters is CR10-26. That means ECL 5 (CR-8) to ECL 55 (CR+8)
> 
> CR+/-0 = Party victory using 25% of their resources.
> CR+4 = 50/50 chance of victory.
> CR+8 = Opponent victory using 25% of their resources.
> 
> 3. To calculate experience points take party level (eg. '15')
> CR +/-0 = x300
> 
> eg.
> 15 x 300 = 4500 XP for a CR+/-0 battle.
> 
> 4. For uneven encounters:
> 
> CR -8 = divide by 16
> CR -7 = divide by 12
> CR -6 = divide by 8
> CR -5 = divide by 6
> CR -4 = divide by 4
> CR -3 = divide by 3
> CR -2 = divide by 2
> CR -1 = divide by 1.5
> CR +/-0 = EXP equals Party Average Level x 300
> CR +1 = x1.5
> CR +2 = x2
> CR +3 = x3
> CR +4 = x4
> CR +5 = x6
> CR +6 = x8
> CR +7 = x12
> CR +8 = x16
> *




So now you've added an innane amount of math and calculations to the process.  Now you have to calculate the new ECL, calculate a new CR based on the new ECL, and then calculate the XP based on one number while considering challenges based on the other!  We're talk about ten or twenty extra minutes of real time here!

Sorry, but most of us don't have that kinda time, so unless you intend to publish a list of every monster thus far released with full ECL and CR listings.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You are being silly.
> 
> You are more silly than before.
> 
> You are amazingly silly.
> 
> You are incredibly silly.
> 
> You are preternaturally silly.
> *




I'm gonna have a hard time listening to you if you're just planning on flaming me every time I talk.


----------



## S'mon

*Re: Re: Dragon CR*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Such an affront must not go unpunished. Let it be known Thrins gaze is far; his reach is wide and his vengeance terrible!
> 
> Was Tallarns death heroic? If so it may be worth a raise dead...what do you say Simon?
> 
> *




Tallarn's PC Ori did indeed die heroically; yelling curses at the dragon (after climbing out from under a barbecued cow), he drew the brunt of its attacks and went down at -2 hp, he was finished off by his own 'shield other' spell cast on Sigurd (Lars/Dispater).  They're looking at having him raised by the remaining party cleric, (Xyzzy's cohort Lilliana, priestess of Carthea) who's nearly 9th level.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hi Gez & U_K!*




Bonsoir! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *If you find only one (including you) that has played 3rd edition for over ten years, I might agree with you
> 
> The way AD&D worked at high-level seems a bit different than how it works now in 3rd edition, if only because it was less defined.*




Amazingly spell resistance/magic resistance worked exactly the same though! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *The current system is accessible to much more players, you can't know every way that the IH could be used (you're only omnipotent, not necessarily omniscient ),*








			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *consider that it has to be clarified by the sage if iajitsu focus and sneak attack could stack or not.
> 
> I do not remember the answer, but it affect the ninja of the crane family, mentioned in way of the ninja, while in OA such concept (ninja in one of the 8 great clans) was out of place.*




Sages! We don't need no stinking sages! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *By letting a known minor bug in the book, you're bound to have multiple way for players to find it (for exemple, because some DM might want a game focused on rogue and fighter, doing so by removing additional roll in spellcasting and removing effect that impede spellcasting, keeping only saves & SR).*




I just don't see how players are going to exploit spell resistance as you envision?



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *oh, and $2 represent a full meal for me  *




I didn't know paper was so nutritious!?


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Amazingly spell resistance/magic resistance worked exactly the same though!
> *




1st edition? That's cheating, I wasn't even born when it existed! 

didn't the DM needed to change the MR of his monster based on the level of the mage during play? that's might be a 5% variation, but given that it was the DM that rolled MR, he was able to magically transform a faillure into a success.



> *
> I just don't see how players are going to exploit spell resistance as you envision?
> *




Just that it's easier to remove rules than to add new ones, and that some players (and DMs, that's the missing part of my last post ), might remove from the games effect that impede spellcastig leaving only SR and saves, thus those will have much more importance.

Some DMs might have extensive rules on mage duel that use SR and caster level, and might want to use them with immortals.

and so on...



> *
> I didn't know paper was so nutritious!?  *




you don't have 2€ banknote in E.U., only coins, and metals is more nutritious than paper (and some nice people agree to trade those piece of metal with rice & spaghetti).

That's why people in the euro zone are more healthy


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm gonna have a hard time listening to you if you're just planning on flaming me every time I talk. *




Sorry if you took umbrage mate? 

Though as if arguing against me wasn't silly enough at the best of times... 

...given that I hadn't even posted my updated rules you chose to argue (in fact you flat stated I was wrong) despite not even knowing what you were arguing about! If thats not silly what is!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your math is WAY off.  You get 255 hit points for the cost of SIX FEATS.*




...and deaths door is increased by 110 points.

Admittedly I should have stated 365 rather than 375, though deaths door is in itself an optional rule as I recall, so +375 is still viable.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and the MINIMUM level for being able to pull this off is Level 24 IF you have a good Fort save AND spend ALL BUT TWO FEATS ON TOUGHNESS FEATS.*




Which, given the mammoth increase you advocate is going to be taken by every character with good fortitude saves!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That is an incredibly expensive cost.  Yeah, fighters will still have plenty of feats, BUT not anywhere NEAR as many as before.  That's four less combat feats for the fighter, who can't use his bonus feats to get these Toughness feats.*




Personally I would go along with +5hp increments (+5/+10/+15/+20/+25 epic, etc.); however, I don't see how WotCs treatment of 'toughness' is unduly broken so theres really no point rewriting this particular chain of feats.

I really think you are letting things get out of control especially with the epic increases.

Your two epic feats are akin to adding 6 and 8 points respectively to Constitution*!

*and thats not even counting the deaths door antics! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Those without a good Fort save can't get this until Level 36!*




The problem lies in the individual feats - not the who; what; where; when and how.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now take a look at what monsters in the ELH can do to you . . . Notice how the Devastation Vermin can do HUNDREDS of damage?  Notice how epic dragons can thrash character with 300+ hit points with ease?*




The Devastation Beetle deals (on average) 160hp damage/round. It is (approx.) ECL 52. Given that only Fighter types should logically engage it in melee, they should already have hundreds of hit points themselves.

A Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (approx. ECL 100) delivers (on average) 290hp damage/round. At that measure of challenge even the party wizard should be able to take a round or two of attacks from it and stay standing.

The amount of damage monsters can deal is not a plausible excuse to create unbalanced feats.

Monster power is rated in ECL. Monsters of a certain power go up against PCs of relative/comparable power.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You see, this is perfectly balanced because of the prerequisites.  Those prerequisites are very stiff, and most characters STILL don't take them as I've seen.  At Level 40+, those 255 hit points are chump change.*




You are practically doubling the characters hit points!

Personally I don't think 'harsh' prerequisites are a valid enough excuse.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for the extended death's door, well, when creatures can do hundreds of damage per hit, the -10 crap or -Constitution crap does NOTHING AT ALL.*




But the fact is its not -10; its -120!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I've proven my point.*




I disagree. As I see it the epic feats are still broken (possibly the Dragons Toughness as well).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're the one being silly here.*




It must be contagious. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So now you've added an innane amount of math and calculations to the process.*




I have added very little that wasn't already there. I'm doing all the math and calculations for you - as before.

The only additional mechanic that wasn't present in the Asgard magazine article is the CR modifiers for under ECL 20.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now you have to calculate the new ECL,*




Unless you feel confident the WotC CR is adequate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *calculate a new CR based on the new ECL,*




Thats going to be no more difficult than looking at a single table. Remember that table which compared ECLs to CRs in the Asgard article? Thats how difficult that is.

ie. Not at all.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and then calculate the XP based on one number*




Which you have to do even in the official rules and was always a staple part of my system.

So nothing new there.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *while considering challenges based on the other!*




Again always a staple part of my system. 

You seem to be suffering from amnesia.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *We're talk about ten or twenty extra minutes of real time here!*




Give or take 9-18 minutes perhaps. On the single occasion you would ever have to determine a monsters ECL anyway.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but most of us don't have that kinda time,*




I'm sorry for keeping you! 

Feel free to use WotCs system...Oh thats right - IT DOESN'T WORK! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *so unless you intend to publish a list of every monster thus far released with full ECL*




I may publish a list of those with notably incorrect CRs such as Dragons and the Solar.

Again, something I was already doing anyway.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and CR listings.*




I don't need to post a list of CRs; you just look at the CR per ECL table.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...and deaths door is increased by 110 points.
> *




...during which you are unconscious.  This merely gives your party more time to save you from dying, so as to reduce death in the game, which ALWAYS slows down play and makes things less fun anyway!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Admittedly I should have stated 365 rather than 375, though deaths door is in itself an optional rule as I recall, so +375 is still viable.
> *




Using those feats, I suggest NOT making it optional.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Which, given the mammoth increase you advocate is going to be taken by every character with good fortitude saves!
> *




Believe it or not, very few actually do.  I've had this for a while now, and NO ONE has yet to take all of these feats.  For one, very few people play straight fighters.  For two, any class other than a straight fighter will be giving up ALL of his or her feats to get these, meaning no Weapon Focus, no Improved Critical, no Whirlwind Attack, and most likely no access to Prestige Classes.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Personally I would go along with +5hp increments (+5/+10/+15/+20/+25 epic, etc.);
> *




I'll give ya' this one.  Admittedly, the increases could go down SLIGHTLY as these were a bit of overcompensation . . . Either that, or stiffen the prerequisites . . .



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> however, I don't see how WotCs treatment of 'toughness' is unduly broken so theres really no point rewriting this particular chain of feats.
> *




It's not that the feats are broken, it's that they're USELESS.  I like ALL feats to have some kinda meaning.  That's why I made Endurance a prerequisite for the Ki feats, to give Endurance meaning.  Some of these feats do NOTHING.  Who in their right mind would take the current Dragon's Toughness, considering the inane prerequisites and only +12 hit points, which any CR 10+ monster could sneeze at and make disappear?  (The minimum level needed to take it is Level 18 unless you do some insane multi-classing!)

Like I said, MAYBE they could be decreased a little, but fact is, they still need to be increased to be at all useful.  Perhaps +5, +10, +15, +20, +25, +25, with all the current death's door extensions?  That would add up to +100 hit points and a death's door of maybe -180 for a powerful character with a good Constitution . . . Or maybe the prerequisites should increase.

All I know is that players are seeing something wrong with these feats that I'm not seeing, because most of them still find them to be a waste.  I think the real problem perhaps might be that these feats are too hard to get at low levels when they'd be most useful, and the combat feats are MUCH more useful.  Everyone will EVENTUALLY get these feats, just not until very high levels.  By Level 60, you don't even notice the increase, honestly.  All of them together is one more hit you can take from an Epic monster, and that's about it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I really think you are letting things get out of control especially with the epic increases.
> 
> Your two epic feats are akin to adding 6 and 8 points respectively to Constitution*!
> 
> *and thats not even counting the deaths door antics!
> *




The only thing I can think of that is turning you all off is that I run EPIC games, not meaning Level 20+, but meaning games where the world is about to be destroyed and the PCs are the legendary heroes that can stop the evil from destroying everything.

Not only do I not like PCs dying (I try to avoid it at all costs even!), but I like PCs to be able to fight in a lot of battles.  Perhaps that is the problem?

Maybe I'm doing the same thing you've done in the past by customizing rules to fit my own campaign . . . Very well, I can release a new set that works even in less powerful campaigns.  Perhaps then you'll see that although you're the genius of the deities, I'm the genius of the feats!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You are practically doubling the characters hit points!
> *




WHAT?!  You're nuts . . . Even the Level 30 NPC Fighter already has 275, and PCs at Level 40 should have MUCH higher.  By Level 40, they'll probably have AT LEAST 500.  By Level 60, the hit points will be nearing 1,000 EASY!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Feel free to use WotCs system...Oh thats right - IT DOESN'T WORK!
> *




Um, but IT DOES WORK.  Until Level 20.  After that is when it breaks down.  Trust me, I've played this game quite a bit in the last three years, and we've NEVER had a problem at Levels 1-20.  That's proof right there that the system works at lower levels.

As I always say, if it ain't broken, don't fix it!  Concentrate on what IS broken, Levels 21+.


----------



## Anubis

Well, I posted errata for the feats and the Saiyans.  I think you'll find the Toughness more acceptable for "low-powered" campaigns now.

Also, I added a nifty new feat!

Improved Efficient Item Creation [Epic]
Select an item creation feat.  You can create magic items using that feat even more quickly then before.
Prerequisites: Item creation feat to be selected, Efficient Item Creation for the item creation feat to be selected, Knowledge (arcana) 44 ranks, Spellcraft 44 ranks
Benefit: Select an item creation feat.  Creating a magic item using that feat requires one day per 100,000 gp of the item's market price, with a minimum of one day.  All items created using this feat cost an additional 10,000 XP.
Normal: Without this feat, creating a magic item requires one day for each 1,000 gp of the item's market price.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times.  Its effects do not stack.  Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different item creation feat.

This should solve the problem with more expensive items . . .


----------



## Xeriar

> _Originally posted by Anubis _...during which you are unconscious.  This merely gives your party more time to save you from dying, so as to reduce death in the game, which ALWAYS slows down play and makes things less fun anyway!




I don't play games where death is a ten-minute break in the  action anymore.  When death becomes a joke, there's no more suspense.



> Using those feats, I suggest NOT making it optional.




I don't think it is optional, because undead and constructs are destroyed at 0 HP, unlike everyone else.



> Believe it or not, very few actually do.  I've had this for a while now, and NO ONE has yet to take all of these feats.  For one, very few people play straight fighters.  For two, any class other than a straight fighter will be giving up ALL of his or her feats to get these, meaning no Weapon Focus, no Improved Critical, no Whirlwind Attack, and most likely no access to Prestige Classes.




Seven feats, two of them epic, other classes provide bonus feats too, you know, and a lot of people take two levels of fighter.




> All I know is that players are seeing something wrong with these feats that I'm not seeing, because most of them still find them to be a waste.  I think the real problem perhaps might be that these feats are too hard to get at low levels when they'd be most useful, and the combat feats are MUCH more useful.  Everyone will EVENTUALLY get these feats, just not until very high levels.  By Level 60, you don't even notice the increase, honestly.  All of them together is one more hit you can take from an Epic monster, and that's about it.




Exactly, they don't scale.  They don't mean much when hit points don't really matter as long as you're over 150.



> The only thing I can think of that is turning you all off is that I run EPIC games, not meaning Level 20+, but meaning games where the world is about to be destroyed and the PCs are the legendary heroes that can stop the evil from destroying everything.




Shoot, I like to give my villians story, and purpose.  Not all of them are evil, some just want to be free.  What's wrong with wanting to be free, if only for a moment of your etarnal life?



> Not only do I not like PCs dying (I try to avoid it at all costs even!), but I like PCs to be able to fight in a lot of battles.  Perhaps that is the problem?




This is probably the reason noone takes your feats - healing magic is an arm and a leg cheaper than a feat.  More hitpoints != more battles, more battles != more funner.



> Maybe I'm doing the same thing you've done in the past by customizing rules to fit my own campaign . . . Very well, I can release a new set that works even in less powerful campaigns.  Perhaps then you'll see that although you're the genius of the deities, I'm the genius of the feats!




I don't think either of you are either.  For the gods, I have my own cosmology, my own ideas.  For me, in my campaign, the concept of an overgod exists...  the god of a 'galaxy' if you will, but it is to the greatest combined might of the gods as they are to an insect.  Not to say that I won't make use of UK's ideas, but I've got my own templates already to suit my needs for more flexible gods 

For feats, aside from the general comment that there already are enough/too many, all you offer is your toughness feats, really.  The rest is for your Dragonball stuff, really (well even the toughness ones are).

I mean, any show that spends 30 minutes covering the last second of a fight...

Plus, too many jokes about Vegeta being over constipated. 



> WHAT?!  You're nuts . . . Even the Level 30 NPC Fighter already has 275, and PCs at Level 40 should have MUCH higher.  By Level 40, they'll probably have AT LEAST 500.  By Level 60, the hit points will be nearing 1,000 EASY!




Exactly, what do your feats add to the quality of the game, even more so, what do they add to something like the Immortal's Handbook?



> Um, but IT DOES WORK.  Until Level 20.  After that is when it breaks down.  Trust me, I've played this game quite a bit in the last three years, and we've NEVER had a problem at Levels 1-20.  That's proof right there that the system works at lower levels.




But it's not.  The game starts at second level, I kid you not.

Seriously, level 2 is 4 times as good as level 1 (with equipment factored in) with average hitpoints (max at first level throws this a bit).  10% greater chance to hit, 15% better chance to avoid being hit (or so), double the hit points, 25% more skills and another save point for a raw fighter.



> As I always say, if it ain't broken, don't fix it!  Concentrate on what IS broken, Levels 21+.




What's the difference between 19+ and 21+?

It should be:
Level 1 = CR 1
Level 2 = CR 3
Level 3 = CR 4
...
Level 18 = CR 19
Level 20 = CR 20

The initial raw jump in power at low levels is what's playing with Upper Krust's mind.


----------



## Xeriar

> _Originally posted by Anubis _*
> 
> Improved Efficient Item Creation [Epic]
> Select an item creation feat.  You can create magic items using that feat even more quickly then before.
> Prerequisites: Item creation feat to be selected, Efficient Item Creation for the item creation feat to be selected, Knowledge (arcana) 44 ranks, Spellcraft 44 ranks
> Benefit: Select an item creation feat.  Creating a magic item using that feat requires one day per 100,000 gp of the item's market price, with a minimum of one day.  All items created using this feat cost an additional 10,000 XP.
> Normal: Without this feat, creating a magic item requires one day for each 1,000 gp of the item's market price.
> Special: You can gain this feat multiple times.  Its effects do not stack.  Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different item creation feat.
> *




Ugh, 10,000 XP is a terrible chunk even at 41st level, and it requires knowledge: Arcana which is not a class skill for druids, psions, rangers or paladins (the last two are actually important...)

Regardless, this gets house ruled a lot anyway.


----------



## Anubis

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> For feats, aside from the general comment that there already are enough/too many, all you offer is your toughness feats, really.  The rest is for your Dragonball stuff, really (well even the toughness ones are).
> *




How do you arrive at that conclusion?  There are a *total* of (I think) SEVEN feats that pertain to Dragonball material.  (Control Oozaru Form, Tail Weakness Immunity, 2nd-Grade Super Saiyan, Ultra Super Saiyan, Full-Power Super Saiyan, Saiyan's Toughness, Epic Saiyan's Toughness)  ALL the rest are usable in ANY campaign, especially now with my recent errata.  Trust me.

My campaign has no epic stuff OR Saiyans yet (Level 3 thus far in the new game), but the party's rogue is having plenty of fun with Energy Manipulation.  Not too powerful, but it HAS saved the party from death on a couple of occasions.  The Ki feats are awesome and perfectly suitable to ANY campaign.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *1st edition? That's cheating, I wasn't even born when it existed!  *




It still exists today in fact! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *didn't the DM needed to change the MR of his monster based on the level of the mage during play?*




1st Ed. Magic Resistance exactly parallels 3rd Ed. Spell Resistance. Just the terminology is different.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *that's might be a 5% variation, but given that it was the DM that rolled MR, he was able to magically transform a faillure into a success.*




I don't understand the above statement. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Just that it's easier to remove rules than to add new ones, and that some players (and DMs, that's the missing part of my last post ), might remove from the games effect that impede spellcastig leaving only SR and saves, thus those will have much more importance.
> 
> Some DMs might have extensive rules on mage duel that use SR and caster level, and might want to use them with immortals.
> 
> and so on...*




If individual DMs want to incorporate house rules then thats entirely up to them.

I may still include the SR modifications as an optional rule, but I personally don't see it as a necessity and it causes as many problems as it solves anyway.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *you don't have 2€ banknote in E.U., only coins, and metals is more nutritious than paper  (and some nice people agree to trade those piece of metal with rice & spaghetti).
> 
> That's why people in the euro zone are more healthy  *




Bon appetit!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *...during which you are unconscious.  This merely gives your party more time to save you from dying,*




Couple that with the Fast Healing Feat and its 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *so as to reduce death in the game, which ALWAYS slows down play and makes things less fun anyway!*




There always has to be the tangible threat of death.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Using those feats, I suggest NOT making it optional.*




Obviously, since its an intrinsic part of your feat chain.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Believe it or not, very few actually do.  I've had this for a while now, and NO ONE has yet to take all of these feats.  For one, very few people play straight fighters.  For two, any class other than a straight fighter will be giving up ALL of his or her feats to get these, meaning no Weapon Focus, no Improved Critical, no Whirlwind Attack, and most likely no access to Prestige Classes.*




If no ones going to take the feats in the first place why make them like that. 

You can't argue "Well they might be broken if you take them - but no one ever takes them".



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'll give ya' this one.  Admittedly, the increases could go down SLIGHTLY as these were a bit of overcompensation . . . Either that, or stiffen the prerequisites . . .*




Forget about stiffening the prerequisites. 

Toughness (_et al_) is designed to be a fairly generic chain of feats.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's not that the feats are broken, it's that they're USELESS.  I like ALL feats to have some kinda meaning.  That's why I made Endurance a prerequisite for the Ki feats, to give Endurance meaning.  Some of these feats do NOTHING.  Who in their right mind would take the current Dragon's Toughness, considering the inane prerequisites and only +12 hit points, which any CR 10+ monster could sneeze at and make disappear?  (The minimum level needed to take it is Level 18 unless you do some insane multi-classing!)*




I think you are overestimating the power of feats in general to be quite honest!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Like I said, MAYBE they could be decreased a little, but fact is, they still need to be increased to be at all useful.  Perhaps +5, +10, +15, +20, +25, +25, with all the current death's door extensions?  That would add up to +100 hit points and a death's door of maybe -180 for a powerful character with a good Constitution . . . Or maybe the prerequisites should increase.*




Forget about toughening the prerequisites.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *All I know is that players are seeing something wrong with these feats that I'm not seeing, because most of them still find them to be a waste.*




The upper end of the chain is too powerful.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think the real problem perhaps might be that these feats are too hard to get at low levels when they'd be most useful, and the combat feats are MUCH more useful.  Everyone will EVENTUALLY get these feats, just not until very high levels. By Level 60, you don't even notice the increase, honestly.  All of them together is one more hit you can take from an Epic monster, and that's about it.*




Feats are not balanced with regards the potential damage monsters COULD inflict. They are balanced with regards other feats.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The only thing I can think of that is turning you all off is that I run EPIC games, not meaning Level 20+, but meaning games where the world is about to be destroyed and the PCs are the legendary heroes that can stop the evil from destroying everything.*




Then such characters will have potentially hundreds of levels, vis a vis, hundreds of feats! Thats not an excuse to make individual feats unbalanced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not only do I not like PCs dying (I try to avoid it at all costs even!), but I like PCs to be able to fight in a lot of battles.  Perhaps that is the problem?*




No. The problem is they are not even remotely balanced with regards other feats.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Maybe I'm doing the same thing you've done in the past by customizing rules to fit my own campaign . . .*




I think you mean that some people have incorrectly accused me of doing; whereas in your case you are openly admitting it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Very well, I can release a new set that works even in less powerful campaigns.  Perhaps then you'll see that although you're the genius of the deities, I'm the genius of the feats!*




The power of the feat is irrelevant with regards the power of individual campaigns.

A feat is a feat is a feat after all. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *WHAT?!  You're nuts . . . Even the Level 30 NPC Fighter already has 275,*




...even under your auspices you are handing out +255 hp. My remarks were "You're practically doubling hit points".

Since you have just agreed with me, does that mean you're nuts too!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and PCs at Level 40 should have MUCH higher.  By Level 40, they'll probably have AT LEAST 500.  By Level 60, the hit points will be nearing 1,000 EASY!*




...and such characters will have more feats.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, but IT DOES WORK. *




No it does'nt.

A 5th-level character will destroy x4 1st-level characters.

A 20th-level character will be destroyed by a party of 16th-level characters.*

*Note this is something to which you totally agreed about a month ago.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Until Level 20.  After that is when it breaks down.  Trust me, I've played this game quite a bit in the last three years, and we've NEVER had a problem at Levels 1-20.  That's proof right there that the system works at lower levels.*




Just because the problem is less pronounced at lower levels doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Willful ignorance of a problem does not make it go away.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As I always say, if it ain't broken, don't fix it!  Concentrate on what IS broken, Levels 21+. *




It was broken. I have fixed it!


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Bonjour mon ami!
> 
> I don't understand the above statement.
> *




Hello U_K!

That it was easier for the DM to change the result of a roll, considering that in 1st edition, it was the DM who made the MR roll. So the need to alter the rule was less apparent in the DM's eyes.

Or perhaps I've missed something, but as far as I'm concerned, my 1st and 2nd edition books list a MR % for each monster, and you used a rule that reduced the monster MR based on the level of the caster?



> *
> If individual DMs want to incorporate house rules then thats entirely up to them.
> *




Or exclude normal rules, that a lot more easier, I can ignore the shaman in OA, but if the katana was missing, it would require more effort to include it.



> *
> I may still include the SR modifications as an optional rule, but I personally don't see it as a necessity and it causes as many problems as it solves anyway.
> *




That's 2 changes that don't cause any problem past those two changes, and it solve an existing problem. You confuse me.

I can understand that you don't see it as a necessity, because in your experience SR is less and less important at high level.

But claiming that the changes cause problem??? which problems?

and it solves a problem!

So why not including it, people will stumble upon the problem, when a DM design a monster with SR, or when player facing monster of their challenge will see a kind of cycle, with SR being easier and easier when they rise in level, until they rise in CR when it becomes sudendly harder.


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings people!

I thought I'd just pop in...to say hello, at least. By the way, may I have your e-mail adress, UK? I've just reformatted my hard-drive, losing my address book and such, and I really need to create it anew. 



Well, as Einstein said: 
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ECL 1-5 = +2 CR
> ECL 6-10 = +1 CR
> ECL 11-20 = +1/2 CR
> ECL 21-40 = +1/4 CR
> ECL 41-80 = +1/8 CR
> etc.
> 
> eg.
> ECL 3 = CR 6
> ECL 9 = CR 14
> ECL 15 = CR 18
> ECL 30 = CR 22
> ECL 67 = CR 28
> 
> 1. To gauge a battle where a party of four PCs will win using (approx.) 25% of their resources - USE ECL.
> 
> eg.
> Party of x4 15th-level characters VS. an ECL 15 opponent.
> 
> 2. An effective challenge ranges from CR-8 to CR+8.
> 
> eg.
> So the effective range for x4 15th-level characters is CR10-26. That means ECL 5 (CR-8) to ECL 55 (CR+8)
> 
> CR+/-0 = Party victory using 25% of their resources.
> CR+4 = 50/50 chance of victory.
> CR+8 = Opponent victory using 25% of their resources.
> *





Your theory is crazy, it's crazy enough to be true (-:

Actually, I agree! This is more close to the modified system I'm currently using. It's too bad that my algorithm on transcendental CRs failed. Well...I'll have to devise a new one then. Fortunatelly I have learned not to bore you with my explorations (mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper) (-;


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Anubis.

Endurance is far from a useless feat. For one, it is a prerequisite for the Remain Conscious feat. In case you didn't know, Remain Conscious allows characters to make a single partial action every round between -1 and -10 (the death's door period). If your dragonball-esque Hit Point feats allow characters to broaden the range of their death's door period, then those feats become hugely overpowered in combination with Remain Conscious.

For someone who claims to be the "genius of feats" you should have known that. This self-adoration streak of yours isn't flattering or pretty.

Moreover, I wholeheartedly throw my hat into the "death-is-an-integral-part-of-suspense" circle. If "any" of your players knows you at all (or reads this thread for that matter), then they already realize that you will never truly kill them. I can't speak for any of your players, but rolling combat dice without fearing the consequences of my actions or the "permanence of death" equates to horrifically dull, masturbatory role-playing. Sorry if that sounds crass, but you seem to appreciate honesty on occasion. Perhaps this will be one of those times.



If a dungeon master is artificially keeping player characters alive, just so the entire breadth of their "lovingly-crafted" adventure can play out, then they are being egotistically self-serving. Sometimes an adventure is cut short by character death, and sometimes the characters never return to the adventure. That's just the way it goes. Maintaining suspense is more important than enacting the machinations of dungeon master creativity.

Dungeon masters should be storytellers first, and handmaidens never.


----------



## Gez

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *For someone who claims to be the "genius of feats" you should have known that. This self-adoration streak of yours isn't flattering or pretty.
> *




I thought this was a note of humor from his part, rather than a serious egotistical crisis.

And he needed to heal his ego a bit, after Craig told him he was extremely dim-witted, and his sillyness amazes even the gods.

(Paraphrased from Improved Epic Toughness, for those who don't get jokes   .)


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings!!!

I thought I could stop posting such inane posts about how to calculate things and such, but I could not... Well, that's me. At least all people will have access to the formula from which all XP can be derived.

I think the latter algorithm is better, but it comes not in one formula.


Base=300*l*(3/2)^(floor((cr+1)/2))*(4/3)^(floor(cr/2))

where floor is the floor function.   ie. floor(4.9)=4, floor(34.1)=34

PCR=(1/12*cos(Pi*cr+Pi)+17/12)^(cr-floor(cr))


XP formula one:
XP=Base*PCR


XP algorithm two:
xp2:=proc(l,cr)
> if (type(floor(cr),even)=true) 
> then Base(l,cr)*(cr/2-floor(cr)/2+1)  
> else Base(l,cr)*((cr)/3-floor(cr)/3+1)  
> end if
> end proc;

This is a Maple procedure, so if you have that programme, just define Base and copy the algorithm. I never thought it was so easy... But that's what happens when one delves in some mysterious sequence formulae involcving infinite series.




By the way, I think that upper limitation of CR+8 is lame! One always has a chance of defeating a CR, even if it is incredibly slim. Even a 1st level group will have a chance of defeating a Great Red Wyrm, it's only so small that it only happens once per 100 billion years or something.


----------



## poilbrun

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *By the way, I think that upper limitation of CR+8 is lame! One always has a chance of defeating a CR, even if it is incredibly slim. Even a 1st level group will have a chance of defeating a Great Red Wyrm, it's only so small that it only happens once per 100 billion years or something. *



But it would usually be the result of luck rather than anything else. For example, if you use the optional rule "Instant Kill" (DMG p64), three successive rolls of 20 on an attack kills instantly the creature. But if that would happen, I would most certainly not give the PC the XP the table says they should have for killing a creature with a CR as high as a great wyrm; I don't even know if I'd give them the XP for defeating a monster of CR=avg level +8.

Oh, and BTW, even though you probably know it, I'll tell you that I didn't understand everything in your mathematical formula. But you should be getting used to that!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Been having some jip with the message boards (as I think a few of you have).

Incidently I happened to catch a cartoon show earlier called 'Samurai Jack' and must say it is tremendous fun! Thoroughly recommended. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hello U_K!*




Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *That it was easier for the DM to change the result of a roll, considering that in 1st edition, it was the DM who made the MR roll. So the need to alter the rule was less apparent in the DM's eyes.*




Good DMs shouldn't make a habit of fudging dice rolls.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Or perhaps I've missed something, but as far as I'm concerned, my 1st and 2nd edition books list a MR % for each monster, and you used a rule that reduced the monster MR based on the level of the caster?*




Exactly. But that was to compensate for the fact that MR was against 11th-level and modified against the opponent.

Whereas in 3rd Ed. they seemingly add '11' (or so) to the monster CR to determine SR.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Or exclude normal rules, that a lot more easier, I can ignore the shaman in OA, but if the katana was missing, it would require more effort to include it.*




I agree. But that argument is not relevant to the case at hand.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *That's 2 changes that don't cause any problem past those two changes, and it solve an existing problem. You confuse me.
> 
> I can understand that you don't see it as a necessity, because in your experience SR is less and less important at high level.
> 
> But claiming that the changes cause problem??? which problems?
> 
> and it solves a problem!*




It makes Spell Penetration ultimately balanced with regards CR - provided we always make a point of balancing Spell Resistance with CR.

Since we cannot* always balance Spell Resistance with CR (because of items; spells; feats etc.) the first endeavour becomes negligable.

*and occasionally should not (something you agree with - remember those foibles).



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *So why not including it, people will stumble upon the problem, when a DM design a monster with SR, or when player facing monster of their challenge will see a kind of cycle, with SR being easier and easier when they rise in level, until they rise in CR when it becomes sudendly harder. *




I'll think about it.


----------



## Upper_Krust

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings people!*




Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I thought I'd just pop in...to say hello, at least. By the way, may I have your e-mail adress, UK? I've just reformatted my hard-drive, losing my address book and such, and I really need to create it anew.*




You can always just click on the emailing button following any of my posts.

Here it is regardless:

agooddesigner@hotmail.com



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Well, as Einstein said:
> If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.*




Absolutely! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Your theory is crazy, it's crazy enough to be true (-:
> 
> Actually, I agree!*




I knew you were smart from the beginning! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *This is more close to the modified system I'm currently using. It's too bad that my algorithm on transcendental CRs failed. Well...I'll have to devise a new one then.*




Thats the spirit! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Fortunatelly I have learned not to bore you with my explorations (mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper) (-; *




I was never bored with your musings...confused yes...bored no.


----------



## -Eä-

Greetings!




			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *
> But it would usually be the result of luck rather than anything else. For example, if you use the optional rule "Instant Kill" (DMG p64), three successive rolls of 20 on an attack kills instantly the creature. But if that would happen, I would most certainly not give the PC the XP the table says they should have for killing a creature with a CR as high as a great wyrm; I don't even know if I'd give them the XP for defeating a monster of CR=avg level +8.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, even though you probably know it, I'll tell you that I didn't understand everything in your mathematical formula. But you should be getting used to that!  *





I agree that the PC probably didn't deserve the XP in that case, but I would give the XP to the party in which the character was, nonetheless, for the chance of getting three twenties in a row is 1/8000 and you won't roll THAT many dice in one session, so it would happen once per half year or something, which isn't that bad. However, I don't use that optional rule, and even if I did, it would be idiotic and suicidal to do such a thing. The XP would perhaps be from bravery or something if it succeeded...

That's how I see it, at least. The PCs should get all they can from luck, after all, it's more likely to happen from NPCs anyhow, as they represent more than the little party.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Perhaps then you'll see that although you're the genius of the deities, I'm the genius of the feats! *




I would say you were about right half of the time! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *I don't think either of you are either.*




Thats fightin' talk where I come from! 



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *For the gods, I have my own cosmology, my own ideas. For me, in my campaign, the concept of an overgod exists... the god of a 'galaxy' if you will, but it is to the greatest combined might of the gods as they are to an insect. Not to say that I won't make use of UK's ideas, but I've got my own templates already to suit my needs for more flexible gods  *




Technically irrelevant given that I am not forcing my cosmology on anyone I am simply widening the options with examples. In fact the entire IH is pretty much modular in nature.

ie. Just because the PHB details Paladins doesn't mean everyone has to play one you know. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *For someone who claims to be the "genius of feats" you should have known that. This self-adoration streak of yours isn't flattering or pretty. *




Exactly. This thread is only big enough for one self-adoration streak! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *And he needed to heal his ego a bit, after Craig told him he was extremely dim-witted, and his sillyness amazes even the gods. *




Easy tiger! 

No one is calling anyone anything! I only attack the argument itself; not the person.


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> Incidently I happened to catch a cartoon show earlier called 'Samurai Jack' and must say it is tremendous fun! Thoroughly recommended.
> *




Hi alone!

It's on Cartoon Network and while the scenario is funny, the quality of animation and drawing sucks IMO, even if its intentional.



> *
> Good DMs shouldn't make a habit of fudging dice rolls.
> *




That's a DM style problem, I prefer to not fudge dice rolls, but it doesn't bother me when I'm a player and the Game Master modify the creatures stats during play, as long as I don't see it.

I know that I've done it with pre-made adventures which haven't been playtested.



> *
> It makes Spell Penetration ultimately balanced with regards CR - provided we always make a point of balancing Spell Resistance with CR.
> 
> Since we cannot* always balance Spell Resistance with CR (because of items; spells; feats etc.) the first endeavour becomes negligable.
> 
> *and occasionally should not (something you agree with - remember those foibles).
> *




spell that affect SR? I've missed those, there is some that grant SR, but its always way lower than CR+11 IIRC.

The problem, it seems, is that you consider SR as having a fixed value, while you can grant a bad SR to a monster (CR+6), an average (CR+11) or a good one (CR+17), each with different ECL modifier.

The same thing was made with monster with breath weapon and MR in 2nd edition, under a certain value the ability was worth one hit die, and above it was worth 2 hit dice.

So a monster with SR=CR-20 probably shouldn't have any noticeable ECL modifier.

Considering that it's the DM that fixe SR, I don't understand how he can't determine SR and CR, based on what he wants/need.

and EA will agree with me: you can't consider something negligible because it isn't always.

That's like saying that it doesn't always rain, thus we can ignore rain.

So the endeavour is still worth something.



> *
> I'll think about it. *




That's the main problem from the beginning, within a given CR, SR has different meaning, that's just silly.


----------



## Anubis

I guess I forgot to mention one thing about the extensions to "death's door" . . . Whoops . . .

Thinks like Remain Conscious and the Headband of Ferocity only work, even in my system, until -10, REGARDLESS of the "death's door" range.

That should clear a lot up.


----------



## Anubis

Bump.


----------



## ranix65

So Upper Krust, are you gonna maybe release this as a .doc or a pdf at some time in the future?  I really don't wanna have to go back through all the posts on this topic and try to piece together the rules(I don't mind doing it with my own notes, but with somebody else's it's hard ya know?).

P.S.  Rest in Peace, Jam Master Jay(Jason Mizell)
And if it has any connection to Ja Rule, may he be lit on fire and sent on his path to Hell!


----------



## Knight Otu

ranix65 said:
			
		

> *So Upper Krust, are you gonna maybe release this as a .doc or a pdf at some time in the future?*




That's his plan. 

He is obviously still waiting on the ELH and D&DG to enter the SRD. I speculated on the WotC boards that this might happen in early 2003, based on the current speed of the SRD releases. (Fingers crossed, indeed!)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi there! 



			
				ranix65 said:
			
		

> *So Upper Krust, are you gonna maybe release this as a .doc or a pdf at some time in the future? *




Yes, (as Knight Otu mentioned) as soon as is legally possible.



			
				ranix65 said:
			
		

> *I really don't wanna have to go back through all the posts on this topic and try to piece together the rules (I don't mind doing it with my own notes, but with somebody else's it's hard ya know?).*




You wouldn't be able to peice together anything substantial from the meagre scraps of information within this thread. So its not something I would advocate anyone try. Its certainly in no way a fair reflection of my work.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*A few salient points...*

Hi all! 

I have been taking something of a hiatus from the boards lately to get some writing done.

#1. The ECL/CR article for Dragon is practically finished (I should be submitting it tomorrow). I'll let you know how that goes. 

#2. The changes to ECL/CR have facilitated a change in the Personal Equipment (Wealth) formula. 

Its still Level^3 x 100 GP

But Personal equipment is now: 

square root of wealth x 1550 GP (up to the wealth limit; these changes don't actually kick in until 29th-level)

The reason for this (seemingly more clumsy than usual) mechanic is that I have imposed the changes from the point at which a character could own items more expensive than 600,000 GP (since that is the limit for a Planar Metropolis and the upper limit of something you can 'buy')

#3. I have recently turned my attention to Armor Class/Natural Armor. 

Seemingly there is a problem with Natural Armor (something I joked about before). 

The immediate extent of my revision will be to scrap the Natural Armor Bonus attributed to Divinity. 

Any subsequent Natural Armor changes will be merely optional.

#4. I am currently pondering over a change to BAB, from the Epic Progression to a simple return to Core BAB.

I don't like the idea that monsters could have a superior BAB progression than Fighters.

#5. Once I have decided upon the BAB solution (if any is deemed necessary?). I will make a point to sort out Spell Resistance one way or another. I have given the matter some cursory glances and it appears some changes will need to be made (at the very least in assigning SR).


----------



## Anubis

*Re: A few salient points...*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> I have been taking something of a hiatus from the boards lately to get some writing done.
> 
> #1. The ECL/CR article for Dragon is practically finished (I should be submitting it tomorrow). I'll let you know how that goes.
> 
> #2. The changes to ECL/CR have facilitated a change in the Personal Equipment (Wealth) formula.
> 
> Its still Level^3 x 100 GP
> 
> But Personal equipment is now:
> 
> square root of wealth x 1550 GP (up to the wealth limit; these changes don't actually kick in until 29th-level)
> 
> The reason for this (seemingly more clumsy than usual) mechanic is that I have imposed the changes from the point at which a character could own items more expensive than 600,000 GP (since that is the limit for a Planar Metropolis and the upper limit of something you can 'buy')
> 
> #3. I have recently turned my attention to Armor Class/Natural Armor.
> 
> Seemingly there is a problem with Natural Armor (something I joked about before).
> 
> The immediate extent of my revision will be to scrap the Natural Armor Bonus attributed to Divinity.
> 
> Any subsequent Natural Armor changes will be merely optional.
> 
> #4. I am currently pondering over a change to BAB, from the Epic Progression to a simple return to Core BAB.
> 
> I don't like the idea that monsters could have a superior BAB progression than Fighters.
> 
> #5. Once I have decided upon the BAB solution (if any is deemed necessary?). I will make a point to sort out Spell Resistance one way or another. I have given the matter some cursory glances and it appears some changes will need to be made (at the very least in assigning SR).  *




Basically, you're completely changing damn near everything at Epic levels.  What about those of us who paid for the ELH and want some use out of it?

I'm sorry, but the more I hear, the more I don't like this.  Not because I don't like your changes (I don't know about your changes), but because they're unnecessary.  I have always said "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."  Believe it or not, ECL/CR, and SR indirectly, are the ONLY things broken (broken meaning only unbalanced for gaming) in the system as it is.  Changing ECL/CR for Level 20 and under is needless.  Most of us have gamed for a long time and seen NO problems at those levels as-is.  (There are some monsters needing changing, but the system itself works find.  Just some of the numbers are wrong.  Any further changes besides what we originally spoke of are needless and complicated matters far too much.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.  The core system for Levels 1-20 is not broken.


----------



## Knight Otu

*Re: A few salient points...*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> #3. I have recently turned my attention to Armor Class/Natural Armor.
> *




AGAIN? 



> *
> Seemingly there is a problem with Natural Armor (something I joked about before).
> 
> The immediate extent of my revision will be to scrap the Natural Armor Bonus attributed to Divinity.
> 
> Any subsequent Natural Armor changes will be merely optional.
> *




OK so far. I suppose you will advocate supernatural armor as deflection?



> *
> #4. I am currently pondering over a change to BAB, from the Epic Progression to a simple return to Core BAB.
> 
> I don't like the idea that monsters could have a superior BAB progression than Fighters.
> *




That has to be the single most hated rule in the ELH. 

I don't think a change is necessary for it, though. If you really have to change it, use the often proposed "Best 20 levels" house rule.



> *
> #5. Once I have decided upon the BAB solution (if any is deemed necessary?). I will make a point to sort out Spell Resistance one way or another. I have given the matter some cursory glances and it appears some changes will need to be made (at the very least in assigning SR).  *



Possibly.


----------



## Knight Otu

*Re: Re: A few salient points...*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Basically, you're completely changing damn near everything at Epic levels.
> *



How so?
He changes: Wealth, SR, CR, possibly BAB. Most of the rest will remain unchanged. Does he change the classes? The monsters (apart from slight changes as seen above)? The City of Union? The sample adventure (ok, that one might need changing)? The GM advice? Most of the ELH remains unchanged from what I can see. I'd bet that the D&DG sees more changes from UK than the ELH.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Don't be scared...I know what I'm doing*

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, you're completely changing damn near everything at Epic levels.*




Theres nothing like wild exaggeration to start the day! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What about those of us who paid for the ELH and want some use out of it?*




I'm advocating some changes, yes. But not without solid reasoning behind every single addendum!

Aside from the changes to ECL/CR, I think continuing BAB progression* as per the core rules is valid.

*Obviously without increasing iterative attacks.  

I certainly don't like the idea of Dragons; Magical Beasts; Monstrous Humanoids and Outsiders having superior BAB to equivalent level Fighter types from 22 HD onward.

But you also have the ludicrous situation whereby: Aberrations; Animals; Beasts; Constructs; Elementals; Giants; Humanoids; Oozes; Plants; Shapechangers and Vermin all outstrip the BAB of equivalent level Fighter types from 40HD onward!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry, but the more I hear, the more I don't like this.  Not because I don't like your changes (I don't know about your changes), but because they're unnecessary.  I have always said "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."*




...and once again I retort "it is broken - I have fixed it!"



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Believe it or not, ECL/CR, and SR indirectly, are the ONLY things broken (broken meaning only unbalanced for gaming) in the system as it is.*




Yet I can prove to the contrary.

Instead of blindly telling me something is wrong without acknowledging the facts first why don't you just inquire as to why I am making certain changes. Then you can judge the change in and of its own merits without jumping to inaccurate conclusions.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Changing ECL/CR for Level 20 and under is needless.*




I disagree.

In fact you are being hypocritical here since you flatly agreed a month or so ago that a 20th-level character was no match for a party of four 16th-level characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Most of us have gamed for a long time and seen NO problems at those levels as-is.  (There are some monsters needing changing, but the system itself works find.  Just some of the numbers are wrong.*




You are contradicting yourself here.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Any further changes besides what we originally spoke of are needless and complicated matters far too much. *




None of the changes I advocate are simply for their own sake.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If it ain't broken, don't fix it.*




You can repeat 2+2=5 as much as you want (in upper case if you prefer) but that doesn't make it anymore right!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The core system for Levels 1-20 is not broken. *




The only elements of the core rules I have changed is ECL/CR and Harm/Heal.

Both are warranted, however if people want to ignore my advice then thats fair enough. I'm not telling anyone what to do; merely advocating certain changes for the benefit of everyones campaign. They'll either see the logic in the changes, or not.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Re: A few salient points...*

Hi Knight Otu mate! 

Incidently I saw a great horror movie in the cinema yesterday. Not sure if it has been released outside the UK or not yet.

Its called '28 days later'. I can't recommend it strongly enough - though I would say its not for the faint-hearted...you have been warned. 

http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/main.html



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *AGAIN? *




I know. I seem to have this on/off relationship with Natural Armour. 

Deities really gain too many AC bonuses. Left unchecked AC totally runs away from BAB. Factor in magic items and that problem is realised sooner than you think.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *OK so far. I suppose you will advocate supernatural armor as deflection?*




Well I am scrapping the Natural Armour bonus.

The Deflection bonus for high Charisma still stands; technically its Supernatural Armour.

Deities also still gain the Divine Bonus to AC. That functions within Anti-magic.

Deities can still gain Natural Armour (via SDAs); they just don't get the DR+13 NA automatic bonus.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *That has to be the single most hated rule in the ELH.
> 
> I don't think a change is necessary for it, though. If you really have to change it, use the often proposed "Best 20 levels" house rule.*




The simplest way round it seems to be to continue Core BAB though - that way you don't have to 'fix' the monsters.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Possibly. *




Tell me about it!


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

Hiya there, buddy-boy!!!!!!! (Hoo-hoo-hoo-hooooo!!!)

You have Seraphim, right? Are ya gonna do Cherubim and everything else as well?  

f you release it as a pdf and then as an actual book, willone cost more than the other?  

You keep saying it wil be priced like a book of similar size or sumpin' like that.  Exactly what size would that be?


----------



## Xeriar

*Re: Re: Re: A few salient points...*



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *
> How so?
> He changes: Wealth, SR, CR, possibly BAB. Most of the rest will remain unchanged. Does he change the classes? The monsters (apart from slight changes as seen above)? The City of Union? The sample adventure (ok, that one might need changing)? The GM advice? Most of the ELH remains unchanged from what I can see. I'd bet that the D&DG sees more changes from UK than the ELH. *




Add to this, many of us whacked the ELH BAB progression deal anyway, right after it came out.

I know I'm not the only one who did it, anyway.


----------



## Anubis

*Re: Don't be scared...I know what I'm doing*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Aside from the changes to ECL/CR, I think continuing BAB progression* as per the core rules is valid.
> *




Except then eventually clerics and wizards and rogues can't hit a damn thing OR fighters will hit everything without fail.  If you increase AC to balance with fighter BAB, the clerics, rogues, and wizards will eventually not have any power to hit.  If you make AC balance with clerics' and rogues' BAB, fighters will never miss except on a 1.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I certainly don't like the idea of Dragons; Magical Beasts; Monstrous Humanoids and Outsiders having superior BAB to equivalent level Fighter types from 22 HD onward.
> 
> But you also have the ludicrous situation whereby: Aberrations; Animals; Beasts; Constructs; Elementals; Giants; Humanoids; Oozes; Plants; Shapechangers and Vermin all outstrip the BAB of equivalent level Fighter types from 40HD onward!
> *




That really doesn't bother me . . .



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...and once again I retort "it is broken - I have fixed it!"
> *




Prove that it's broken.  Try it.  Try to prove that a troll is not a suitable challenge for a party of Level 5 characters.  Prove that the XP system is broken at low levels.  Prove that there is a reason to change the progression at low levels.  Prove that a Level 1 character is ECL 2, or that a Level 2 character is ECL 4.  You simply can't do it, period, because it's not true.  If that were the case, one Level 1 character could take on four hobgoblins, which would be laughable at best.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Yet I can prove to the contrary.
> 
> Instead of blindly telling me something is wrong without acknowledging the facts first why don't you just inquire as to why I am making certain changes. Then you can judge the change in and of its own merits without jumping to inaccurate conclusions.
> *




Please do prove it.  Unless this can be proven in a game, you have no base.  Since the game has *always* played *without a problem* at lower levels (I know, I've been playing ever since the release of 3rd Edition), there is no way to prove that there is a problem.

Your example of four Level 1 characters *supposedly* equal to a CR 5 by the rules is INVALID, because that is not stated ANYWHERE.  Four Level 1 characters, by the book, are "UK equal" to CR 4 (1+1+1+1), and that's STILL not a "good" encounter, but rather, BY THE RULES, a "very difficult" encounter.  You DO NOT judge challenge based on character vs. character, but by FOUR PCs vs. a CR equal to party level.  That means a single CR 1 creature is a suitable challenge for a Level 1 party, and a CR 4, although "UK equal", by the rules it is a very difficult encounter and one that the party should fleee from ACCORDING TO THE RULES.

So again, please offer proof for all of your claims.  I have stated specific rules and given examples that support my argument, that AND playing the game without problems.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I disagree.
> 
> In fact you are being hypocritical here since you flatly agreed a month or so ago that a 20th-level character was no match for a party of four 16th-level characters.
> *




I ignored this statement before, but now I have to object, because I NEVER said that a 20th-level character was no match for a Level 16 party.  I said a Level 16 party ran over a BALOR.  I thus believe the Balor to NOT be Level 20, but rather Level 15.  Another point I failed to mention before, however, was the party makeup.

Level 1 Quasi-deity Fighter (at ECL +14 before I conceded that quasi-deities were more than that)
Level 1 Saiyan Warrior
Levle 16 Sorcerer
Level 16 Cleric/Sacred Fist

The other point I mentioned, which disproves your accusation, is that the supposed CR 20 Ancient Brown Dragon SQUASHED THIS PARTY EASILY.  I think that means I claims Level 20 was way to much for a Level 16 party to fight with.  Unless you can quote where I said a Level 20 character dies at the hands of a Level 16 party, stop accusing me of doing so!




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The only elements of the core rules I have changed is ECL/CR and Harm/Heal.
> *




I bet you're not going with either of my proposed fixes for Heal and Harm, despite the fact that my fix balances perfectly.

Basically, my first version of Harm is "take enough damage to be reduced to 1 hp or take 100 damage, whichever is less damage; will save for half damage".  Heal gives back 100 hp flat.  Mass Heal and "Mass Harm" are self-explanatory here.

My second version makes Heal give back 1d8 hp/level +1 hp/level.  Harm takes away the same amount.  Mass Heal and Mass Harm are against self-explanatory.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Both are warranted, however if people want to ignore my advice then thats fair enough. I'm not telling anyone what to do; merely advocating certain changes for the benefit of everyones campaign. They'll either see the logic in the changes, or not.
> *




Show something, ANYTHING that supports your theories.  Also, how will those of us without Dragon gonna get a hold of this?  What if they don't accept your article?  What if it takes them 3 months to put it in?


----------



## Xeriar

> Prove that it's broken.




For the BAB/EAB progression, it's simple: It adds another unneccessary rule.

As for Upper Krust's system, I do think he's going too far, I just add one CR point at 2nd level, and start +2 levels = 1 CR after 18th level.

(It's logical, at 2nd level, all classes double hit points, add +5% to hit, +5% to skills, along with other bonuses so long as its not a commoner.  With equipment factored in, level 2 = CR 3)


----------



## Anubis

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> 
> For the BAB/EAB progression, it's simple: It adds another unneccessary rule.
> 
> As for Upper Krust's system, I do think he's going too far, I just add one CR point at 2nd level, and start +2 levels = 1 CR after 18th level.
> 
> (It's logical, at 2nd level, all classes double hit points, add +5% to hit, +5% to skills, along with other bonuses so long as its not a commoner.  With equipment factored in, level 2 = CR 3) *




Maybe unnecessary, but not complicated.  After Level 20, you get EAB every odd level and a save bonus every even level (or it may be the other way around).  This is in place to keep all the classes roughly even, plain and simple, and I agree with that idea.  Just as ECL changes after Level 20, so too must BAB and saves, otherwise BAB and weak saves QUICKLY become unbalanced to the point where they're worthless.  A Level 50 wizard with average Con would have a Fort save of MAYBE +28 with a Cloak of Resistance +12.  Saves at that level will have DCs on average of 45-55, making most such saves IMPOSSIBLE for the wizard to make.  That's instant death in many cases.

Besdies, that's not the part I asked for proof of.  I'm asking how is the core system broken at lower levels?  NO CHANGES ARE NECESSARY AT LOWER LEVELS.


----------



## Xeriar

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Maybe unnecessary, but not complicated.  After Level 20, you get EAB every odd level and a save bonus every even level (or it may be the other way around).  This is in place to keep all the classes roughly even, plain and simple, and I agree with that idea.  Just as ECL changes after Level 20, so too must BAB and saves, otherwise BAB and weak saves QUICKLY become unbalanced to the point where they're worthless.  A Level 50 wizard with average Con would have a Fort save of MAYBE +28 with a Cloak of Resistance +12.  Saves at that level will have DCs on average of 45-55, making most such saves IMPOSSIBLE for the wizard to make.  That's instant death in many cases.
> 
> Besdies, that's not the part I asked for proof of.  I'm asking how is the core system broken at lower levels?  NO CHANGES ARE NECESSARY AT LOWER LEVELS. *




I think what Upper Krust is trying to do is flesh out just what the various 'monster classes' mean, without changing them the same way that the ELH changed the BAB progression for core classes.  These can provide an ECL template based directly off of HD, and make the ECL judgment much easier on its own merit.

It's easy enough to include a less powerful tensor's transformation varient usable by all spellcasting classes (say 6th level Bard/Psychic Warrior/Sorcerer/Wizard, 7th level Cleric/Druid) that increases effective BAB by 1 per 4 character levels, without causing madness, for a short duration.

Monks have their own insane set of advantages, and the Psion, Sorcerer, and Wizard ignore two major types of AC when making attack roles anyway, usually, and Rogues get their flat-footed shtick.

As for your last sentance, the jump in power between level 1 and level 2 is pretty drastic.  Make two identicle level 1 characters, and one third level character advanced from the other two.  The First-levellers are not going to be winning 50% of the time.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Hiya there, buddy-boy!!!!!!! (Hoo-hoo-hoo-hooooo!!!)*




Hey Bjorn mate! 

Hope you are keeping well!?



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *You have Seraphim, right? Are ya gonna do Cherubim and everything else as well?*




Yes.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *If you release it as a pdf and then as an actual book, willone cost more than the other?*




Seemingly pdfs generally cost less than equal size printed material.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *You keep saying it wil be priced like a book of similar size or sumpin' like that.  Exactly what size would that be? *




Depends on how many pdfs the book comprises. It could be anything from four to six, depending on certain materials that could be added.


----------



## Anubis

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> As for your last sentance, the jump in power between level 1 and level 2 is pretty drastic.  Make two identicle level 1 characters, and one third level character advanced from the other two.  The First-levellers are not going to be winning 50% of the time. *




Nor should they.  How many times do I have to say it?  CR IS NOT DECIDED BY COMPARING TWO CHARACTERS OF EQUAL POWER!

By the rules:

A Level 3 character is CR 3.  That makes him or her a "very difficult" challenge for a PARTY of FOUR Level 1 characters.  "Very Difficult" is *defined*, *IN THE DMG*, as "One PC might very well die.  The Encounter Level is higher than the average party level.  This sort of encounter may be more dangerous than an overpowering one, because it's not immediately obvious to the players that the PCs should flee.  That's for FOUR Level 1 characters.  TWO Level 1 character won't stand even a 10% chance of winning, IF THAT.

That makes your argument invalid, as you did not argue by the rules as-is.  I'm saying that the rules, as they are, work.  Of course some of the CRs for monsters need adjusting, as no the ECLs for NPC classes.  I have never stated otherwise.  For the core rules, however, regarding PCs, NO CHANGE IS NEEDED.  A Level 1 character is not ECL 2, nor is a Level 2 character ECL 4.  In other words, UK is ignoring every basic definition in the core rules.

He says a Level 1 PC is ECL 2 . . . Where does ECL come from?  IT IS BASED AROUND PC LEVELS!  That means the two forms contradict each other!  You're changing the definition itself, then comparing it to the old definition!  That doesn't work!  Level 1 is ECL 1, plain and simple.  You judge the monsters *compared to PCs*, because THAT is the standard by which ECL is derived.

No one has been able to come up with PROOF that the core rules don't work!  Where's the proof?  By gaming and testing this stuff IN PLAY, I can assure everyone that the core rules work through Level 20, even is there are errors in how some monsters are judged.  The core of the system, however, has never had a problem under Level 20.


----------



## Xeriar

> CR IS NOT DECIDED BY COMPARING TWO CHARACTERS OF EQUAL POWER!




What are you talking about?  CR is supposed to give a relative idea of a character's power.   If CRs are equal, the characters should be, all things considered, relatively equal in power.

If you decide that this isn't applicable,  then what is the point of CR?



> TWO Level 1 character won't stand even a 10% chance of winning, IF THAT.




Okay, you acknowledge this.

Two level three characters have more than a 10% chance of dealing with a fifth level character.

Is that not also true?

Four level 3 fighters will maul a 5th-level fighter, there is a very good chance that all of the 3rd-level fighters will still be standing in the end.

This is not the case with four first level fighters facing a third level one.



> No one has been able to come up with PROOF that the core rules don't work! Where's the proof?




I have never said they don't work, that's UK's jab.  I'm simply saying they're a little maligned.



> By gaming and testing this stuff IN PLAY, I can assure everyone that the core rules work through Level 20, even is there are errors in how some monsters are judged. The core of the system, however, has never had a problem under Level 20.




Anubis, you have, available at first level, a feat that grants ranged attacks for subdual damage, and flight based on a knowledge score for one feat.

I've played in many, many campaigns, and first level is always the most brutal.


----------



## Anubis

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> What are you talking about?  CR is supposed to give a relative idea of a character's power.   If CRs are equal, the characters should be, all things considered, relatively equal in power.
> 
> If you decide that this isn't applicable,  then what is the point of CR?
> *




The point of CR is determine the challenge of a single monster compared to four characters of that level.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> Okay, you acknowledge this.
> 
> Two level three characters have more than a 10% chance of dealing with a fifth level character.
> 
> Is that not also true?
> *




Possibly.  That isn't as clear cut.  As levels get higher, the numbers come closer together.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> Four level 3 fighters will maul a 5th-level fighter, there is a very good chance that all of the 3rd-level fighters will still be standing in the end.
> *




I'd be willing to bet that at least one of those will die.  The Level 5 fighter has a decent chance at winning.  Make it a Level 5 Wizard, and the Level 5 Wizard will likely win.  However, "very difficult" does NOT mean inpossible.  Four Level 2 characters in my campaign recently beat a Level 5 cleric.  That battle, however, was BARELY won, and by a lot of luck, with the PCs having LESS than 20 hit points total left, and it took 59 rounds.  That's hardly mauling him.  By your thoughts, though, the Level 2 party should have mopped the floor with him.



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> This is not the case with four first level fighters facing a third level one.
> *




Comparing 2 Level 3 Fighters to a Level 5 and then a party of Level 1 characters to a Level 3 makes no sense.  Pick a standard and stick with it.  The standard is party vs. CR of same level.  Also, four Level 1 Fighters would have nearly as good (not quite, but almost) a chance of beating a Level 3 as a PARTY of Level 3 would have of beating a Level 5.

Instead, try comparing it THIS way, as it is the correct way.  How would a Level 5 Fighter fare against a Level 5 PARTY?  Of course the party would win.  By the rules, they should.  Now take a look.  Does that battle takes up 20% of the party's resources?  I bet the answer is yes.  Could they take four or five more such encounters?  Probably.  More than that?  Probably not.

You can ONLY compare CR based on a party of THE SAME LEVEL.  You're comparing something totally invalid based on what is written.  See what I'm saying?



			
				Xeriar said:
			
		

> *
> Anubis, you have, available at first level, a feat that grants ranged attacks for subdual damage, and flight based on a knowledge score for one feat.
> 
> I've played in many, many campaigns, and first level is always the most brutal.
> *




What does that have to do with anything?  Those feats are no more powerful than any other you can get at Level 1.  The flight you can POSSIBLY get at Level 1 (Only Monks can, actually, because no one else has that skill as a class skill.) is very poor flight and not sufficient for combat.  Everything else is pretty cheap to say the least.  No more powerful than any other feats available at Level 1.  I balanced them for a reason.


----------



## Xeriar

Anubis said:
			
		

> The point of CR is determine the challenge of a single monster compared to four characters of that level.




How to put this: in order to have a 50:50 chance of defeating superior numbers, one must be x^2 times as 'good' where x is the ratio involved.

This 'law of war' was observed by a British captain in World War II, and backed up in future conflicts and verified in computer simulations.

(_War Games_, by Thomas B Allen)

To be more specific, there is no strategic difference between 4 characters of CR X and 1 character of CR X+4, if you define doubling to be +2 to CR.



> I'd be willing to bet that at least one of those will die.  The Level 5 fighter has a decent chance at winning.  Make it a Level 5 Wizard, and the Level 5 Wizard will likely win.  However, "very difficult" does NOT mean inpossible.  Four Level 2 characters in my campaign recently beat a Level 5 cleric.  That battle, however, was BARELY won, and by a lot of luck, with the PCs having LESS than 20 hit points total left, and it took 59 rounds.  That's hardly mauling him.  By your thoughts, though, the Level 2 party should have mopped the floor with him.




Now you're putting words in my mouth.

They had 1 CR on the cleric, no matter if you use my slight adjustment or the original rules.  They should have won, if with difficulty, unless the cleric used better tactics.



> Comparing 2 Level 3 Fighters to a Level 5 and then a party of Level 1 characters to a Level 3 makes no sense.  Pick a standard and stick with it.  The standard is party vs. CR of same level.




Any respectable campaign is going to be routinely violating this standard, that's why we're having this discussion.  However, you're ignoring my point - 1st-2nd level is a bigger jump in power than any other successive level.



> Also, four Level 1 Fighters would have nearly as good (not quite, but almost) a chance of beating a Level 3 as a PARTY of Level 3 would have of beating a Level 5.




You want to try it, honestly?  Isn't there a fight club around here somewhere?  I'll be the level 3 people.



> Not really. Instead, try comparing it THIS way, as it is the correct way.  How would a Level 5 Fighter fare against a Level 5 PARTY?  Of course the party would win.  By the rules, they should.  Now take a look.  Does that battle takes up 20% of the party's resources?  I bet the answer is yes.  Could they take four or five more such encounters?  Probably.  More than that?  Probably not.




I have found this to be more situation dependant, than anything.



> You can ONLY compare CR based on a party of THE SAME LEVEL.  You're comparing something totally invalid based on what is written.  See what I'm saying?




That is not CR's purpose.  CR's purpose is to evaluate the strength of the individual for EL calculations, so that XP can be rewarded accordingly.



> What does that have to do with anything?  Those feats are no more powerful than any other you can get at Level 1.  The flight you can POSSIBLY get at Level 1 (Only Monks can, actually, because no one else has that skill as a class skill.) is very poor flight and not sufficient for combat.  Everything else is pretty cheap to say the least.  No more powerful than any other feats available at Level 1.  I balanced them for a reason. [/B]




Bards and Wizards don't get all knowledge skills as class skills in your campaign?

It's basically your campaign's version of spellfire.  Not that there's a problem with that, but combine with the ability to ignore subdual damage (available with spells) and problems start happening.

Especially as you seem to classify it as something different than magic or psionics, meaning spells don't block/affect/emulate it, etc.


----------



## Gez

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *What are you talking about?  CR is supposed to give a relative idea of a character's power.   If CRs are equal, the characters should be, all things considered, relatively equal in power.
> 
> If you decide that this isn't applicable,  then what is the point of CR?*




On this point, I'm with Anubis. 

Two monsters of same (accurate !) CRs would have a 50/50 chance of winning against each other *if* there wasn't things like damage reduction, fly and burrow speed, spell-like abilities...

Let's take some example. I don't have books with me right now, and don't want to read the SRD, so I'll invent things on the fly. Monster A has 3 HD, damage reduction 20/+1, and two quite puny claw attacks at +5, 1d6+2 damage (for example). Monster B has 10 HD, and four attacks at +7, 2d6+8 damage. Let say both are same CR. Let say both are the same CR for adventurer. In a fight, Monster A will nearly always win because monster B has virtually no way of harming monster A (except on a critical hit). In fact, it's even much probable Monster A will have a _lower_ CR than monster B, since PCs will have spells that do force or energy damage, and a cleric casting Magic Weapon on the barbarian's greataxe will be enough to get rid of monster A will minimal casualty, even at 1st level.

Let's take another example. Let say you have a tiger and a shark, and both are at same CR. If the tiger and the shark are fighting each other on land, the tiger will win just by staying out of reach and waiting for the shark to suffocate. If they battle underwater, the tiger will drown. Maybe that's what you would call a 50/50 chance of winning, but actually quite no.

Finally, take an arrowhawk and a (landbound) dinosaur of same CR. Who'll win ? The flying, electrical bolt-hurling elemental ? Or the big maw with short legs ? Now take a dinosaur with a greater CR. Heck, you can even take a mega-advanced pseudonatural T-Rex with max HD, he won't have any way of harming the birdie that'll just be flying overhead, out of reach, and harass the silly critters with electricity rays.

A party of 5th-level adventurer have access to things a CR 5 creature not necessarily have. Trolls, IIRC, are CR 5. At level 5, a party with a wizard will get a fireball, a Melf's Acid Arrow, and a flaming sphere (for example) and that should be more than enough to take care of the troll. Another CR 5 creature (say, an advanced owlbear) will not have access to acid or fire damage, and be out of luck with a troll.


CRs don't represent power; they represent challenge. Heck, that's why they are called *Challenge* Ratings. Otherwise, they would be called _Power_ Rating.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Elementary my dear Watson*

Hi all! 

Not so amusingly I actually spent 75 minutes on a reply to this post last night only to have my computer crash on me literally moments before I was finished. 

So consider this an abbreviated version mate.

Incidently for the latest article I am considering some changes in terminology - since that seems to be confusing one or two people.

*So I will be replacing (what I deemed) ECL with CR, and replacing (what I deemed) CR with EL (Encounter Level).*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Except then eventually clerics and wizards and rogues can't hit a damn thing OR fighters will hit everything without fail. *




Actually using the Epic Progression doesn't fix this at all.

Even before 30th-level we have a situation whereby one class only ever hits on a '20' while another only misses on a '1'.

Look at the 30th-level NPCs in the ELH.

Sorceror: Atk +15
Druid: Atk +22
Cleric: Atk +26
Rogue: Atk +35
Fighter: Atk +42



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you increase AC to balance with fighter BAB, the clerics, rogues, and wizards will eventually not have any power to hit.  If you make AC balance with clerics' and rogues' BAB, fighters will never miss except on a 1.*




If anything AC should be balanced towards Rogue/Cleric progression.

However there are a number of problems with Monsters (notably those in the ELH) whose AC only allows party Fighter types to 'fluke' hitting them (On a '20') when they are supposed to be rolling over these monsters using 20-25% of their resources.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That really doesn't bother me . . .*




It doesn't bother you that 'pound for pound' Plants and Oozes are actually better skilled than Fighters at fighting!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Prove that it's broken.  Try it.*




Okay...lets see what you've got...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Try to prove that a troll is not a suitable challenge for a party of Level 5 characters.*




Don't remember saying it wasn't?

I rate the Troll at CR 7. Therefore its EL 12

Party of four 4th-level characters are PCR 4* = PEL** 8

*PCR = Party Challenge Rating which is always the average CR.

**PEL = Party Encounter Level; which is based on the PCR and the number of characters in the party.

An EL difference of PEL+4 = 50/50 encounter.

A Party of four 7th-level characters are PCR 7 = PEL 12 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Prove that the XP system is broken at low levels.*




Never said it was. In fact I use the EXP system as is.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Prove that there is a reason to change the progression at low levels.  Prove that a Level 1 character is ECL 2, or that a Level 2 character is ECL 4.  You simply can't do it, period, because it's not true. *




Actually what I have said previously was that ECL 1 (Level 1) = CR 2; ECL 2 (Level 2) = CR 4.

Now that I have changed the terminology its:

CR 1 (Level 1) = EL 2; CR 2 (Level 2) = EL 4



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If that were the case, one Level 1 character could take on four hobgoblins, which would be laughable at best.*




In other words you have just admitted you don't have a clue how the system works. Since:

1 Hobgoblin = CR 1/2
Therefore 2 Hobgoblins = CR 1 = EL 2
Therefore 4 Hobgoblins = CR 2 = EL 4

4 Hobgoblins are equal to a 2nd-level character.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Please do prove it.  Unless this can be proven in a game, you have no base.  Since the game has *always* played *without a problem* at lower levels (I know, I've been playing ever since the release of 3rd Edition), there is no way to prove that there is a problem.*




I already explained that the problems would be less noticeable at lower levels. That doesn't mean the problems don't exist though.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your example of four Level 1 characters *supposedly* equal to a CR 5 by the rules is INVALID, because that is not stated ANYWHERE.  Four Level 1 characters, by the book, are "UK equal" to CR 4 (1+1+1+1), and that's STILL not a "good" encounter, but rather, BY THE RULES, a "very difficult" encounter.  You DO NOT judge challenge based on character vs. character, but by FOUR PCs vs. a CR equal to party level.  That means a single CR 1 creature is a suitable challenge for a Level 1 party, and a CR 4, although "UK equal", by the rules it is a very difficult encounter and one that the party should fleee from ACCORDING TO THE RULES.*




Please read the Dungeon Masters Guide pages 101/102.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So again, please offer proof for all of your claims.  I have stated specific rules and given examples that support my argument, that AND playing the game without problems.*




You set your misgivings up and I'll knock em' down one by one.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I ignored this statement before, but now I have to object, because I NEVER said that a 20th-level character was no match for a Level 16 party.  I said a Level 16 party ran over a BALOR.  I thus believe the Balor to NOT be Level 20, but rather Level 15.*




To which I replied 'How would a 20th-level NPC have fared any different' and you agreed that it wouldn't!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Another point I failed to mention before, however, was the party makeup.
> 
> Level 1 Quasi-deity Fighter (at ECL +14 before I conceded that quasi-deities were more than that)
> Level 1 Saiyan Warrior
> Levle 16 Sorcerer
> Level 16 Cleric/Sacred Fist*




Irrelevant give the strategy was one that could have been undertaken by any typical party.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The other point I mentioned, which disproves your accusation, is that the supposed CR 20 Ancient Brown Dragon SQUASHED THIS PARTY EASILY.  I think that means I claims Level 20 was way to much for a Level 16 party to fight with.*




LOL! 

Who was it that determined the Ancient Brown Dragon was CR 20!? Would that be WotC perchance!? 

...and they are usually so good at determining Dragon CRs aren't they! LOL! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Unless you can quote where I said a Level 20 character dies at the hands of a Level 16 party, stop accusing me of doing so!*




I remember the conversation clearly enough. I don't want to have to traipse through 600+ posts to find a single reference; especially given the length of some of these replies.

Frankly I think its churlish paranoia for someone debating with your level of misinformation to make such a claim anyway.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I bet you're not going with either of my proposed fixes for Heal and Harm, despite the fact that my fix balances perfectly.*




I don't remember being made aware of 'your' proposed fixes?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, my first version of Harm is "take enough damage to be reduced to 1 hp or take 100 damage, whichever is less damage; will save for half damage".  Heal gives back 100 hp flat.  Mass Heal and "Mass Harm" are self-explanatory here.
> 
> My second version makes Heal give back 1d8 hp/level +1 hp/level.  Harm takes away the same amount.  Mass Heal and Mass Harm are against self-explanatory.*




I will be using 1d6/level (Harm/Heal) and 1d8/level (Mass Heal*)

*and Mass Harm. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Show something, ANYTHING that supports your theories.*




Which elements are you still not happy with?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, how will those of us without Dragon gonna get a hold of this? *




Perhaps interested parties could email me in a week or so. 

Though I can't imagine you would be interested Anubis mate!? According to you none of my ideas make any sense. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What if they don't accept your article?*




Then they dont accept the article.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What if it takes them 3 months to put it in? *




Then it takes three months to put it in.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

I thought I would lump the Anubis-Xeriar exchange and Gez subsequent comments into one reply since none is directly targeted at me.

The main argument seems to be nitpicking over semantics.

This is irrelevant given the change in terminology I stated in my last post which (for brevity) I will repeat herein:

I am now using CR in place of ECL (though the two are in effect the same).

I am now using EL in place of (what I had deemed) CR.

Hopefully this will avoid any further quibbling over terminology.

Secondly Gez raised the point of some encounters (of the same CR) not being balanced. As I have mentioned before these are situational factors beyond any methodology to control. As per the list of such factors in the DMG page 102 under 'Difficulty Notes'


----------



## Gez

Hello UK !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Secondly Gez raised the point of some encounters (of the same CR) not being balanced. As I have mentioned before these are situational factors beyond any methodology to control. As per the list of such factors in the DMG page 102 under 'Difficulty Notes' *




Now, I'm worried. Do you mean that thinngs like regeneration, damage reduction, energy resistance, ranged attack capabilities and movement type will not get factored in your system and up to the DM to adjudicate in the ECL calculations ?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hello UK !*




Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Now, I'm worried.*




You have been listening to Anubis for far too long! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Do you mean that things like regeneration, damage reduction, energy resistance, ranged attack capabilities and movement type will not get factored in your system and up to the DM to adjudicate in the ECL calculations ? *




No; all those factors are still taken into account. But remember I am using CR to replace ECL (though they are technically measured the same if you ask me).

What I meant was that situational 'What Ifs' (such as those mentioned on page 102 of the DMG under the 'Difficulty Notes' heading as well as your own 'Monster A vs. Monster B' scenarios) can affect CR beyond any systems capabilities. 

Incidently I think I have solved the Spell Resistance dilemma - more in a day or so.


----------



## Xeriar

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hello UK !
> 
> Now, I'm worried. Do you mean that thinngs like regeneration, damage reduction, energy resistance, ranged attack capabilities and movement type will not get factored in your system and up to the DM to adjudicate in the ECL calculations ?
> *




The issue you presented is not the only one, by any means.  Without access to see invisible (ie, not having prepared it in one form or another), what is a rogue, cleric, fighter and ranger going to do against a flying mage with improved invisibility?

I have actually witnessed 12th level parties unaware of this kind of threat.  I kid you not.  Add in nondetection for extra fun.

The DMG specifically states not to adjust for situations like this.  While a party is generally responsible for its own stupidity, it is all too often the case where the party gets thoroughly deprived of detection spells.

Also, say aforementioned party has been deprived of all magic and must now face said DR 20/+1 monster...

Damage reduction/penetration, invisibility/detection, movement forms/speed, regeneration and elemental subtypes all throw things out of whack, where you have situations where creature A stands no chance against creature B who can't hope to scratch creature C who couldn't harm creature A.

So, unless you plan to build situational sliders for all of that (not saying it's impossible - certainly intriguing!) you have to settle upon some sort of average and build from there.


----------



## Anubis

UK, my problem with your system is not that it's broken, but that you're trying to fix something that isn't!  Basically, your system isn't needed.

One MAJOR problem is that you have utterly redefined CR.  You use CR as ECL, when CR is supposed to be the challenge on one thing against a party of the same level!  In other words, you compare CR X to Party Level X.  That is the ONLY way to do it, and that is how the rules state it.  You are comparing CR vs. CR for singles, or worse, giving CR to PCs!

You then use EL to replace CR, when EL is the combination of all CRs!

That's two things you have totally redefined.  Add to that the myriad of new rules your adding into the mix, and you have a needlessly complex and unnecessary change to the CORE rules!

Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar.  You should have stuck with the ECL/CR revisions for monsters and not ventured into this territory, because now it'll be hard to figure out which of your works to actually consider and which to ignore.  The Immotal's Handbook I have waited for a year or more for (and it won't come out for another year or two at this point), and I gave you tons of help on the ECL issue, but now you've completely changeed everything for no reason.

Like I said, unless you can show how the CORE SYSTEM is BROKEN, in ANY WAY, then you have no base.  Gez even stated it better than I could have.  CR is Challenge Rating.  That is a specific defeined term.


----------



## -Eä-

Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, my problem with your system is not that it's broken, but that you're trying to fix something that isn't!  Basically, your system isn't needed.
> 
> One MAJOR problem is that you have utterly redefined CR.  You use CR as ECL, when CR is supposed to be the challenge on one thing against a party of the same level!  In other words, you compare CR X to Party Level X.  That is the ONLY way to do it, and that is how the rules state it.  You are comparing CR vs. CR for singles, or worse, giving CR to PCs!
> 
> You then use EL to replace CR, when EL is the combination of all CRs!
> 
> That's two things you have totally redefined.  Add to that the myriad of new rules your adding into the mix, and you have a needlessly complex and unnecessary change to the CORE rules!
> 
> Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar.  You should have stuck with the ECL/CR revisions for monsters and not ventured into this territory, because now it'll be hard to figure out which of your works to actually consider and which to ignore.  The Immotal's Handbook I have waited for a year or more for (and it won't come out for another year or two at this point), and I gave you tons of help on the ECL issue, but now you've completely changeed everything for no reason.
> 
> Like I said, unless you can show how the CORE SYSTEM is BROKEN, in ANY WAY, then you have no base.  Gez even stated it better than I could have.  CR is Challenge Rating.  That is a specific defeined term. *





Personally, for the campaign I'm DMing (as opposed to the one in which I'm playing), I won't use many of the rules UK has proposed. I will use some rules that fits my campaing better, but I see nothing wrong in proposing changes in the rules in the IH. Certainly many will not use all or any of the changes, but it is important to point out one's own stance on things, as it reflects on what basis the system has been developed.

For instance, if you give a set of conclusions without giving its basis, the results will on average be refused or neglected, but if you present a set of N premises, the same set of conclusions may not be neglected or refused. If you know the set of premises you may on that basis change the conclusions to what suits your needs without much problem.

The definition of CR given by WotC is vague at best, even as the try to be clear. There is no point in defining a value compared to a unmeasurable value, which is what they have tried to do.
WotC isn't particularily good at defining things, and this is why it's so easy to "abuse" many powers, issues and spells found in the Core Rulebooks.

While I use a slightly different system than UK in determining CRs, UK provides a better definition than WotC, and while that is not necessary for many DMs as they use different systems anyhow, it will give guidelines for younger and more inexperienced DMs (see kids) to not unbalance things entirely.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, my problem with your system is not that it's broken, but that you're trying to fix something that isn't!  Basically, your system isn't needed.*




Every change I advocate is either a necessity or an adjustment that will significantly benefit a campaign.

A fact which seems to be falling on deaf ears.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *One MAJOR problem is that you have utterly redefined CR.  You use CR as ECL, when CR is supposed to be the challenge on one thing against a party of the same level!  In other words, you compare CR X to Party Level X.  That is the ONLY way to do it, and that is how the rules state it.  You are comparing CR vs. CR for singles, or worse, giving CR to PCs!*




I noticed that taking definitions literally was confusing to some of you. Hence the reason I made the recent changes.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You then use EL to replace CR, when EL is the combination of all CRs!*




Actually EL is a measure of relative power.

Doubling the difficulty of an encounter (such as doubling the number of opponents) increases the EL by 2.

My argument (as it has always been) is that the higher you ascend the less effect CR has upon EL.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's two things you have totally redefined.*




Considering I have revised my terminology so that 'Challenge Ratings' are once again the average Party CR for an appropriate challenge whereupon the party should succeed using 20-25% of their resources...

...means thats only one thing I have supposedly redefined.

Given that Encounter Level does not parallel Challenge Rating (making it a necessary addendum); while even under my auspices it still follows the tenet of:

'Doubling the difficulty of an encounter (such as doubling the number of opponents) increases the EL by 2'.

...means that the concept is not so much redefined as 'defined'.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Add to that the myriad of new rules your adding into the mix, and you have a needlessly complex and unnecessary change to the CORE rules!*




Nothing is needlessly complex. There are no unnecessary changes - other than that your above statement is fairly accurate.

However, I believe the phrase 'you don't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs' is entirely appropriate here.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar.*




They are modular (and therefore optional); though advocated.

Its not by blind chance that either way CR 20 = EL 20. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar.*




In which case I anticipate Xeriar's Campaign to have less Encounter Level problems than others.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You should have stuck with the ECL/CR revisions for monsters and not ventured into this territory, because now it'll be hard to figure out which of your works to actually consider and which to ignore.*




They do say 'ignorance is bliss'.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The Immotal's Handbook I have waited for a year or more for (and it won't come out for another year or two at this point),*




Thanks, way to stay positive! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and I gave you tons of help on the ECL issue, but now you've completely changeed everything for no reason.*




Your help was invaluable, and appreciated - your recent 'meanderings' less so.

...and I haven't completely changed everything (as you suppose), nor have I done anything for no reason (as you prescribe) - other than that your above statement is fairly accurate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Like I said, unless you can show how the CORE SYSTEM is BROKEN, in ANY WAY, then you have no base. *




A 2nd-level character is twice as powerful as a 1st-level character.

A 5th-level character is vastly more powerful than four 1st-level characters

A 20th-level character is not equal to four 16th-level characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Gez even stated it better than I could have.  CR is Challenge Rating.  That is a specific defeined term. *




You don't seem to be keeping up with current events.

I revised my work to give people CR the WotC way.


----------



## poilbrun

I will just answer a few things, since I believe my opinion is not needed on many subjects talked about here...


			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *A 2nd-level character is twice as powerful as a 1st-level character..*



Not true according to WotC, since they say a 1st-level character is CR 1 and a 2nd-level character is CR 2. According to them, an encounter against a 1st-level character would be EL 1 and an encounter against a 2nd-level character would be EL 2. WotC thus do not consider a 2nd-level character to be twice as powerful as a 1st-level character, because if it was so, an encounter against a 2nd-level character would need to have an EL equal to an encounter against a 1st-level character +2, which it does not.

UK, you said the following :


			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *CR 1 = EL 2
> CR 2 = EL 4*



This would seem to take care of the problem, since an encounter against a CR 2 would be equal to an encounter against an CR 1 + 2. What I wonder is why a CR 1 is not EL 1. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *A 5th-level character is vastly more powerful than four 1st-level characters.*



Here's the one where the true problem lies IMHO. Any one of these two encounters would have an EL 5 according to WotC.

If you take a party of 4 1st-level characters, they'll have approximately 50% chances of survival against 4 1st-level characters. 50% chances of survival means that the EL should be (avg. party level + 4). The CR 5 is thus justified if this encounter is for a party of 4 1st-level characters.
If you take a party of 4 5th-level characters, they'll use less than 20-25% of their resources to win the fight. An encounter for which a party uses 20-25% of its resources should have an EL equal to the avg. party level. Since the 5th-level party uses less than 20-25% of its resources, the EL of the encounter should be less than 5, which it isn't, at least according to WotC.

If you take a party of 4 5th-level characters, they'll probably use 20-25% of their resources to win the fight. Which means this encounter should have an EL equal to the avg. party level, which it has. OK so far.
If you take a party of 4 1st-level, they have less than 50% chances of survival against one 5th-level character. The EL should thus be higher than avg. party level + 4, which isn't the case.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *A 20th-level character is not equal to four 16th-level characters.*



This one is nearly the same as the one before, except it's the other way around. These two encounters would have an EL 20 according to WotC.

A party of 4 16th-level characters would have more than 50% chances of survival against one 20th-level character. So the EL should be less than avg. party level + 4.
A party of 4 20th-level characters would use 20-25% of their resources against a 20th-level character (that's more or less always the case when a party of a given level fights one character of the same level). This would mean that the encounter should be EL 20.

A party of 4 16th-level character would have 50% chances of survival against 4 16th-level characters. Which means the EL for this encounter should be avg. party level + 4, which is the case.
A party of 4 20th-level characters would certainly have to use more than 20-25% of their resources in an encounter against 4 16th-level characters, which means that the EL should be higher than avg. party level.


My conclusions :
1. Better for UK than for me to create a CR system that works. But I'll probably use his system if it ends up to be better than the one by WotC.
2. The system is clearly broken, even though I was happy to use it as is, making calls myself when I had to plan an encounter or give XP after it.

PS : Bear with me if there are any grammatical errors in what I wrote, but it's 6 am here and I still haven't slept...


----------



## S'mon

Sometimes I wonder if people here actually read the DMG CR table.  According to it, 2 CR 1 opponents is CR 2, NOT CR 3!  IE WoTC themselves say that 1 level 2 character is equal to 2 level 1 characters.  The 'double power = +2 CR' rule only kicks in from level 4.  That's why the bottom of the table looks odd.


----------



## poilbrun

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Sometimes I wonder if people here actually read the DMG CR table.  According to it, 2 CR 1 opponents is CR 2, NOT CR 3!  IE WoTC themselves say that 1 level 2 character is equal to 2 level 1 characters.  The 'double power = +2 CR' rule only kicks in from level 4.  That's why the bottom of the table looks odd. *



You're quite right... If you look at table 4-1 on page 101 of the dmg, it is clearly stated that an encounter with two monsters of CR 1 is EL2. However, this table seems to have problems for the EL of encounters with only one monster. For example, they say that an EL 19 encounter might consist of either one CR 18, one CR 19 or one CR 20 monster. I wonder why an encounter with a CR 18 would be EL 19?  There are other flaws in this table. For example, an EL 8 encounter might consist of 8 to 12 CR 1.

Anyway, sorry for the mixup. This would probably mean that there is even less need for a change since in the first example I commented above, WotC already say that a 2nd-level character is twice as powerful as a 1st-level.


----------



## S'mon

The EL table is just a rough approximation though, the CR table, being for individual monsters only, is more precise (whether you agree with it or not - I think the way CR1 goes from 200XP at 8th level to * at 9th is too big a jump).


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Bonjour mon ami! *



Salut !





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> You have been listening to Anubis for far too long! [/B]




Maybe, but I must admit I've been confused. Ah, I'm sure everything would be clearer for me if that was explained in French. Go back to your French lessons ! (no ! _actual_ lessons !) 





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> No; all those factors are still taken into account. But remember I am using CR to replace ECL (though they are technically measured the same if you ask me).
> 
> What I meant was that situational 'What Ifs' (such as those mentioned on page 102 of the DMG under the 'Difficulty Notes' heading as well as your own 'Monster A vs. Monster B' scenarios) can affect CR beyond any systems capabilities.[/B]




That's blatant.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Incidently I think I have solved the Spell Resistance dilemma - more in a day or so.  [/B]




Ah ! I must admit I felt less concerned by this issue, my three D&D characters being rogue 3/cleric 3/fighter 2, wizard 7, and sorcerer 2/aristocrat 2... My own solution would have been simply to consider the caster level check like an attack roll or saving throw -- nat 1 is automatically a failure, nat 20 is automatically a success. But that's probably too simple


----------



## Xeriar

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Sometimes I wonder if people here actually read the DMG CR table.  According to it, 2 CR 1 opponents is CR 2, NOT CR 3!  IE WoTC themselves say that 1 level 2 character is equal to 2 level 1 characters.  The 'double power = +2 CR' rule only kicks in from level 4.  That's why the bottom of the table looks odd. *




Which is fine for level 2+ characters, it's the poor guy stuck at level 1 who's in trouble 

I'm not going to touch UK's overhaul, too much conversion makes for confusion.

I just set level 2 = CR 3, level 3 = CR 4, etc...  until level 18 = CR 19, level 20 = CR 20.  This would mean playing with monsters, too, but I'm fine with that.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Incidently Ea mate I have received two emails from you over the last few days using your new email address. The first on November 11th, the second earlier this evening.

I replied to the first one a few days ago. Did you receive my reply?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Ah ! I must admit I felt less concerned by this issue, my three D&D characters being rogue 3/cleric 3/fighter 2, wizard 7, and sorcerer 2/aristocrat 2... My own solution would have been simply to consider the caster level check like an attack roll or saving throw -- nat 1 is automatically a failure, nat 20 is automatically a success. But that's probably too simple  *




I was considering that in addition to introducing a new Metamagic Feat that allows the Spell Level Check to be increased.


----------



## Anubis

Bump.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

Hiya there, Krust-boy!!!!!!!!

Somewhere earlier in this thread didn't you mention a book you had, something like "The Encyclopedia of the Occult?"  or have I finally lost my mind?  Anyway, if you did, can ya tell me anything and everything about it, Author(s) or editors, ISBN #, price, anything at all?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Bump. *




I know this is technically your thread Anubis; but I would rather you didn't 'bump' it. I don't think its fair to take up the space of other, more active threads. 

However, now that you have got us all here... 

I managed to pick up the Monster Manual 2 on Friday and have had the chance to fully read it over the weekend. Pretty good book; although they totally shafted the Linnorms unfortunately. Some really nice powerful monsters though: The Flesh Jelly; Ragewind and Orcwort etc. Artwork is generally excellent with many great peices from Wayne Reynolds and Brian Despain among others. I do think the problem with WotC products is that they have no personality though; I think this has derived from their reluctance to cross-pollenate the various books to maintain this aloof independance. As well as the lack of individual monsters presented (within the two Monster Manuals). Overall 3/5.

Regarding Spell Resistance, the current problem is trying to balance Deities Spell Penetration and Spell Resistance satisfactorily. In addition I am not happy with how to determine Monster CR; though at this point I could end up sticking with CR +11.

Also regarding the CR/EL article I have had a few teething troubles; not with the mechanics; but rather with the wording of a few sentences. Still it should be finished by tomorrow morning. Though I am having reservations about whether Dragon* magazine would publish such an article which at it core basically has me telling WotC where they went wrong...it may not be something they want to hear? 

*though I suppose you never know until you try. 

On an unrelated note I should be entering at least 30 monster ideas to Sword & Sorcery Studio's Creature Collection 3 submission contest. Last time I had 50% of my entries used; and they were rushed. 

So hopefully I can at least keep my batting average.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Hiya there, Krust-boy!!!!!!!!*




Hey Bjorn dude! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Somewhere earlier in this thread didn't you mention a book you had, something like "The Encyclopedia of the Occult?"  or have I finally lost my mind?  Anyway, if you did, can ya tell me anything and everything about it, Author(s) or editors, ISBN #, price, anything at all? *




Yeah sure.

Its the Encyclopedia of the Occult by Fred Gettings.

256 pages. 

I have the 1986 Edition. I paid £7 for it second hand, but I imagine it would be about $25 brand new.

I had a look on amazon but I can't find it there (even in Z shops); or anywhere on ebay (worldwide).

I actually can't see an ISBN number anywhere, sorry.

You might want to try the local library* or second hand book stores.

*preferably Belfasts since they have their own copy. 

Its a very good book though; and has certainly inspired many elements of the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

Hmm.  Not to make you feel bad or anything, but that edition of the book is older than I am.  Sorry, I just had to.

What exactly is in the "Encyclopedia" anyway?  

I'm not allowed to use Amazon.com   My Mommy's was looking for X-mas gift ideas and she doesn't want me to see the history!!!!  

I'm afraid there's an ocean between me and Belfast.  I get sick on boats.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Hmm.  Not to make you feel bad or anything, but that edition of the book is older than I am.  Sorry, I just had to.*




To paraphrase Ben Affleck's character in the movie Mallrats:

"Fifteen!? I thought you were thirty-six!" 

Incidently that means my character Thrin is older than you! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *What exactly is in the "Encyclopedia" anyway?*




Like any Encyclopedia its a big alphabetical list of words (in this case occult words and phrases) with explanations.

The book itself has over 2000 entries; some that might be familiar to you would be: Asmodeus; Mammon; Belial etc. Has full celestial and infernal hierarchies (including where Gygax borrowed many of his initial ideas*) as well as hundreds of other ideas.

*Like Type I-VI Demons.

However I wouldn't necessarily buy it unless you are specifically interested in the subject matter; or plan on doing some writing/research in this area.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I'm not allowed to use Amazon.com    My Mommy's was looking for X-mas gift ideas and she doesn't want me to see the history!!!!*




Shes just right too - you don't want the surprise spoiled. Anticipation is half the joy after all! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I'm afraid there's an ocean between me and Belfast. I get sick on boats. *




Low constitution eh!?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Damaging Damage*

Hi all! 

I will have the CR/EL article done tonight - I have been deliberating over one sentence for the past 24 hours. I just need to chill for a bit then go back and finish it off. Usually I am not so pernickety but I don't want anymore confusion on this matter.

Onto something new...

Using the monster building elements of MM2 I had a look at some of the epic level monsters in the ELH and it turns out at least one third of them have been 'doctored'; in that they have the ability to deal some wild damage figure (that should be credited to significantly larger creatures) with no explanation*!?

*Undead generally need no explanation, dealing damage is seemingly an extension of their hate rather than simply physical attributes.

Anyway, I have decided to write another article on the merits and pitfalls of damage and strength. With the monsters in the IH detailed with these changes in effect.

Essentially the two main breaks with official convention will be that increasing one size category doubles damage (instead of x1.5) and that the ability score modifiers for increasing/decreasing size are doubled.

Before anyone starts to complain about more changes* I must stress this is again optional - although the IH monsters will benefit; as do many of the epic monsters in the ELH already and I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about them!? 

*not to name names or anything!  

Any comments?


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

Yeah, actually I'm 14, but I have the personality of a hyperactive 3 year old.  Its just that you wouldn't know it from my posts.  Hard to show hyperactivity through writing, eh?  If ya ever met me in person, though, you'd know.  Also I love cartoons of almost any kind.  What this has to do with anything, I don't know.  

How much of the material in the encyclopedia do you figure will be new to me.  (a guy who mostly knows the occult through pantheon.org and a choice few other websites) ?    I've always had an interest in this sort of thing, so it may end up on the X-mas list.  Also on the subject of the occult, I read a good article (actually it was closer to a small book) about "The Truth About Tarot Cards."  It was all about how the Major Arcana represents the story of the universe.  I can find a link if ya want.  Again, I've found my way off topic.  

Of course my Mommy's right.  She's always right!  I hate anticipation, but I love a suprise so I'm being a good little boy.  

I don't know about low constitution.  I'm hardly ever sick.  Since I'm so clumsy, I've evolved to be virtually indestructable, but that could just be damage reduction.


----------



## -Eä-

*Re: Damaging Damage*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> I will have the CR/EL article done tonight - I have been deliberating over one sentence for the past 24 hours. I just need to chill for a bit then go back and finish it off. Usually I am not so pernickety but I don't want anymore confusion on this matter.
> 
> Onto something new...
> 
> Using the monster building elements of MM2 I had a look at some of the epic level monsters in the ELH and it turns out at least one third of them have been 'doctored'; in that they have the ability to deal some wild damage figure (that should be credited to significantly larger creatures) with no explanation*!?
> 
> *Undead generally need no explanation, dealing damage is seemingly an extension of their hate rather than simply physical attributes.
> 
> Anyway, I have decided to write another article on the merits and pitfalls of damage and strength. With the monsters in the IH detailed with these changes in effect.
> 
> Essentially the two main breaks with official convention will be that increasing one size category doubles damage (instead of x1.5) and that the ability score modifiers for increasing/decreasing size are doubled.
> 
> Before anyone starts to complain about more changes* I must stress this is again optional - although the IH monsters will benefit; as do many of the epic monsters in the ELH already and I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about them!?
> 
> *not to name names or anything!
> 
> Any comments? *





I guess that's why we can call you a designer! It's excellent that someone addresses such points to make gaqming all the simpler for all of us who don't have the sheer energy to undertake such projects! 

I am looking forward to your article, hopefully it will get finished much faster than the IH (-;

By the way, on monday I had the most excellent gaming experience in my entire life! Ahh...it only encourages me to keep on gaming.

Why aren't you a DM, UK? I am sure you would be a most extraordinary DM! Sure, you play...but there is no harm in DMing one campaign while playing in another. I know I do. Well...if I ever come to Belfast, I hope to get to play with you!

Have a splendid evening!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Yeah, actually I'm 14, but I have the personality of a hyperactive 3 year old. *




Me too...except maybe the hyperactive bit. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Its just that you wouldn't know it from my posts.  Hard to show hyperactivity through writing, eh?*




I know a few who can! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *If ya ever met me in person, though, you'd know.  Also I love cartoons of almost any kind. *




Me too! Me too! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *How much of the material in the encyclopedia do you figure will be new to me.  (a guy who mostly knows the occult through pantheon.org and a choice few other websites) ? *




Lots.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I've always had an interest in this sort of thing, so it may end up on the X-mas list.*




I would be amazed if you managed to even find a copy before Christmas.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Also on the subject of the occult, I read a good article (actually it was closer to a small book) about "The Truth About Tarot Cards."  It was all about how the Major Arcana represents the story of the universe.  I can find a link if ya want.  Again, I've found my way off topic.*




Sure thanks! 

Of course I have a few books on Tarot myself. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Of course my Mommy's right.  She's always right!  I hate anticipation, but I love a suprise so I'm being a good little boy.*




That reminds me - I still haven't posted my letter to Santa yet. I'm only asking that the Book of Vile Darkness be available in Belfast before Christmas. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I don't know about low constitution.  I'm hardly ever sick.  Since I'm so clumsy, I've evolved to be virtually indestructable, but that could just be damage reduction. *




So its a low dexterity then!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Damaging Damage*

Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I guess that's why we can call you a designer!*




...perhaps even a good designer? 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *It's excellent that someone addresses such points to make gaming all the simpler for all of us who don't have the sheer energy to undertake such projects!*




I'm just ironing over the creases as it were.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I am looking forward to your article, hopefully it will get finished much faster than the IH (-;*




Easy tiger! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *By the way, on monday I had the most excellent gaming experience in my entire life! Ahh...it only encourages me to keep on gaming.*




I'm sure we are all very happy (and jealous) for you. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Why aren't you a DM, UK?*




To be honest I never really tried. 

My heart was never really in it.

Also, perhaps I was just spoilt by having S'mon as a DM (don't tell him I said so though)!? 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I am sure you would be a most extraordinary DM!*




Extraordinarily bad perhaps. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Sure, you play...but there is no harm in DMing one campaign while playing in another. I know I do.*




Agreed. If I wanted to DM I am sure I could. I guess that means I don't really want to; perhaps in the future I will have an inclination to DM, who knows?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Well...if I ever come to Belfast, I hope to get to play with you!*




Thanks. Though it might be more beneficial to come to London for Gencon UK next April for the ENWorld Meeting #2.

It was great to meet poil brun (if only briefly) among others from these boards.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Have a splendid evening! *




You too mate!


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

The Truth about the Tarot 

Also, Its a _very_  low dexterity.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I know a few who can!
> *




Are we thinking about the same person?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Are we thinking about the same person?  *




If you are quick enough to pick these jests up you should be quick enough to know not to draw attention to them!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *The Truth about the Tarot . *




That link is broken.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

*Re: Damaging Damage*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I have decided to write another article on the merits and pitfalls of damage and strength. With the monsters in the IH detailed with these changes in effect.
> 
> Essentially the two main breaks with official convention will be that increasing one size category doubles damage (instead of x1.5) and that the ability score modifiers for increasing/decreasing size are doubled.*



I've been exploring this rule modification for a while now. One thing keeps standing out for me.

What I started designing went like this...

-----
The bigger you are, the more destructive your body becomes. With increased mass comes greater force. In the same way that Carrying Capacity is fractioned and multiplied, relative to size, damage modifiers use the same multipliers, but as straightforward bonuses and penalties. Damage size modifiers are as follows: Colossal x16, Gargantuan x8, Huge x4, Large x2, Medium-size +0, Small /2, Tiny /4, Diminutive /8, Fine /16 (for positive modifiers; round all fractions down); Colossal /16, Gargantuan /8, Huge /4, Large /2, Medium-size +0, Small x2, Tiny x4, Diminutive x8, Fine x16 (for negative modifiers; round all fractions down).[/b]
-----

This is all well and good until look at some examples of larger than Medium-size creatures with less than 10 Strength, and smaller than Medium-size creatures with greater than 10 Strength.

Let's go to extremes then. Take a "Colossal" creature and examine their Strength progression.

1 Strength: +0
2-3 Strength: +0
4-5 Strength: +0
6-7 Strength: +0
8-9 Strength: +0
10-11 Strength: +0
12-13 Strength: +16
14-15 Strength: +32
16-17 Strength: +48
18-19 Strength: +64
20-21 Strength: +80
22-23 Strength: +96

You move through 11 points of Strength (from 1 to 11 Strength) with no sign of advancement, and then all of sudden you hit a +16 modifier which quickly increases to a +96 modifier over the next 11 points. Even fantasy logic doesn't track here.

Now take a "Fine" creature and look at their Strength progression.

1 Strength: -80
2-3 Strength: -64
4-5 Strength: -48
6-7 Strength: -32
8-9 Strength: -16
10-11 Strength: +0
12-13 Strength: +0
14-15 Strength: +0
16-17 Strength: +0
18-19 Strength: +0
20-21 Strength: +0
22-23 Strength: +0
24-25 Strength: +0
26-27 Strength: +0
28-29 Strength: +0
30-31 Strength: +0
32-33 Strength: +0
34-35 Strength: +0
36-37 Strength: +0
38-39 Strength: +0
40-41 Strength: +0
42-43 Strength: +1

It takes 10 points of Strength to go from a -80 modifier to a +0 modifier, but it takes 32 Strength points to go from a +0 modifier to a +1 modifier. I think the inherent nonsense of that equation is obvious.

The solution?

Create "damage size modifiers" that work in much the same way that "attack size modifiers" work now. You don't end up with quite so large a Strength modifier, but it does solve this Strength progression problem in a simplistic and stylized way. And heck, this is a modifier that wouldn't exist normally, so any bonus that represents mass-based damage is a good bonus.

Taking from my passage above...

-----
The bigger you are, the more destructive your body becomes. With increased mass comes greater force. In the same way that Carrying Capacity is fractioned and multiplied, relative to size, damage size modifiers use the same multipliers, but as straightforward bonuses and penalties. Damage size modifiers are as follows: Colossal +16, Gargantuan +8, Huge +4, Large +2, Medium-size +0, Small -2, Tiny -4, Diminutive -8, Fine -16.
-----

It’s effectively the same thing as giving Colossal and Fine creatures +32 Strength and -32 Strength (respectively) to their melee damage modifier. So far in my playtesting, it seems to work great.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson

The link works for me.  Anyhow, the address is:  http://www.yhwh.com/Tarot/tarottoc.htm
Hope that helps.


----------



## Gez

Hello everyone, I'm still reading.

The Truth about the Tarot works for me too -- maybe the site was temporarily down when you tried to see it, Craig ?

About size and damage: I agree the advantage of large sizes have been voluntarily downplayed in the game. That's why halflings are so powerful, and why your average adventurer kills hundreds of giants and huge beasts in his life.

Rather than applying additional modifiers, I think that it could be more realistic to add some new combat options. Notably, what I call "antcrushing". If a creature's speed is lower than it's attacker's reach; and if the creature is at least 3 size categories smaller than it's attacker; then the attacker automatically performs coup-de-grâce on each attack action -- this means that the attacker automatically hit, deal critical damage, add possible sneak damage or other effects you can have on helpless defenders, and force the creature to make a saving throw or die.

That would bump quite a bit the CR of creatures of gargantuan or colossal size.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hello everyone, I'm still reading.*




Hey Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The Truth about the Tarot works for me too -- maybe the site was temporarily down when you tried to see it, Craig ?*




Yes, it works now (thanks Bjorn) definately wasn't working when I tried it last night though. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *About size and damage: I agree the advantage of large sizes have been voluntarily downplayed in the game. That's why halflings are so powerful, and why your average adventurer kills hundreds of giants and huge beasts in his life.*




Strength/Damage is terribly handled in 3rd Ed. - I am simply trying to make the best out of an already bad situation without changing too much.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Rather than applying additional modifiers, I think that it could be more realistic to add some new combat options. Notably, what I call "antcrushing". If a creature's speed is lower than it's attacker's reach; and if the creature is at least 3 size categories smaller than it's attacker; then the attacker automatically performs coup-de-grâce on each attack action -- this means that the attacker automatically hit, deal critical damage, add possible sneak damage or other effects you can have on helpless defenders, and force the creature to make a saving throw or die.
> 
> That would bump quite a bit the CR of creatures of gargantuan or colossal size. *




Interesting, but (pending review) I am not sure its appropriate.

WotC have already broken their own core rules in the ELH by applying bizarre strength and damage modifiers to many of the monsters. They just did it on the quiet, hoping no one would notice.

My revision adds a clarity to strength/damage and makes some sense of their meanderings.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello mate! 

Actually tried to post this a few hours ago and it wouldn't take.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I've been exploring this rule modification for a while now. One thing keeps standing out for me.
> 
> What I started designing went like this...
> 
> ...*Snip**




I have to be honest, I have read over your post five or six times now and I don't understand it. 

Here are the changes I advocate:

Strength Scores

Medium Size: 10-11 (typical strength) 
Large Size: 26-27...see Stone Giant
Huge Size: 42-43...see Storm Giant*
Gargantuan Size: 58-59 
Colossal Size: 74-75...see Iron Colossus

Constitution Scores

Medium Size: 10-11 (typical constitution) 
Large Size: 18-19...see Stone Giant
Huge Size: 26-27...see Storm Giant*
Gargantuan Size: 34-35 
Colossal Size: 42-43 

*Storm Giants (at 21ft. tall) are smaller han the typical 'Huge' monster which would be 24ft. As such they have fractionally weaker ability scores.

Base Dice Damage

Medium: 1d8 (medium sword)
Large: 2d8 (large sword)
Huge: 4d8 (huge sword)
Gargantuan: 8d8 (gargantuan sword)
Colossal: 16d8 (colossal sword)


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Upper_Krust.

Not sure what you don't understand. Let's see if I can clarify this...

You know the attack bonus gained from size? Creatures get a +1 attack bonus for being small and a -1 attack bonus for being large? Well this works exactly the same way, but for damage.

The only significant difference would be that it works in reverse (bonuses for larger than Medium-size creatures and penalties for smaller than Medium-size creatures). Once again, those damage modifiers would break down like this:

Colossal +16, Gargantuan +8, Huge +4, Large +2, Medium-size +0, Small -2, Tiny -4, Diminutive -8, Fine -16.

Like I said earlier, it’s effectively the same thing as giving (for instance) Colossal creatures +32 Strength and Fine creatures -32 Strength (for damage purposes).

No offense Upper_Krust, but your Strength solution lacks flexibility. I'll explain.

Using my proposal, let's say the party wizard cast _ray of enfeeblement_ against a giant for 11 points Strength, lowering his Strength score from 25 to 14. That mean what was once a +7 damage modifier is now a +2 damage modifier. HOWEVER, because the giant is "huge", he will always inflict at least +8 additional damage by virtue of his size (regardless of his current Strength score).

Using your system, you could potentially _ray of enfeeblement_ all of the giant's Strength score into nothing, when really, a giant should always be able to maintain a damage bonus based strictly on their enormity.

I hope that helps clear it up for you.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Swings and roundabouts.*



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hello again mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Not sure what you don't understand. Let's see if I can clarify this...
> 
> You know the attack bonus gained from size? Creatures get a +1 attack bonus for being small and a -1 attack bonus for being large? Well this works exactly the same way, but for damage.
> 
> The only significant difference would be that it works in reverse (bonuses for larger than Medium-size creatures and penalties for smaller than Medium-size creatures). Once again, those damage modifiers would break down like this:
> 
> Colossal +16, Gargantuan +8, Huge +4, Large +2, Medium-size +0, Small -2, Tiny -4, Diminutive -8, Fine -16.
> 
> Like I said earlier, it’s effectively the same thing as giving (for instance) Colossal creatures +32 Strength and Fine creatures -32 Strength (for damage purposes).
> 
> No offense Upper_Krust, but your Strength solution lacks flexibility. I'll explain.
> 
> Using my proposal, let's say the party wizard cast ray of enfeeblement against a giant for 11 points Strength, lowering his Strength score from 25 to 14. That mean what was once a +7 damage modifier is now a +2 damage modifier. HOWEVER, because the giant is "huge", he will always inflict at least +8 additional damage by virtue of his size (regardless of his current Strength score).
> 
> Using your system, you could potentially ray of enfeeblement all of the giant's Strength score into nothing, when really, a giant should always be able to maintain a damage bonus based strictly on their enormity.
> 
> I hope that helps clear it up for you. *




I understand your proposal now.

However I am not sure I agree with it. Your argument that my method lacks flexibility doesn't add up.

Technically a wizard *should* be able to drain a giant of strength. However the giant will still be dealing higher damage dice remember.

If we apply _occams razor_ then since both our methods do the same yet yours calls for a rule addition whereas my own simply calls for only a slight revision then the simpler of the two is the best. Not only that but many of the epic monsters already use my proposed changes (like I said WotC simply kept things quiet) so its already partially integrated.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Upper_Krust

But you yourself just admitted that those Strength bonuses are broken...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *WotC have already broken their own core rules in the ELH by applying bizarre strength and damage modifiers to many of the monsters. They just did it on the quiet, hoping no one would notice.*



Meaning... why augment arbitrary and broken Strength values with more arbitrary and broken Strength values (unless you can somehow demonstrate that your values "are not" arbitrary).

But even if you could... with the "damage size modifier" that I am suggesting _occams razor_ (as I understand it) barely needs to draw blood. The damage bonus is universal and follows a logical progression. It simply needs to be "tacked on" using a convention that is already in active use now (the attack size modifier).

Whereas in the case of your Strength solution, _occams razor_ needs to cut much more deeply. You have to recalculate not only the Strength bonuses for every creature it applies to, but their melee damage as well.

Hardly a more simple solution.

While the Epic Level Handbook Strength bonuses you speak of are "partially" integrated (albeit broken by your own admission), the game mechanic I advocate using is "completely" integrated into Dungeons and Dragons, to the point where it is now taken for granted. Not to mention it works.


----------



## The Forsaken One

Wahahahaha 666th post in the thread


----------



## Upper_Krust

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust*




Hello again mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *But you yourself just admitted that those Strength bonuses are broken...*




Many of the entries in the ELH 'break' the core rules. However, they actually make more sense than the core rules. My revision roughly equates to the ELH (and the monster manual giants and golems).



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Meaning... why augment arbitrary and broken Strength values with more arbitrary and broken Strength values (unless you can somehow demonstrate that your values "are not" arbitrary).*




They are not arbitrary in that they (more or less) equate to the ELH.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *But even if you could... with the "damage size modifier" that I am suggesting occams razor (as I understand it) barely needs to draw blood. The damage bonus is universal and follows a logical progression. It simply needs to be "tacked on" using a convention that is already in active use now (the attack size modifier).*




Exactly. Its something 'tacked on'.

With _occams razor_ 'less is more', as it were. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Whereas in the case of your Strength solution, occams razor needs to cut much more deeply. You have to recalculate not only the Strength bonuses for every creature it applies to, but their melee damage as well.*




Hardly a more simple solution.

But you have to do that with yours anyway.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *While the Epic Level Handbook Strength bonuses you speak of are "partially" integrated (albeit broken by your own admission),*




They are themselves broken in that they are not defined by WotC - something I am taking care of.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *the game mechanic I advocate using is "completely" integrated into Dungeons and Dragons, to the point where it is now taken for granted. Not to mention it works. *




Don't get me wrong, I like your method too


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello there! 



			
				The Forsaken One said:
			
		

> *Wahahahaha 666th post in the thread  *




You devil you!


----------



## The Forsaken One

Inspired me to play a Neutral Evil Nomad in my next game this week


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Upper_Krust.

Well... I’ll say this. The beauty of implementing a "damage size modifier" is precisely that you "tack it on". Meaning, tacking it on is a feature rather than a detriment.

It achieves the desired effect of factoring size and weight into damage modifiers without having to recalculate Strength and melee damage every time. When faced with the choice of tacking on a single extra modifier (using an established game mechanic), versus another rule that recalculates Strength and melee attacks, then assuming both rules achieve the same desired effect...

...tacking it on every time.

Heck, we already tack on situational bonuses and penalties all the time during regular game play. This one is painless by comparison. In that sense, "taking on" will always be less bothersome than "recalculating".

Just so you know, I’m not really trying to persuade you Upper_Krust. You either like damage size modifiers or you don’t. In fact, you’ve already said as much. The solution you came up with is interesting to me because I originally pursued the same line of thought (increasing Strength and melee damage) until my brain tripped over damage size modifiers. As house rules go, it offers minimal change for the maximum impact. Less is more. _Occams razer_ couldn’t be more happy.


----------



## Gez

Another little house-rule I've forgot to post the other day:

Each size category higher allows a creature to ignore 1 point of natural armor, armor, and damage reduction.

A snail's shell is a good shelter against a hedgehog, but not against an absent-minded human stepping on it. Similarly, a full-plate is not going to be much useful against an absent-minded elephant (or tarrasque) stepping on you.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again Forsaken One! 



			
				The Forsaken One said:
			
		

> *Inspired me to play a Neutral Evil Nomad in my next game this week  *




Glad I could help...it was nothing - honest!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hello mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Well... I’ll say this. The beauty of implementing a "damage size modifier" is precisely that you "tack it on". Meaning, tacking it on is a feature rather than a detriment.
> 
> It achieves the desired effect of factoring size and weight into damage modifiers without having to recalculate Strength and melee damage every time. When faced with the choice of tacking on a single extra modifier (using an established game mechanic), versus another rule that recalculates Strength and melee attacks, then assuming both rules achieve the same desired effect...
> 
> ...tacking it on every time.
> 
> Heck, we already tack on situational bonuses and penalties all the time during regular game play. This one is painless by comparison. In that sense, "taking on" will always be less bothersome than "recalculating".
> 
> Just so you know, I’m not really trying to persuade you Upper_Krust. You either like damage size modifiers or you don’t. In fact, you’ve already said as much. The solution you came up with is interesting to me because I originally pursued the same line of thought (increasing Strength and melee damage) until my brain tripped over damage size modifiers. As house rules go, it offers minimal change for the maximum impact. Less is more. Occams razer couldn’t be more happy. *




Your method doesn't solve the damage dice problem. Therefore in and of itself it does not have all the answers.

Though I do like the 'tack on' ability.

However if you apply it across the board that means you affect the things that are already 'fixed' like monster manual giants and golems; as well as numerous ELH monsters.

So essentially with either method (yours or mine) theres potentially some changes necessary.

It will be interesting to see what Core Rulebook changes Monte Cook makes in his Arcana Unearthed book? I remember he spoke before of armourworking as damage reduction (not in the context of this book though).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Another little house-rule I've forgot to post the other day:
> 
> Each size category higher allows a creature to ignore 1 point of natural armor, armor, and damage reduction.
> 
> A snail's shell is a good shelter against a hedgehog, but not against an absent-minded human stepping on it. Similarly, a full-plate is not going to be much useful against an absent-minded elephant (or tarrasque) stepping on you. *




Seems a trifle redundant given that increasing strength gives you a superior attack bonus (reducing natural armour/armour) and damage bonus (reducing the effects of damage reduction) anyway...?


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *It will be interesting to see what Core Rulebook changes Monte Cook makes in his Arcana Unearthed book? I remember he spoke before of armourworking as damage reduction (not in the context of this book though). *




Aaah ! I don't like it (see my aptly named rant on that forum for my reasons).




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Seems a trifle redundant given that increasing strength gives you a superior attack bonus (reducing natural armour/armour) and damage bonus (reducing the effects of damage reduction) anyway...?*




Well, not that much. Damage reduction avoidance is not going to be necessarily a damage bonus, given that most creatures just don't have it. It's here just to allow sheer strength to compensate for a possible lack of magic. Similarly, the armor avoidance is not necessarily a to hit bonus, the svirneblin monk is still going to be hard to hit. It just allow for sheer brute strength to pierce armor more easily.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *So essentially with either method (yours or mine) there’s potentially some changes necessary.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what Core Rulebook changes Monte Cook makes in his Arcana Unearthed book? I remember he spoke before of armour working as damage reduction (not in the context of this book though). *



HA! Yes indeed. It's like you are either reading my mind or moving in the same logical direction.

To balance the damage size modifier, I too have been slowly incorporating armor as damage reduction in my game. This change, however, quickly become multi-faceted.

First of all, Armor Class (AC) was eliminated from my game altogether and replaced with "Evasion Class" (EC), which is the number required to make a touch attack. Armor is now represented as Hardness Rating (HR), using the same values that exist now (for example, a chain shirt has a HR 4). This is the number that the damage roll has to beat in order deal damage to the target.

There are even rules for damaging armor, including a list of hardness ratings and hit points for the respective armor types (that I lifted for the official D&D FAQ).

Essentially, creatures become easier to hit, but harder to hurt.

To top it off (for characters that either choose not to or don't were armor) I have incorporated standardized "parrying" into the game, using rules and feats that are similar to those presented in Dragon #301.

As well (and I think you'll like this change) Dexterity is the now only attribute used to resolve all "attack" rolls, whether melee or ranged, and the Max Dexterity Bonus for armor types applies to both Evasion Class and attack rolls. Not just Evasion Class.

The next change might be more controversial. So that Dexterity didn't become the "everything" attribute, Initiative is now a function of Wisdom.

I thought it would be Intelligence at first, until one of my friends made a really good point. Wisdom is the "instinct" and "perception" attribute. The human body frequently responds to danger much faster than our minds do. That was logical enough to convince me that Wisdom was more appropriate.

That's a lot of changes for one post, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Feel free to either post them here or Email them to me. Whichever medium facilitates more than your regular one line replies.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Aaah ! I don't like it (see my aptly named rant on that forum for my reasons).*




I know! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Well, not that much. Damage reduction avoidance is not going to be necessarily a damage bonus, given that most creatures just don't have it. It's here just to allow sheer strength to compensate for a possible lack of magic.*




But as I mentioned the extra strength does this anyway.

Even given the unfathomably loose adherance to Einsteins theory of relativity in d20; size should in no way be given armour penetration beyond its actual strength capacity.

You just seem to be overcomplicating the matter unnecessarily mate; trust me. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Similarly, the armor avoidance is not necessarily a to hit bonus, the svirneblin monk is still going to be hard to hit. It just allow for sheer brute strength to pierce armor more easily. *




If anything, an increase in size would actually denote worse armour penetration since the surface area of the comparative weapon (natural or manufactured) would likely be greater.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *HA! Yes indeed. It's like you are either reading my mind or moving in the same logical direction.*




Great minds...yadda, yadda! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *To balance the damage size modifier, I too have been slowly incorporating armor as damage reduction in my game.
> 
> This change, however, quickly become multi-faceted.*




As I predicted many moons ago. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *First of all, Armor Class (AC) was eliminated from my game altogether and replaced with "Evasion Class" (EC), which is the number required to make a touch attack. Armor is now represented as Hardness Rating (HR), using the same values that exist now (for example, a chain shirt has a HR 4). This is the number that the damage roll has to beat in order deal damage to the target.*




I suppose the new terminology avoids any confusion.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *There are even rules for damaging armor, including a list of hardness ratings and hit points for the respective armor types (that I lifted for the official D&D FAQ).*




Could get a bit pedantic; whats it like under play?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Essentially, creatures become easier to hit, but harder to hurt.
> 
> To top it off (for characters that either choose not to or don't were armor) I have incorporated standardized "parrying" into the game, using rules and feats that are similar to those presented in Dragon #301.*




I was just about to suggest parrying.  

If we were doing a Monte Cook (reworking the PHB) I would have a skill bonus instead of BAB and add that bonus to AC.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *As well (and I think you'll like this change) Dexterity is the now only attribute used to resolve all "attack" rolls, whether melee or ranged, and the Max Dexterity Bonus for armor types applies to both Evasion Class and attack rolls. Not just Evasion Class.*




As it should be.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *The next change might be more controversial. So that Dexterity didn't become the "everything" attribute, Initiative is now a function of Wisdom.
> 
> I thought it would be Intelligence at first, until one of my friends made a really good point. Wisdom is the "instinct" and "perception" attribute. The human body frequently responds to danger much faster than our minds do. That was logical enough to convince me that Wisdom was more appropriate.*




Very interesting, my first impression was 'hes asking for trouble here' but after thinking about it; sounds plausible.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That's a lot of changes for one post, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Feel free to either post them here or Email them to me.*




Already replied when I got to this point.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Whichever medium facilitates more than your regular one line replies. *




I apply _occams razor_ to my responses.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Could get a bit pedantic; what’s it like under play?*



Well, if you choose *not* to track armor damage, simply add hardness rating, natural armor, and damage reduction together.

But if you do choose to track armor damage, as I have done, it becomes a simple matter of assigning hardness ratings and hit points to each of the armor types. The D&D FAQ offers a really good suggestion in that regard. Hardness rating 10 for all the metal armors, hardness rating 5 for all the leather armors, and hardness rating 0 for padded leather. Each armor has a number of hit points equal to 5x their (former AC; now HR).

Light armor
Padded / Hardness: 0 / Hit Points: 5
Leather / Hardness: 5 / Hit Points: 10
Studded / Hardness: 5 / Hit Points: 15
Chain shirt / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 20

Medium armor
Hide / Hardness: 5 / Hit Points: 15
Scale / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 20
Chain / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 25
Breast plate / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 25

Heavy armor
Splint / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 30
Banded / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 30
Half-plate / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 35
Full plate / Hardness: 10 / Hit Points: 40

So when should a successful attack that damages a target also damage the armor?

Potentially always. A good point was made to me not so long ago. You can’t attack armor without also attacking the wearer (at least not without a special feat).

Let's start with an example. A chain shirt offers HR4 of protection for the wearer, but the chain shirt itself has a hardness of 10.

If the target sustained 8 points of damage, the chain shirt would remain undamaged, but the target would take 4 hit points of damage.

If the target sustained 12 points of damage, the chain shirt would take 2 points of damage (falling from 20 hit points to 18 hit points), and the target would take 8 hit points of damage.

I would even agree that if the chain shirt fell to 10 or less hit points (1/2 or less maximum hit points), the chain shirt would become one-half as effective. Meaning, the armor bonus would downgrade from HR4 to HR2, until the chain shirt lost all its hit points (becoming completely useless) or was consequently repaired.

Admittedly, this does involve a little more bookkeeping on my part, but so far that extra work has been worth the added level of realism.

The cost for repairs could be resolved easily as well. A chain shirt costs 100 gold and has 20 hit points. Divide 100 gp by 20 hit points and you get 5 gp per hit point. Well, 5 gp seems kind of steep to me, so make it 5 silver pieces instead. That seems more reasonable.

I would even say that repair cost depends on the severity of damage. You could say that if a chain suit sustained one-half or more hit points in damage, then the repair cost would increase to 2 1/2 gp per hit point. Inflation x5.

It should also be said that (with this system) shields fall under the standardized rules for parrying.


----------



## Anubis

First off, about armor damage . . . The PH already has rules for repairing armor, so just use that instead of making an entirely new system for it.  It's under the Craft skill.

Now, onto my next point.

DRAGONS.

Going by the original idea UK and I had of ECL and CR . . . I have figured out dragons without the use of a complex formula.  Thanks to their advance rates and their attack bonus and saves, it's easy!

Now I will state that I will still (for now) use the modifications to CR for ECL . . . Meaning that above 20, you get 1 CR for 2 ECL, etc., etc., etc.

Moving on . . . Simply put, the ECL (or effective power rating, EPR, as I now call it to seperate my term from ECL) of Medium-Size Dragon is equal to its HD.  This changes on size.  Here is a table:

Dragon Size : EPR
Tiny : HD - 2
Small : HD - 1
Medium-Size : HD
Large : HD + 1
Huge : HD + 2
Gargantuan : HD + 3
Colossal : HD + 4

See?  SIMPLE!  Based on my research, this works PERFECTLY!  You see, one thing always forgotten is TACTICS.  If you look at dragons' Intelligence, you'll see that they quite smart.  With larger dragons, this MUST be taken into account, because of the wide array of dragon powers.  Some might think a Great Red Wyrm isn't EPR 44 (CR 31), but I guarantee that these numbers work perfectly, as I have recently tested them.

Anyway, UK, I hope you can find these numbers useful.  After all, dragons were always a problem child when it came to figuring these numbers out.  This is one less problem to deal with!


----------



## Buddha the DM

*Anubis:* If you're right on the ECL/EPR for dragons, I know several people that'll hate you if I ever get to run a game again.


----------



## Anubis

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Anubis: If you're right on the ECL/EPR for dragons, I know several people that'll hate you if I ever get to run a game again. *




Why is that?  Currently, if you use the CR from the MM as-is, you'll start killing off your players with Mature Adult and Old dragons, assuming you play them according to their intelligence.  Using this system, dragons are FINALLY rated correctly, meaning parties have a chance at winning against the more powerful dragons.

So why would they hate me?


----------



## Buddha the DM

Not mad in a bad way like you contradicted something that was already in use. But rather something that I could do with what you came up with.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi sonofapreacherman mate! 

It seems straightforward enough but I would generally leave armour alone unless specifically subjected to an attack (sundering etc.).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *DRAGONS.
> 
> Going by the original idea UK and I had of ECL and CR . . . *




Remember I am now using CR and EL as per the new rules.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have figured out dragons without the use of a complex formula.  Thanks to their advance rates and their attack bonus and saves, it's easy!*




Funny you mention dragons I actually worked out a quick and simple formula for devising their CR...I'll post it at the end of this reply.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now I will state that I will still (for now) use the modifications to CR for ECL . . . Meaning that above 20, you get 1 CR for 2 ECL, etc., etc., etc.*




Thats wrong under the revised rules.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Moving on . . . Simply put, the ECL (or effective power rating, EPR, as I now call it to seperate my term from ECL) of Medium-Size Dragon is equal to its HD.  This changes on size.  Here is a table:
> 
> Dragon Size : EPR
> Tiny : HD - 2
> Small : HD - 1
> Medium-Size : HD
> Large : HD + 1
> Huge : HD + 2
> Gargantuan : HD + 3
> Colossal : HD + 4
> 
> See?  SIMPLE!  Based on my research, this works PERFECTLY!*




Funny you mentioned it according to my calculations the CR of a Wyrmling Dragon is always the same as its Hit Dice!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You see, one thing always forgotten is TACTICS.  If you look at dragons' Intelligence, you'll see that they quite smart.  With larger dragons, this MUST be taken into account, because of the wide array of dragon powers.  Some might think a Great Red Wyrm isn't EPR 44 (CR 31), but I guarantee that these numbers work perfectly, as I have recently tested them.*




Actually I tested every Great Wyrm against a single Fighter equal to its CR and they all worked out more or less 50/50 encounters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, UK, I hope you can find these numbers useful.  After all, dragons were always a problem child when it came to figuring these numbers out.  This is one less problem to deal with! *




Indeed. In fact I even rate them more powerful than you now!

Here is the quick method though:

Wyrmling CR = its HD

ie. Wyrmling Black Dragon (4 HD) = CR 4

Each age category adds a set figure to CR based on the opening HD:

1 HD (wyrmling); add +3 CR/additional age
2 HD (wyrmling); add +3.2 CR/additional age
3 HD (wyrmling); add +3.4 CR/additional age (eg. white)
4 HD (wyrmling); add +3.6 CR/additional age (eg. black)
5 HD (wyrmling); add +3.8 CR/additional age (eg. green)
6 HD (wyrmling); add +4 CR/additional age (eg. blue)
7 HD (wyrmling); add +4.2 CR/additional age (eg. red)
8 HD (wyrmling); add +4.4 CR/additional age (eg. gold)
9 HD (wyrmling); add +4.6 CR/additional age
10 HD (wyrmling); add +4.8 CR/additional age

etc.

20 HD (wyrmling); add 6.8 CR/additional age (eg. force)

23 HD (wyrmling); add 7.4 CR/additional age (eg. prismatic)

Example: Blue Dragon

Wyrmling (6 HD) = CR 6
Very Young = CR 10
Young = CR 14
Juvenile = CR 18
Young Adult = CR 22
Adult = CR 26
Mature Adult = CR 30
Old = CR 34
Very Old = CR 38
Ancient = CR 42
Wyrm = CR 46
Great Wyrm = CR 50


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 

I checked your ebay sale mate; very nice. 

Is the Mystic Russia the book with the Russian deities in it (including Kostchtchie I think)? If so how many deities does it detail?

Also let me just say to everyone here that one of the books in Buddhas ebay sale: 'Pantheons of the Megaverse' is fantastic and in the highly recommended section of the Immortals Handbook bibliography!


----------



## -Eä-

> *Example: Blue Dragon
> 
> Wyrmling (6 HD) = CR 6
> Very Young = CR 10
> Young = CR 14
> Juvenile = CR 18
> Young Adult = CR 22
> Adult = CR 26
> Mature Adult = CR 30
> Old = CR 34
> Very Old = CR 38
> Ancient = CR 42
> Wyrm = CR 46
> Great Wyrm = CR 50 *





Hmm.... So you don't account for ability scores when dealing with dragons!? They can be different, most definitelly, can they not?

This is very important for the modularity of the system, in my opinion, so I take that you just forgot them in the rush?


----------



## Buddha the DM

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Buddha mate!
> 
> I checked your ebay sale mate; very nice.
> 
> Is the Mystic Russia the book with the Russian deities in it (including Kostchtchie I think)? If so how many deities does it detail?
> 
> Also let me just say to everyone here that one of the books in Buddhas ebay sale: 'Pantheons of the Megaverse' is fantastic and in the highly recommended section of the Immortals Handbook bibliography! *




Yeah, Koshchei the Deathless Ones are in there. None that I can see that are specifically named. But there are plenty of generic demons and the like in there. Did you see anything at my ebay sale that you wanted?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Hmm.... So you don't account for ability scores when dealing with dragons!? They can be different, most definitelly, can they not?*




I do account for ability scores with dragons.

Remember that I stated above this was simply a 'quick' method of determining Dragon CR. It incorporates every dragon ability.

I worked out the CR for every Wyrmling; then every Great Wyrm. Then (for the sake of brevity) used the above method to determine the age categories in between. The above method was approx. 90-95% accurate when held up against my CR system.

So I reiterate again; the above is simply a 'quick' method of determining Dragon CR!



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *This is very important for the modularity of the system, in my opinion, so I take that you just forgot them in the rush? *




Nope. I forget nothing. 

Considering you already have my revised CR/EL system with the Great Wyrm Red Dragon example (among others) you should know exactly how I determine CR. 

I have simply found that determining Dragon CRs _en masse_ is somewhat pedantic. So now you have the 'quick' option that gives you 90-95% accuracy anyway. So instead of having to work out 60 CRs for the Gem Dragons in MM2 I only need look at the HD for the five wyrmlings and I can extrapolate the rest in under a minute.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Yeah, Koshchei the Deathless Ones are in there. None that I can see that are specifically named. But there are plenty of generic demons and the like in there.*




I thought it had the Russian deities in there!?



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Did you see anything at my ebay sale that you wanted? *




The two main Rifts books I still want are Vampire Kingdoms and South America 2 (the latter being on your list). 

If I didn't have the Book of Vile Darkness; the Tome of Horrors and d20 Modern to buy before Christmas I might take a chance on Mystic Russia and Spirit West.

Incidently; let me reiterate for anyone out there. The Pantheons of the Megaverse book is probably the greatest RPG book on mythological deities ever*! With the possible exception of the 1st Ed. Deities & Demigods (the Cthulhu & Melnibonean printing).

*to date!


----------



## -Eä-

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Eä mate!
> 
> I do account for ability scores with dragons.
> 
> Remember that I stated above this was simply a 'quick' method of determining Dragon CR. It incorporates every dragon ability.
> 
> I worked out the CR for every Wyrmling; then every Great Wyrm. Then (for the sake of brevity) used the above method to determine the age categories in between. The above method was approx. 90-95% accurate when held up against my CR system.
> 
> So I reiterate again; the above is simply a 'quick' method of determining Dragon CR!
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I forget nothing.
> 
> Considering you already have my revised CR/EL system with the Great Wyrm Red Dragon example (among others) you should know exactly how I determine CR.
> 
> I have simply found that determining Dragon CRs en masse is somewhat pedantic. So now you have the 'quick' option that gives you 90-95% accuracy anyway. So instead of having to work out 60 CRs for the Gem Dragons in MM2 I only need look at the HD for the five wyrmlings and I can extrapolate the rest in under a minute.  *





Now I see: A quick algorithm, ey? Personally, I almost never use average ability scores for any creatures in my encounters, so the figures don't apply to me. Actually, ability scores vary so much in my creatures that sometimes I wonder whether it's good or not, but then I think of the benefits of many-facetet creatures that I think that the change is for the better.
Also, it takes the players a little bit aback when an adult gold dragon has only 12 in charisma. (That is, the way I roleplay the creature)


----------



## Anubis

Speaking of CRs, I have finally come up with the correct numbers for NPC classes, as follows:



		Code:
	

[COLOR=white]
Level-CR
======
Warrior
			1-	1/2
			2-	1
			3-	1
			4-	2
			5-	2
			6-	3
			7-	3
			8-	4
			9-	4
			10-	5
			11-	5
			12-	6
			13-	6
			14-	7
			15-	7
			16-	8
			17-	8
			18-	9
			19-	9
			20-	10
Expert/Adept/Aristocrat
			1-	1/3
			2-	1/2
			3-	1
			4-	1
			5-	1
			6-	2
			7-	2
			8-	2
			9-	3
			10-	3
			11-	3
			12-	4
			13-	4
			14-	4
			15-	5
			16-	5
			17-	5
			18-	6
			19-	6
			20-	6
Commoner
			1-	1/4
			2-	1/3
			3-	1/2
			4-	1
			5-	1
			6-	1
			7-	1
			8-	2
			9-	2
			10-	2
			11-	2
			12-	3
			13-	3
			14-	3
			15-	3
			16-	4
			17-	4
			18-	4
			19-	4
			20-	5
[/COLOR]
[code]

There you go!  You see, at first I had a flat "1/2, 1/3, 1/4" method, but that goofed up the CRs for the first several levels.  With my changes, I have finally perfected the numbers.  These are playtested in an actual campaign, and have proven to be accurate.

Enjoy!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Any questions?*

Hi all! 

I haven't been able to post to the boards recently (hopefully this will work?)

Anyway I am putting together a FAQ article on the Immortals Handbook (for a website) and wondered if anyone has an questions beyond:

0. Overview of the Immortals Handbook

1. Is this a d20 product?

2. Who is publishing it?

3. Will this be an electronic product, a print product or both?

4. Where should we expect to see it?

5. When should it be finished?

6. Why has it taken so long? 

7. I've played immortal campaigns before (Amber RPG; D&D Immortals; Primal Order etc.), how is this different, or better?

8. I don't really want to run an immortal campaign, why should the Immortals Handbook interest me?

9. I've heard you are making some changes to the core rules...just what are these changes and why are you making them?

10. Are the changes you make to the system optional or required? 

11. What support can we expect in the future?

12. What are your main inspirations/sources?

13. Shouldn't gods be beyond stats?

14. Is the system modular, and if so, towhat degree? 

15. Will it be easy to incorporate to an existing campaign? 

16. Do you have methods to convert existing gods from my campaign to fit your new and expanded rules?

17. I have heard about some weird stuff like Esoteric Divine Abilities, what are those and are they easy to add to existing gods?

Any others?


----------



## Knight Otu

*Re: Any questions?*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I haven't been able to post to the boards recently (hopefully this will work?)
> *




As a long term resident of the Meta forum I can say that it is resolved (for now... ) 



> *
> 2. Who is publishing it?
> *



I've got a theory or two, but I'll honor your desire not to reveal it until the time is right. 



> *
> 3. Will this be an electronic product, a print product or both?*



You still aim for both, right? I'd rather have a book than a PDF, personally. 



> *
> 6. Why has it taken so long?
> *





*



			Any others?
		
Click to expand...


*Not necessarily my own questions, but these seem to be rather important:

What are your main inspirations/sources?

Are the changes you make to the system optional or required?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Re: Any questions?*

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *As a long term resident of the Meta forum I can say that it is resolved (for now...  ) *








			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I've got a theory or two, but I'll honor your desire not to reveal it until the time is right.  *








			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *You still aim for both, right? I'd rather have a book than a PDF, personally.  *




Yep.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Not necessarily my own questions, but these seem to be rather important:
> 
> What are your main inspirations/sources?
> 
> Are the changes you make to the system optional or required?  *




Thanks mate! 

I'll add them into the above list. 

Any more?


----------



## Knight Otu

Unless this is covered in #8, what about this:

Shouldn't gods be beyond stats?

Maybe I'll find other things, but that's it for now.


----------



## -Eä-

What about:

Is the system modular, and if so, towhat degree? 
Will it be easy to incorporate to an existing campaign? 
Do you have methods to convert existing gods from my campaign to fit your new and expanded rules?
I have heard about some weird stuff like Esoteric Divine Abilities.What are those and are they easy to add to existing gods?
Are the new systems of magic of yours comaptible with the old magic type?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Thanks Eä; and thanks again Knight Otu! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *What about:
> 
> Are the new systems of magic of yours comaptible with the old magic type? *




I haven't included this question. I will be using the Epic Spell system from the ELH...with a few minor modifications to take into account divine power. 

While I did have my own methods for Immortal Magic; they were simpler and more fragmented, yet at the same time did very much the same thing as the Epic Spell system. 

So using that system frees up a lot more space to include sample spells and ideas. The ideas I was using have not really changed; simply that they are now represented in terms of spell factors and mitigating factors. I should now also have enough space to return to some of the Prestige Class ideas I was working on.


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Wyrmling CR = its HD
> 
> ie. Wyrmling Black Dragon (4 HD) = CR 4
> 
> Each age category adds a set figure to CR based on the opening HD:
> 
> 1 HD (wyrmling); add +3 CR/additional age
> 2 HD (wyrmling); add +3.2 CR/additional age
> 3 HD (wyrmling); add +3.4 CR/additional age (eg. white)
> 4 HD (wyrmling); add +3.6 CR/additional age (eg. black)
> 5 HD (wyrmling); add +3.8 CR/additional age (eg. green)
> 6 HD (wyrmling); add +4 CR/additional age (eg. blue)
> 7 HD (wyrmling); add +4.2 CR/additional age (eg. red)
> 8 HD (wyrmling); add +4.4 CR/additional age (eg. gold)
> 9 HD (wyrmling); add +4.6 CR/additional age
> 10 HD (wyrmling); add +4.8 CR/additional age
> 
> etc.
> 
> 20 HD (wyrmling); add 6.8 CR/additional age (eg. force)
> 
> 23 HD (wyrmling); add 7.4 CR/additional age (eg. prismatic)
> 
> Example: Blue Dragon
> 
> Wyrmling (6 HD) = CR 6
> Very Young = CR 10
> Young = CR 14
> Juvenile = CR 18
> Young Adult = CR 22
> Adult = CR 26
> Mature Adult = CR 30
> Old = CR 34
> Very Old = CR 38
> Ancient = CR 42
> Wyrm = CR 46
> Great Wyrm = CR 50
> *




As someone pointed out in the "Dragons" thread, these numbers do not work very well with the weakest dragons (Black and White, Brass and Copper, etc.).  MY numbers put them SLIGHTLY to high, so your numbers make them ridiculous.  The example was the Young Black Dragon, CR 4 in the book, CR 10 by my system, CR 11 by your system.  We are now overestimating some of these things.

I'm adding modifiers to mind based on breath weapon, since that is where these dragons falter.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As someone pointed out in the "Dragons" thread, these numbers do not work very well with the weakest dragons (Black and White, Brass and Copper, etc.).  MY numbers put them SLIGHTLY to high, so your numbers make them ridiculous.  The example was the Young Black Dragon, CR 4 in the book, CR 10 by my system, CR 11 by your system.  We are now overestimating some of these things.
> 
> I'm adding modifiers to mind based on breath weapon, since that is where these dragons falter. *




It works out at CR 10 by my system (CR 11 by the quick method shown above).

The effect on EL is negligable (between CR 10 and 11).

Remember also that my system takes into account player ability scores (not simply level) for deteremining their CR.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *MY numbers put them SLIGHTLY to high, so your numbers make them ridiculous.  The example was the Young Black Dragon, CR 4 in the book, CR 10 by my system, CR 11 by your system.*




LOL! 

I love the way CR 10 is SLIGHTLY too high whereas CR 11 is RIDICULOUS! 

Hours of fun!  

...I'll have to investigate this 'Dragon' thread.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

I just noticed a small mistake in the CR/EL document (as I just mentioned in the 'Dragon' thread).

Those of you that already have the document should note...

Under size it should be:

+0.5/size increase above medium.

Under Exceptional Special Attacks/Qualities you should add:

Also Augmented Criticals +1 (Tarrasque).

I'll have these changes fixed for the formatted pdf version available next week.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

It turns out that the above mistake has implications of the 'Quick Dragon CR' system I touted previously.

Here is the revision:

Wyrmling CR = its HD

ie. Wyrmling Black Dragon (4 HD) = CR 4

Each age category adds a set figure to CR based on the opening HD:

1 HD (wyrmling); add +2.8 CR/additional age
2 HD (wyrmling); add +3 CR/additional age
3 HD (wyrmling); add +3.2 CR/additional age (eg. white)
4 HD (wyrmling); add +3.4 CR/additional age (eg. black)
5 HD (wyrmling); add +3.6 CR/additional age (eg. green)
6 HD (wyrmling); add +3.8 CR/additional age (eg. blue)
7 HD (wyrmling); add +4 CR/additional age (eg. red)
8 HD (wyrmling); add +4.2 CR/additional age (eg. gold)
9 HD (wyrmling); add +4.4 CR/additional age
10 HD (wyrmling); add +4.6 CR/additional age

etc.

20 HD (wyrmling); add 6.6 CR/additional age (eg. force)

Great Wyrm Force Dragon CR 92

23 HD (wyrmling); add 7.2 CR/additional age (eg. prismatic)

Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon CR 102

Example: Black Dragon

Wyrmling (4 HD) = CR 4
Very Young = CR 7 (7.4)
Young = CR 10 (10.8)
Juvenile = CR 14 (14.2)
Young Adult = CR 17 (17.6)
Adult = CR 21
Mature Adult = CR 24 (24.4)
Old = CR 34 (27.8)
Very Old = CR 31 (31.2)
Ancient = CR 34 (34.6)
Wyrm = CR 38
Great Wyrm = CR 41 (41.4)

...apologies for the previous mistake.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Feedback on this...*

Hi all! 

I think I have found a way to make determining Encounter Level so easy as to not require a table. In fact its so simple I am annoyed I never thought of it before...

EL -8 = CR 1/4
EL -6 = CR 1/3
EL -4 = CR 1/2
EL -2 = CR 2/3

EL +2 = CR x1.5
EL +4 = CR x2
EL +6 = CR x3
EL +8 = CR x4

Example: Party of four CR 12 characters (PCR 12)

CR 3 = EL -8
CR 4 = EL -6
CR 6 = EL -4
CR 8 = EL -2

CR 18 = EL +2
CR 24 = EL +4 (50/50 chance)
CR 36 = EL +6
CR 48 = EL +8

Any comments.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I'll have these changes fixed for the formatted pdf version available next week.  *



Do you have any idea when that will be available? Will it give us a hint to what the layout of the IH will look like?


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, Upper_Krust! 

Have you seen the thread in GD by MerricB that reveals that the revisions for the Core Rule book will end up in the SRD? From that I would speculate that D&DG and the ELH will be opened at a similar time.

Also, it is possible that the revisions are the reason that the ELH errata is not out yet, maybe they want to incorporate the revisions. The ELH is, after all, highly dependant on the Core Rules.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Do you have any idea when that will be available?*




Sometime shortly after Monday (the deadline for the Creature Collection 3 is this Monday and I have been concentrating on that this week).



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Will it give us a hint to what the layout of the IH will look like? *




Yes.

Which is of course something I want feedback on. I am using a font called 'VTPomp&CircumstanceChiseled' for some of the headings, the larger headings look great but the smallest (in lower case) may need changing...?

You can see the font here, where it says "WHATS NEW":

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/hosted/Pozas/


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, Upper_Krust!  *




Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Have you seen the thread in GD by MerricB that reveals that the revisions for the Core Rule book will end up in the SRD?*




*Goes and takes a look then comes back*



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *From that I would speculate that D&DG and the ELH will be opened at a similar time.*




Logically that wouldn't make sense, a better idea would be to stagger the SRD updates.

If you don't stagger the updates then either:

1. They already have the D&Dg and ELH updates finished and are letting them stagnate for no conceivable reason.

OR

2. They are waiting to develop them all together thereby increasing the amount of work that needs to be done within a shorter space of time.

Both reasons are illogical.

More likely is that is that the release of the revised Core Rulebooks confirms the ELH and D&Dg should enter the SRD by March at the latest.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Also, it is possible that the revisions are the reason that the ELH errata is not out yet, maybe they want to incorporate the revisions. The ELH is, after all, highly dependant on the Core Rules. *




I doubt if either the revisions or the errata will be as far reaching as that.


----------



## Knight Otu

*Where is my clarity when I need it?*

What I wanted to say is:

1. The thread confirms that the SRD is worked upon, which would put those two books into likely candidates for release in early to mid 2003.

2. The Revised Books SRD is likely to be the highest priority at the moment, meaning that other projects could stand back a bit.

3. The ELH errata has been pushed up in the priority lists of WotC quite some time ago, but no word has been out as to when it might see the light of day. I admit that there is wishful thinking at work, but one may dream, right?


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Where is my clarity when I need it?*

Hello again mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *What I wanted to say is:
> 
> 1. The thread confirms that the SRD is worked upon, which would put those two books into likely candidates for release in early to mid 2003.*




I have heard rumours of early 2003, but with my luck that could mean early December 2003. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *2. The Revised Books SRD is likely to be the highest priority at the moment, meaning that other projects could stand back a bit.*




It begs the question just how much work is needed to get a book entered into the SRD!? Deities & Demigods only has about 30 pages of actual mechanics. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *3. The ELH errata has been pushed up in the priority lists of WotC quite some time ago, but no word has been out as to when it might see the light of day. I admit that there is wishful thinking at work, but one may dream, right?  *




If I don't hear something by the end of January I will go in via the back door. Even near infinite patience has its limits.


----------



## Gez

Hello Krusty!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Which is of course something I want feedback on. I am using a font called 'VTPomp&CircumstanceChiseled' for some of the headings, the larger headings look great but the smallest (in lower case) may need changing...?
> 
> You can see the font here, where it says "WHATS NEW":
> 
> http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/hosted/Pozas/ *




The big What's New on the top, not the smaller in the left navbar ?

Well, erm. I would have imagined something more solemn in a book about divine immortals.

It's hard to judge without seeing an actual sample of the layout, however.

But indeed, I don't think this font could be used for titles below chapter level.


----------



## Gez

A double post ? Argh !


----------



## Upper_Krust

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hello Krusty!*




Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The big What's New on the top, not the smaller in the left navbar ?*




Yep.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Well, erm. I would have imagined something more solemn in a book about divine immortals.*




I have tried a number of different fonts. Short of 'ripping off' Planescape that was the font I was most comfortable with.

Firstly its interesting; second, the duality of it represented the relationship between mortals and immortals (the joined lower and upper case); thirdly it hasn't been used before in a d20 product so it has a unique identity.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *It's hard to judge without seeing an actual sample of the layout, however.*




I have the pdf for the CR/EL article already 95% finished, I'll have it done on Monday no problem...

...in fact this would seem a good opportunity to rustle up a few layout ideas and see what you all think?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *But indeed, I don't think this font could be used for titles below chapter level. *




What annoyed me was that smaller headings (using that font)  looked good in print but not onscreen (for pdfs), so I was caught in two minds about it...then you find yourself needing two fonts that are complimentary...yadda yadda yadda


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again! 

What do you think of the following font then...?

Roughwork
http://fontcenter.planet-typography.com/serie1/roughwork.html

I am sure I have seen it used somewhere but I checked my books and its not in anything I own...anyone know where?


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello again!
> 
> What do you think of the following font then...?
> 
> Roughwork
> http://fontcenter.planet-typography.com/serie1/roughwork.html
> 
> I am sure I have seen it used somewhere but I checked my books and its not in anything I own...anyone know where? *



I like that one... I think it looks like the title font for the Penumbra sourcebooks by Atlas Games.


----------



## Knight Otu

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *
> I like that one... I think it looks like the title font for the Penumbra sourcebooks by Atlas Games. *



Yes, I think that is the one...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi guys! 

Well I will rustle up a few variations for the CR/EL Article on Monday and you can all give me your opinions. Thanks.


----------



## Anubis

As for the font . . . Have you considered "Caligula", "CAC Camelot", or "CAC Valiant"?

If you'd like, I can e-mail these fonts to you in a ZIP file.  I have over 400 fonts on my computer, actually.  I can send you any you'd like.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for the font . . . Have you considered "Caligula", "CAC Camelot", or "CAC Valiant"?*




I must admit I am not previously familiar with any of the above (despite probably going through 10,000+ fonts on my travels). I'll check out the above and get back to you.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you'd like, I can e-mail these fonts to you in a ZIP file.*




I imagine they are probably all free downloads anyway but I appreciate the offer mate! 

I'll check them out before deciding whether to download them or not. Its always nice to have a new interesting font until it comes time when you have to scroll through all the fonts on your computer to get to the one you want. Then its not so nice. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have over 400 fonts on my computer, actually.  I can send you any you'd like. *




I probably have close to that myself. 

If you have the Roughwork font you could always send me that. 

(only a demo is seemingly available for free, which probably means I'll end up buying it sometime within the next week or so if I decide I like it, fortunately its only $12 so not much of an imposition).

Incidently the pdf examples will have to wait until sometime late Tuesday or early Wednesday. I miscalculated on the deadline for the Creature Collection 3 and found I had an extra day (today) which I decided to make use of. I ended up submitting 26 monsters though there were three or four I was never really happy with up to the end but decided to submit anyway*. Good luck to anyone else who submitted!  

*hey if your not in, you can't win!


----------



## Blacksad

Just a thought on your idea of putting back the fighter bab to +1/level after level 20.

Your point was that it doesn't even do what it was meant to do, i.e. to keep the attack bonus of all character within the same range, and you pointed the exemple of the generic NPC in the ELH who have a difference of more than 20 in their attack bonus.

I'd prefer that you let it as it is, because some of my player who play mage prefer to have them wielding a bastard sword and gauntlet of ogre strength, instead of a wand of fireball and a pearl of power. i.e. those character have a difference with the fighter attack bonus of only the difference between their bab.

.....

hum....

BUMP!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Joyeux Noel mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Just a thought on your idea of putting back the fighter bab to +1/level after level 20.*




Okay...



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Your point was that it doesn't even do what it was meant to do, i.e. to keep the attack bonus of all character within the same range, and you pointed the exemple of the generic NPC in the ELH who have a difference of more than 20 in their attack bonus.*




Thats correct, although that was simply to overturn WotCs (flawed) reasoning on the matter; my real reason was because I don't believe Fighters should have lower BAB than Beasts; Elementals; Outsiders etc.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I'd prefer that you let it as it is, because some of my player who play mage prefer to have them wielding a bastard sword and gauntlet of ogre strength, instead of a wand of fireball and a pearl of power. i.e. those character have a difference with the fighter attack bonus of only the difference between their bab.*




But their BAB isn't going to change at all!?

If they've got to 50th-level as a Wizard primarily wielding a bastard sword then they must be a trans-class-ual (a fighter trapped in a wizards body in this case). Does the Wizard like to dress up in armour!? 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *hum....
> 
> BUMP!  *




Hopefully I'll have a Christmas present for you all soon in the shape of this CR/EL pdf.


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Joyeux Noel mon ami!
> *




Happy Xmas U_K!




> *
> Thats correct, although that was simply to overturn WotCs (flawed) reasoning on the matter;
> *




not flawed for my players



> *
> my real reason was because I don't believe Fighters should have lower BAB than Beasts; Elementals; Outsiders etc.
> *




I can understand this if you allow those creatures to advance (i.e. one more hit dice) when they get a new level (instead of a class level).

But an easier solution would be to rise their LA if they can be played as PC to take into account the advantage of monster advancement (i.e. calculating their LA based on the max advancement, then reducing based on their minimum hit dice).

After all, beast, elementals and outsider get a natural bab, they did not learn it, and their LA is altered accordingly if they can be played



> *
> But their BAB isn't going to change at all!?
> 
> If they've got to 50th-level as a Wizard primarily wielding a bastard sword then they must be a trans-class-ual (a fighter trapped in a wizards body in this case). Does the Wizard like to dress up in armour!?
> *




That's it, they have at level 20 or 50 a difference of 10 between their Bab, and if the wizard dress like a fighter they have a difference of 10 between their attack bonus.

If it is a standard mage, the difference between their attack bonus is above 20.

I sometimes DM small group with not enough fighter to protect the mage, or mage who don't like summoning spell, in this case taking a level of fighter to be able to wield the +4 bastard sword that the fighter doesn't use anymore, and taking the still spell (to dress up in armour) feat are one, not completly crazy, solution.

But the problem isn't only with mage and combatants, rogue are often in melee also, so if you change fighter back, you need to change back all the other (if you want to delay the too big difference between classes), and you'll have situation where the fighter always hit and the rogue never (and the rogue tend to at least keep a ranged attack bonus on par with the fighter melee attack bonus).



> *
> Hopefully I'll have a Christmas present for you all soon in the shape of this CR/EL pdf.  *




Yeah!!!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Happy Xmas U_K!*




Merci beaucoup mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *not flawed for my players*




...still, two wrongs don't make a right. I can't advocate something I believe to be incorrect.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I can understand this if you allow those creatures to advance (i.e. one more hit dice) when they get a new level (instead of a class level).
> 
> But an easier solution would be to rise their LA if they can be played as PC to take into account the advantage of monster advancement (i.e. calculating their LA based on the max advancement, then reducing based on their minimum hit dice).
> 
> After all, beast, elementals and outsider get a natural bab, they did not learn it, and their LA is altered accordingly if they can be played*




Monster BAB is intrinsic, yes. But the fighter does learn his, and the fighter should be the (at least equal) best.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *That's it, they have at level 20 or 50 a difference of 10 between their Bab, and if the wizard dress like a fighter they have a difference of 10 between their attack bonus.
> 
> If it is a standard mage, the difference between their attack bonus is above 20.
> 
> I sometimes DM small group with not enough fighter to protect the mage, or mage who don't like summoning spell, in this case taking a level of fighter to be able to wield the +4 bastard sword that the fighter doesn't use anymore, and taking the still spell (to dress up in armour) feat are one, not completly crazy, solution.*




Your players seem to want to both have their cake and eat it! 

If they are determined to play a sword swinging mages I suggest they multi-class. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *But the problem isn't only with mage and combatants, rogue are often in melee also, so if you change fighter back, you need to change back all the other (if you want to delay the too big difference between classes), and you'll have situation where the fighter always hit and the rogue never (and the rogue tend to at least keep a ranged attack bonus on par with the fighter melee attack bonus).*




Armour Class (at Epic Levels) does not advance at the same rate as BAB.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Yeah!!! *




I have the first six (of either seven* or eight**) pages finished.

*Appendix Two: Revised Challenge Ratings 

**Appendix Three: Revised Spells

I have tweaked the layout slightly to the point where I am happy with it. I have multiple styles but I don't plan on releasing them (they are simply shallow derivatives of existing designs).

One minor technical point (for Europeans that is); the layout is in US Letter format (not A4). On my printer (seemingly stuck at 5mm margins...?) I seem to lose about 1mm off the outside of the page (essentially a decorative though functional peice of vertically running text). I may make a few slight changes to compensate...I don't want to cause my European friends any distress.


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Merci beaucoup mon ami!
> *




de rien 



> *
> ...still, two wrongs don't make a right. I can't advocate something I believe to be incorrect.
> *




Well, this problem has already been mentioned before, you do not make a book for your campaign, but a book for anyone campaign, and the normal rules allow wizards and fighter to have attack bonus close to each other if they so choose, changing that, change some part of the game, and require to alter some campaign to fit the book, or to change (large?) parts of the book to fit the campaign, either way it requires more work from some DM, while if you keep it as it is, it could be used by anyone.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Well, this problem has already been mentioned before, *




...and was easily rebuked by my counter argument.

In fact your argument at this juncture is unfounded (as it was whenever the previous poster made such a claim). This mechanic is an objective rather than subjective point.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *you do not make a book for your campaign, but a book for anyone campaign, *




I agree. But in so doing I have to state what I think is in the best interest of the majority of people.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *and the normal rules allow wizards and fighter to have attack bonus close to each other if they so choose*




They can still have that if they so wish.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *changing that, change some part of the game, and require to alter some campaign to fit the book, or to change (large?) parts of the book to fit the campaign, either way it requires more work from some DM, while if you keep it as it is, it could be used by anyone. *




I don't see it as a large change. I have already refuted WotCs reasoning for changing BAB post 20th-level. Additionally I have also given my reasoning for the reversal.

I might be swayed by a convincing argument on a subjective point, but on an objective mechanical observation someone is going to have to outline where my thinking is flawed?


----------



## Blacksad

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Bonjour mon ami!
> *




Salut!



> *
> They can still have that if they so wish.
> *




uh? if all the magic items a fighter has grant him a +30 attack bonus, those same items will grant a +30 attack bonus to the wizard, and if their bab difference is greater than 20 (like what begins to happen at level 40), they can't have an attack bonus difference of +10


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bonjour encore mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *uh? if all the magic items a fighter has grant him a +30 attack bonus, those same items will grant a +30 attack bonus to the wizard, and if their bab difference is greater than 20 (like what begins to happen at level 40), they can't have an attack bonus difference of +10  *




I meant if you wanted to retain WotCs flawed route you could.

I still don't think the greatest wizard in the universe should be even remotely approaching the combat prowess of the greatest fighter, and yes I do think the higher you ascend the greater the distinction should be.

Fighters don't cast spells so I don't see why Wizards should competantly wield weapons. Magic items already blur the lines between both sufficiently.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

> I might be swayed by a convincing argument on a subjective point, but on an objective mechanical observation someone is going to have to outline where my thinking is flawed?




Just thought I'd chime in - you may have already addressed this point.

I see more of a problem with clerics and rogues than with wizards - at 3/4 BAB, there will be a 20 point BAB difference between them and fighters at level 80. They will no longer be effective in combat.

Have you considered giving all monsters with more than 20HD/levels epic progression in their BAB (i.e. +1/2 levels), rather than reengineering class BAB?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Sepulchrave II! 



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Just thought I'd chime in - you may have already addressed this point.*




Sure, fire away.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *I see more of a problem with clerics and rogues than with wizards - at 3/4 BAB, there will be a 20 point BAB difference between them and fighters at level 80. They will no longer be effective in combat.*




A popular misconception. Armour Class does not ascend at the same rate as BAB.

What is more likely is that you will encounter three types of Armour Class: Low; Medium and High; much akin to the Wizard; Cleric/Rogue and Fighter BAB progression.



			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> *Have you considered giving all monsters with more than 20HD/levels epic progression in their BAB (i.e. +1/2 levels), rather than reengineering class BAB? *




Either is supposedly plausible (I don't see one ultimate solution presenting itself).

Your idea means rewriting the BAB of many monsters, whereas my own means reworking NPCs and PCs.

The reason I would advocate my own is simply that I am convinced there should be an ever increasing combat distinction between Fighters and Wizards otherwise you are making the Fighter class redundant (something Blacksad seemingly wanted to do).


----------



## Blacksad

err, the fighter will still be a balanced class. 

Bab isn't the only thing measuring the fighter skill.

An ever increasing number of feat will allow the fighter to attack everyone in a 15ft radius, or to cleave an army of advanced orc.

Fighter will still be better fighter than wizard.

But IME, it isn't fun at all to give abilities that can't be used to a character and say that it is balanced (think paladin or ranger spell in 2e), to allow for the possibility of having a difference of 35 between the fighter Bab and the wizard Bab, will mean that when the lowest attack of the fighter hit, the highest attack of the wizard won't have any use, at this point, why give a Bab to the wizard? To fight goblins? They'll be toasted with one epic fireball, or killed by the fighter through epic cleaving.

The wizard "high" bab allow to have fun with the group in an anti-magic zone with an assassin who has a high AC, if he want to kill the wizard, he can still hit te assassin sometimes with his dagger.

I can think of many circumstances in which the ability of the wizard to sometimes hit a creature (because the wizard doesn't have any spell left) is more fun for the *game* than having a fighter who always hit and character who sometimes, or the fighter who sometimes hit, and the other who never.

Plus, by putting back the fighter Bab advancement, you'll need to alter his epic feat selection, to balance him with the other classes between level 20 and 40 (the range in which WotC focused to balance things).

Consider the paladin, with their ability to take the improved spellcasting feat once they have level 9 spell slot, they'll have good bab, and slighty reduced spellcasting abilities compared to a cleric, while if you let it as is, the paladin has slighty better BaB, and the cleric slighty better spellcasting.

and AC ascend a the rate the DM wish it to ascend on monster  , after all the CR of monster is based on the challenge they represent vs a typical group of 4 adventurers, and if only the fighter can hit the thing with its highest attack, then it might have a higher CR than a monster that everyone can hit.

Or are you speaking of the AC of adventurer based on their spell and items?
If so, you can balance their AC the way you like based on the formula you use to have the value of their gear in gold pieces.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bonjour encore mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *err, the fighter will still be a balanced class.*




I don't agree. 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Bab isn't the only thing measuring the fighter skill.*




Feats are part of what balance the Fighter against the other classes.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *An ever increasing number of feat will allow the fighter to attack everyone in a 15ft radius, or to cleave an army of advanced orc.
> 
> Fighter will still be better fighter than wizard.*




But the difference is reduced. BAB is an intrinsic part of core class balance. If we reduce it across all classes the benefit of the fighter is reduced (and to a lesser exten clerics and rogues).



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *But IME, it isn't fun at all to give abilities that can't be used to a character and say that it is balanced (think paladin or ranger spell in 2e), to allow for the possibility of having a difference of 35 between the fighter Bab and the wizard Bab, will mean that when the lowest attack of the fighter hit, the highest attack of the wizard won't have any use, at this point, why give a Bab to the wizard? To fight goblins? They'll be toasted with one epic fireball, or killed by the fighter through epic cleaving.*




I told you that argument (in effect WotCs excuse) is redundant. Fighter attack bonus and Wizard attack bonus ALREADY differentiate by more than 20 by the time we have reached 30th-level and thats without any min/maxing AND using their adjusted progression rates!



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *The wizard "high" bab allow to have fun with the group in an anti-magic zone with an assassin who has a high AC, if he want to kill the wizard, he can still hit te assassin sometimes with his dagger.*




A Wizard who can also competantly fight is a Fighter/Wizard.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I can think of many circumstances in which the ability of the wizard to sometimes hit a creature (because the wizard doesn't have any spell left) is more fun for the game than having a fighter who always hit and character who sometimes, or the fighter who sometimes hit, and the other who never.*




When is an epic wizard (or deity) ever likely to run out of spells (or scrolls, wand/staff/rod charges)? I'll tell you when. Never!



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Plus, by putting back the fighter Bab advancement, you'll need to alter his epic feat selection, to balance him with the other classes between level 20 and 40 (the range in which WotC focused to balance things).*




I don't think I do.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Consider the paladin, with their ability to take the improved spellcasting feat once they have level 9 spell slot, they'll have good bab, and slighty reduced spellcasting abilities compared to a cleric, while if you let it as is, the paladin has slighty better BaB, and the cleric slighty better spellcasting.*




Cleric spellcasting is vastly superior to Paladin spellcasting.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *and AC ascend a the rate the DM wish it to ascend on monster  , *




If you want to be arbitrary about it.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *after all the CR of monster is based on the challenge they represent vs a typical group of 4 adventurers, and if only the fighter can hit the thing with its highest attack, then it might have a higher CR than a monster that everyone can hit.*




Would be dealt with under situational modifiers. Thats a very extreme circumstance. Whats more likely is that the Fighter will always hit the Cleric/Rogue may have a chance of hitting and the Wizard should be smart enough to avoid melee.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that most deities multiclass.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Or are you speaking of the AC of adventurer based on their spell and items?*




Any/and/or.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *If so, you can balance their AC the way you like based on the formula you use to have the value of their gear in gold pieces. *




Any bonus to AC from items is likely to be countered by bonuses to Attack from items.


----------



## Blacksad

*Bonsoir U_K!*

To make it short, I should sell my ELH and my De&De, because you'll redo everything the way it should be? 

Or are you going to use small portion of them, making their possession important to use the IH, while redoing large chunk of them?

If so, you should seriously consider putting what you'll use from the ELH and the De&De inside the IH, otherwise it will produce a very hard to use book, as it will have opposite rule with those book while assuming the use of some.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Bonsoir U_K!*

Bonsoir mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *To make it short, I should sell my ELH and my De&De, because you'll redo everything the way it should be?*




If such was the case I obviously wouldn't be waiting six months on both of them entering the SRD, would I!? 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Or are you going to use small portion of them, making their possession important to use the IH, while redoing large chunk of them?*




Aside from the obvious CR/EL rules; reworking some aspects of divinity including a number of SDAs for better balance (such as Annihilating Strike and Alter Reality); advocating revised applications of harm and heal; and the aforementioned BAB reversion to the core rules there are very few other changes of note.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *If so, you should seriously consider putting what you'll use from the ELH and the De&De inside the IH, otherwise it will produce a very hard to use book, as it will have opposite rule with those book while assuming the use of some. *




At any point in the IH where I deviate from an official (WotC) rules I will outline exactly my reasoning (as I have always done herein).


----------



## -Eä-

I must say I agree with UK on this issue: the BAB should not change when going epic. The cleric as it is is in many cases a vastly superior fighter than a true fighter due to buffing spells like Divine Power and Tenser's Transformation. The only thing that is keeping hi back is the feat progression. A wizard has also access to these buffing spells, and at the current progression, a wizard will, at higher levels, choosing only fighting feats, be a better fighter than the fighter AND have loads of spells. 
The continuation of the current bab-rate is best both for all aspects of this balance: The fighters will be more likely to hit, as they should be, and they would be much more likely to hit in an Antimagic Field, which also should be the case.

I think the EAB presented in the ELH is quite flawed, but the flaw isn't as much present in the first 40 levels the system is tested for. At level 80 this will be much more visible, and as it is gods we are talking of, level 80 is quite plausible.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Eä and others! 

From feedback I have received it seems that many of you were reverting to the Core Rulebook BAB progression even before I had outlined my ideas on the matter.


----------



## Blacksad

*Oops*

Hi U_K!

I've seen the light, while at level 21-40 the change of Bab doesn't cause problem, in the 80-100 you could potentially end with wizard and fighter of similar CR and Bab, and given the low number of feat...

So I agree with you U_K


----------



## Upper_Krust

*Re: Oops*



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hi U_K!*




Bon soir mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *I've seen the light, while at level 21-40 the change of Bab doesn't cause problem, in the 80-100 you could potentially end with wizard and fighter of similar CR and Bab, and given the low number of feat...
> 
> So I agree with you U_K *




Rarely is this stuff ever 'black and white', its more shades of grey. I think that this way is better than what the official rules propose, not so much right and wrong (since their rules still work), more a case of me saying; "well this way is slightly better; here is my reasoning, use these changes if you want."

...of course you should have listened to me in the first place mate, what were you thinking...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

The CR/EL document is finished. Unfortunately I seem to be having some jip converting it into a pdf document. So any advice is welcome.

I was attempting to use pdf995 (which someone recommended), without much success up to now...I am currently inquiring as to what I am doing wrong/or not doing right, so hopefully I'll get that sorted.

Another friend attempted to convert the pagemaker document to a pdf using InDesign, but the formatting went askew for some unknown reason (?).

Hopefully I'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, but if anyone has any advice it would be appreciated.


----------



## Buddha the DM

What was the document originally created in?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *What was the document originally created in? *




Pagemaker 6.5


----------



## poilbrun

Hi UK (and all others!)

If you want, you can try to send me the file and I will try to make a pdf of it. I have both the latest Pagemaker (7.0 I believe) and the latest Acrobat (5.0 if I'm not mistaken) by Adobe.

Merry Christmas (even if I'm a bit late) and Happy New Year to all!


----------



## Buddha the DM

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Buddha mate!
> 
> Pagemaker 6.5 *




Gah.. I don't have a functional copy of that anymore.


----------



## Arg-ha Lardgoa

*Pagemaker*

Hey Krusty!
I've got 7.0 with Acrobat 5.0 I would be willing to give it a go.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 

Sorry for the slow response for some reason I couldn't post on the boards this morning (?) and I wasn't feeling very good this afternoon.

Thanks for the help guys. In the short term I suppose I could take either poilbrun or Arg-ha Lardgoa up on their offers.

I'll need to send you the appropriate fonts, it would help if either of you already had Celestia Antiqua, then I would only need to send you the one other font.

Edit: Actually, that may not be necessary. I'll try and keep you all up to date with the progress.


----------



## Upper_Krust

*IH-Appendices 1-3 pdf finished*

Happy New Year all! 

For those interested in the revised CR/EL I have the IH-Appendices 1-3 pdf available (122k).

Obviously I can't post it online since there are a few non-OGL compliant elements (so consider this playtesting in effect).

I will send the pdf to anyone who emails me on the matter, I will be emailing a few of you (who preempted the release anyway) but chances are I may not remember every person so email me again just incase. 

Sorry for the delay, between the holidays, temporary illness, and getting familiar with the pdf format its taken a week longer than I anticipated.

Still...better late than never! 

By the way don't expect any for at least a few hours after I post this, I will be away from the computer for that time).


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all,

you see before you someone at the end of their tether.

I have been trying for the past two hours to send people the IH Appendices pdf and it simply won't add as an attachment.

Last night when I sent the test pdf to a few people who were helping me with the pdf side of things it worked okay. In fact I can still add the Test pdf as an attachment.

However I made a few minor though necessary revisions to the Pagemaker file, then created a new pdf and ever since then no variation of (revised) file name wants to add as an attachment, in fact no pdfs I have created since the first one can be added as an attachment - even though the files work perfectly for me.

Is there something simple I am missing, I don't feel very well (this dilemma certainly isn't helping) and I may not be thinking straight to be fair?

Help would be appreciated.

Edit: Incidently when I try to add it as an attachment I get:

File not found

Please verify the correct file name was given


----------



## Buddha the DM

Have you tried zipping the file first before attaching it to the email message?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Have you tried zipping the file first before attaching it to the email message? *




But why would it work before as an attachment and not now?

I already know I can 'get around it' I sent it via MSN Messenger and it worked. 

I need to know why its not working normally though, there is something wrong with every pdf I have created with the exception of the first one (the test).


----------



## Buddha the DM

just trying to help.......


----------



## Upper_Krust

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *just trying to help....... *




I know, thanks mate! 

I am feeling really bad at the moment (both physically and mentally), I think I need to lie down for an hour or two and come back at this problem fresh.


----------



## poilbrun

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Buddha mate!
> 
> 
> 
> But why would it work before as an attachment and not now?
> 
> I already know I can 'get around it' I sent it via MSN Messenger and it worked.
> 
> I need to know why its not working normally though, there is something wrong with every pdf I have created with the exception of the first one (the test). *



Which software are you using to send your email? It may happen that some software do not recognize the file system used by Windows (eg : not supporting file size longer than 8 letters) even though only (very) old software would have that problem. The other reason may apply if you're using a firewall and a web-based email. Maybe the firewall is blocking the entering communication from the website trying to get the file from you, which means the website cannot get to the file and thus believe the file isn't there and gives you this message.

Other than that, I'm a bit lost and I would need more details to see what happen. If you use a software on your computer to send it, try another one (try Outlook, express or not, or Eudora for example) and if you use Hotmail (since I believe that's your email adress), maybe try opening another free email account and try sending the mail with it. Or if the problem comes from a firewall, try disabling it for a short time while you upload the file. But don't forget to turn it back on!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*I'm back*

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Which software are you using to send your email?*




Hotmail.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *It may happen that some software do not recognize the file system used by Windows (eg : not supporting file size longer than 8 letters) even though only (very) old software would have that problem. The other reason may apply if you're using a firewall and a web-based email. *




Nope already thought of all that. I tried another email server.

Also remember that I can still attach the Test pdf, just not the revised version or any pdf created since the first.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Maybe the firewall is blocking the entering communication from the website trying to get the file from you, which means the website cannot get to the file and thus believe the file isn't there and gives you this message.*




Nope. As I see it, the problem is intrinsic to the pdfs (not something extreneous).

It may be something to do with how its saved or somesuch (but I am a novice with this stuff so my ideas are limited).



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Other than that, I'm a bit lost*




You and me both. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *and I would need more details to see what happen. If you use a software on your computer to send it, try another one (try Outlook, express or not, or Eudora for example) and if you use Hotmail (since I believe that's your email adress), maybe try opening another free email account and try sending the mail with it. Or if the problem comes from a firewall, try disabling it for a short time while you upload the file. But don't forget to turn it back on!  *




I tried an alternative email address/server.

The firewall problem wouldn't segregate individual pdfs.

Thanks anyway mate! 

I'll get it sorted eventually.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello again all! 

I think I have a solution to the pdf problem (though I still don't know what caused the initial dilemma?). I have sent out quite a few emailswith the pdf attached, if anyone hasn't received one yet, drop me a line (its difficult keeping track of so many), also if you have received one and (for whatever reason) the pdf didn't open let me know; thanks!


----------



## Upper_Krust

*THE best possible news!*

Hi all! 

Just wanted to let you all know that I just had an email from a very nice person at WotC and suffice to say the update of the SRD is imminent. I don't have an exact date for you (because I wasn't given one) but lets just say the countdown has started and I can now finish typing up the final version since I now know what material I can draw upon.

Thanks for your patience.


----------



## bing

I hope your info is accurate! If its not, you’d better not show your face here in the states! I’m gonna kick your butt if I have to wait any longer!! (just kidding) 
I think I’ve been following your IH threads for over a year, and I know a lot of other people have too. I guess we can all wait a little longer.


----------



## blackshirt5

So Krust, would that mean that the Deities and Demigods stuff is going into the SRD?  I'm confused by what your saying at the bottom man.


----------



## Impeesa

Weee! Hm... I guess that means... *mumbles incoherently about someone living a little longer, makes hasty call to korean mafia contact*

Well with that out of the way... congratulations.  Are you allowed to tell us what all's going in? I heard from WotC_Ted on the boards not too long ago that D&Dg and the ELH were both on track to be added soon... no mention of how much of each though... Anyways, after all this, that book better be running off the presses the day after the update. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Buddha the DM

Despite what gets added to the SRD, I can't wait to give the IH a once over to see what I can actually pirate idea wise for the campaign I'm starting next month.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi all! 



			
				bing said:
			
		

> *I hope your info is accurate!*




It is straight from the top. 



			
				bing said:
			
		

> *If its not, you’d better not show your face here in the states! I’m gonna kick your butt if I have to wait any longer!! (just kidding)  *




I think WotC didn't want the bad press from another D&D related suicide...namely mine. 



			
				bing said:
			
		

> *I think I’ve been following your IH threads for over a year, and I know a lot of other people have too. I guess we can all wait a little longer.  *




It will be good to get this monkey off my back and start worrying about something else.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi blackshirt5! 



			
				blackshirt5 said:
			
		

> *So Krust, would that mean that the Deities and Demigods stuff is going into the SRD?  I'm confused by what your saying at the bottom man. *




Sorry for babbling incoherantly, I was just excited. 

Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook are both being introduced shortly into the SRD. I can't give the exact date (because I wasn't privy to one) but from the email I was sent I would anticipate sometime in March (and remember this is just my guess I wasn't told March, in fact even WotC don't know for certain yet!)


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Weee! Hm... I guess that means... *mumbles incoherently about someone living a little longer, makes hasty call to korean mafia contact**




I thought I was being shadowed! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Well with that out of the way... congratulations.  Are you allowed to tell us what all's going in?*




Well considering there are only 30 pages of rules in D&Dg its a safe bet all thats going in! 

Also obviously the core epic rules are also making the grade, I think you could safely also include all of the first chapter (maybe not the Prestige Classes?).

I wasn't given specifics, I just hope they include the epic magic system - that will save me a world of hurt. 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *I heard from WotC_Ted on the boards not too long ago that D&Dg and the ELH were both on track to be added soon... no mention of how much of each though... Anyways, after all this, that book better be running off the presses the day after the update.  *




Well I am sure there will be one or two things I'll need to double check so I wouldn't say the day after, but I would hope within a week.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *Despite what gets added to the SRD, I can't wait to give the IH a once over to see what I can actually pirate idea wise for the campaign I'm starting next month. *




I'm sure there will be something in there for everyone, even those not running an epic/immortal campaign.

I'll post the FAQ soon. I wonder can I use the titles Deities & Demigods/Epic Level Handbook in the FAQ...I would presume so? (maybe I should email WotC again)


----------



## Buddha the DM

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Buddha mate!
> 
> I'm sure there will be something in there for everyone, even those not running an epic/immortal campaign.
> 
> I'll post the FAQ soon. I wonder can I use the titles Deities & Demigods/Epic Level Handbook in the FAQ...I would presume so? (maybe I should email WotC again) *




My game is going to be neither an epic or an immortal game at first. I'm starting the group of at 10th level. This doesn't mean that the IH won't have something in it that I couldn't use.


----------



## Knight Otu

Sounds like good news... and if some if my predictions were right... 



Now what was I about to do... working on my monster file, yeah... what? What PR conversions? Oh, that thing, yes, I remember...


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Buddha mate! 

apologies for the slow response I have become embroiled in an argument on CR/EL with Andy Collins (of WotC) over on his message boards.



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *My game is going to be neither an epic or an immortal game at first. I'm starting the group of at 10th level. This doesn't mean that the IH won't have something in it that I couldn't use. *




The first chapter certainly has a lot of material on religion; clerics; worshippers and so forth in the first section that is useful at any level.

Portions of the Divinity chapter will also be useful; for determining things like divine progeny; proxies and avatars; all applicable at non-epic levels.

Elements of the Portfolios chapter are also specifically targeted at worshippers, and as such by extension those who encounter worshippers/clergy.

On the surface the Powers chapter may not have much for non-immortals; however there is always the thing about mortals gaining Salient Divine Abilities...but I probably shouldn't talk about that.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 

Gluckliches Neues Jahr mein Freund...I think?  



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Sounds like good news... and if some if my predictions were right...  *




What predictions...remember my short term memory is terrible. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Now what was I about to do... working on my monster file, yeah... what? What PR conversions? Oh, that thing, yes, I remember...  *




Monster File you say...?

PR Conversions...?

I fear I have been away too long.


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, Upper_Krust! 



> Gluckliches Neues Jahr mein Freund...I think?



Almost, but I think you may have trouble typing üs on an english keyboard. 



> What predictions...remember my short term memory is terrible.



The prediction that these two books enter the SRD early 2003. 



> Monster File you say...?



I've been rather active on the CC boards, and I compile my creations (also unposted ones) for possible future use, if you know what I mean. 



> PR Conversions...?



My Perry Rhodan conversions. You might remember them.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, Upper_Krust!  *




Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Almost, but I think you may have trouble typing üs on an english keyboard.  *




I was just glad I didn't accidentally type happy easter or something. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The prediction that these two books enter the SRD early 2003.  *




It was indeed prophetic...if only you could have warned me a year ago. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I've been rather active on the CC boards, and I compile my creations (also unposted ones) for possible future use, if you know what I mean. *




Excellent. I'm sure Scott appreciates all the activity.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *My Perry Rhodan conversions. You might remember them.  *




That just goes to show how bad my memory is. 

HALUTANS RULE! 

I reckon the Perry Rhodan would make a great d20 setting, though to stand out you would perhaps need to make some changes to the d20 system (in the sort of way Star Wars deviates from the core rules...only different - if you know what I mean?) Personally I would love to have a stab at revising the core rules.


----------



## Knight Otu

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *It was indeed prophetic...if only you could have warned me a year ago.
> *




I'm not that good yet. Maybe I should continue my Vorlon training. 



> *
> Excellent. I'm sure Scott appreciates all the activity.
> *




Possibly. Of course, I would appreciate if he or another member of the crew would make a few more comments. 



> *
> That just goes to show how bad my memory is.
> 
> HALUTANS RULE!
> *








> *
> I reckon the Perry Rhodan would make a great d20 setting, though to stand out you would perhaps need to make some changes to the d20 system *



I personally agree, but of course it is not on me to decide that matter. Of course, with D20 Modern, a possible foundation has been laid, though some things would need adjustment, especially psionics.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I'm not that good yet. Maybe I should continue my Vorlon training.  *




Keep at it you never know! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Possibly. Of course, I would appreciate if he or another member of the crew would make a few more comments.  *




Don't be too hard on Scott, hes a great guy and I know he works his socks off.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I personally agree, but of course it is not on me to decide that matter. Of course, with D20 Modern, a possible foundation has been laid, though some things would need adjustment, especially psionics. *




To be fair I wasn't totally happy with d20 Modern. To me it seemed like D&D Modern (rather than d20 modern). I would have rather they kept the fantasy elements seperate rather than intrinsic. Though I know some people prefer it like that. 

Regarding Perry Rhodan, I wonder if someone gave them a good enough proposal would they be interested in allowing the official name to be used for a d20 setting book...? Food for thought eh mate!?


----------



## Anubis

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> apologies for the slow response I have become embroiled in an argument on CR/EL with Andy Collins (of WotC) over on his message boards.
> *




I have GOT to see this.  Link, please?


----------



## Gez

Hello everybuddy !

I don't have anything grand to say (well, except the obligatory "I hope you enjoyed your _noël_ and _nouvel-an_"), just wanted to let people know I'm still alive.





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Regarding Perry Rhodan, I wonder if someone gave them a good enough proposal would they be interested in allowing the official name to be used for a d20 setting book...? Food for thought eh mate!?  *




This reminds me... I saw a Perry Rhodan book for sale at the local trainstation's book&newspaperseller. Having heard of that cycle through this forum, I peered at it out of curiosity and found out it was the issue number 150-something... Eeeeeeeeeeek !

The world is probably well-detailed, thought-out and interesting, but 150 novels and counting... That's just frightening.



Oh, and on something totally different... I personnally agree with the post-20th progression for BAB and save found in the ELH, for the reason explained. Rather than house-ruling that out to keep them consistent with critters like outsider and dragons, I house-rule said critters to become consistent with characters. 

(Except that the cap I use for monster HD is 40 rather than 20, out of lazyness because I don't want to recalculate the critters outlined in my various resources, the highest HD count I remember being 32.)


----------



## Knight Otu

Hi, all! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Knight Otu mate!
> Don't be too hard on Scott, hes a great guy and I know he works his socks off.
> *




I guess he is busy with the City of Brass, there is no real problem with that. 



> *
> To be fair I wasn't totally happy with d20 Modern. To me it seemed like D&D Modern (rather than d20 modern). I would have rather they kept the fantasy elements seperate rather than intrinsic. Though I know some people prefer it like that.
> *



The way I see it you can easily ignore the more fantastic concepts.



> *
> Regarding Perry Rhodan, I wonder if someone gave them a good enough proposal would they be interested in allowing the official name to be used for a d20 setting book...? Food for thought eh mate!?  *



Why did I knew you would say that?


----------



## Knight Otu

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have GOT to see this.  Link, please? *




http://pub36.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm10.showMessageRange?topicID=13.topic&start=1&stop=20


----------



## Knight Otu

Gez said:
			
		

> *This reminds me... I saw a Perry Rhodan book for sale at the local trainstation's book&newspaperseller. Having heard of that cycle through this forum, I peered at it out of curiosity and found out it was the issue number 150-something... Eeeeeeeeeeek !
> 
> The world is probably well-detailed, thought-out and interesting, but 150 novels and counting... That's just frightening.
> *



So few? 

Sorry to shock you, but there is a little bit more to Perry Rhodan than just that.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have GOT to see this.  Link, please? *




Knight Otu was nice enough to supply the link (I made some more posts a little earlier). Thanks mate. 

A few people still don't seem to want to except the evidence of the official rule frailties that I gave. But so far its a very interesting debate.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hello everybuddy !*




Bonjour mon ami Gez! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I don't have anything grand to say (well, except the obligatory "I hope you enjoyed your noël and nouvel-an"), just wanted to let people know I'm still alive.*




I had an eventful holiday season if nothing else.

Glad to hear you are still alive! I wouldn't have it any other way. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *This reminds me... I saw a Perry Rhodan book for sale at the local trainstation's book&newspaperseller. Having heard of that cycle through this forum, I peered at it out of curiosity and found out it was the issue number 150-something... Eeeeeeeeeeek !
> 
> The world is probably well-detailed, thought-out and interesting, but 150 novels and counting... That's just frightening.*




I thought they were in the 2000's by now!? 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Oh, and on something totally different... I personnally agree with the post-20th progression for BAB and save found in the ELH, for the reason explained. Rather than house-ruling that out to keep them consistent with critters like outsider and dragons, I house-rule said critters to become consistent with characters.
> 
> (Except that the cap I use for monster HD is 40 rather than 20, out of lazyness because I don't want to recalculate the critters outlined in my various resources, the highest HD count I remember being 32.) *




As I mentioned before; technically either way works. However...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I still don't think the greatest wizard in the universe should be even remotely approaching the combat prowess of the greatest fighter, and yes I do think the higher you ascend the greater the distinction should be.
> 
> Fighters don't cast spells so I don't see why Wizards should competantly wield weapons. Magic items already blur the lines between both sufficiently.*


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I had an eventful holiday season if nothing else.*




That's great ! As we say, "no news, good news". 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Glad to hear you are still alive! I wouldn't have it any other way. *



Neither do I, trust me 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I thought they were in the 2000's by now!? *




The issue I saw was numbered 150-something... But 2000 ? That's just "worsier". The author just can't be human. Or, there are about 50 authors that spend their time writing (potential continuity troubles).




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *As I mentioned before; technically either way works. However...
> 
> Fighters don't cast spell so I don't see why Wizards should competantly wield weapons. Magic items already blur the lines between both sufficiently. *




Indeed... I must admit, where I to travel back in time and usurp Gygax's or Arneson's place (rather than that actor), I would have magic items be usable competantly only by magic-users... That would fit more my conception. But well, figthers may use enchanted weapons and armors, so why couldn't wizards use swords (point at Gandalf, even if he's not human).

Especially at high level, where the "you're not a magicien, you can't practice magic" argument fade (I myself consider epic use of skills to be supernatural effects the character can achieve through instinctual understanding of magic -- mere training and physics can't allow a character to run on clouds or swim up a waterfall).

The wizard will still be 10 points (and two iterative attacks) behind the fighter. That's enough for me as far as "not approaching the combat prowess of a (equivalent level) fighter" goes.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, all!  *




Hello Knight Otu mate! 

sorry for the slower reply; my computer crashed just as I was trying to reply to you. It was just as I was about to break for lunch anyway so... 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I guess he is busy with the City of Brass, there is no real problem with that.  *




I am sure he has a number of things on his plate.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The way I see it you can easily ignore the more fantastic concepts.*




True. But they were so integrated into the rules that they are a distraction. I would have rather seen real world elements dominate the book then perhaps the last few chapters could have encompassed variable setting ideas.

Still, each to there own I suppose!? 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Why did I knew you would say that?  *




I have given the matter some thought; perhaps it could be marketed as 'epic sci fi'...what do you think?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *That's great ! As we say, "no news, good news".  *




Absolutely! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Neither do I, trust me  *








			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The issue I saw was numbered 150-something... But 2000 ? That's just "worsier". The author just can't be human. Or, there are about 50 authors that spend their time writing (potential continuity troubles).*




Knight Otu is the real expert but as far as I know Perry Rhodan is massive in Germany - I mean we are talking television and movies either in planning or already shown...whats the deal with those Knight Otu mate?

Incidently the plural of the word 'worse' is 'more worse' or 'even worse'. Though I am sure I have used worsest sometime in the past. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Indeed... I must admit, where I to travel back in time and usurp Gygax's or Arneson's place (rather than that actor), I would have magic items be usable competantly only by magic-users... That would fit more my conception.*




Sounds good in theory until we start addressing game balance I imagine.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *But well, figthers may use enchanted weapons and armors, so why couldn't wizards use swords (point at Gandalf, even if he's not human).*




There is a difference between using an item and becoming skilled with an item.

Also the term 'use' a magic sword is misleading given in function it operates no different from a normal sword.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Especially at high level, where the "you're not a magicien, you can't practice magic" argument fade (I myself consider epic use of skills to be supernatural effects the character can achieve through instinctual understanding of magic -- mere training and physics can't allow a character to run on clouds or swim up a waterfall).*




Supernatural skills aside (most of which were inspired by Hong Kong 'wire-fu' movies) glancing at the 30th-level NPC Fighter in the ELH I don't see any great magical prowess either generated in and of his own abilities or from magic items; looks like he has about three spells at his disposal...?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The wizard will still be 10 points (and two iterative attacks) behind the fighter. That's enough for me as far as "not approaching the combat prowess of a (equivalent level) fighter" goes.  *




Thats far too close for me; the best warrior in the universe is practically pegged by an equal level wizard who has never bothered to study the martial arts (if they did they would have taken Fighter Levels).


----------



## Gez

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Incidently the plural of the word 'worse' is 'more worse' or 'even worse'. Though I am sure I have used worsest sometime in the past. *




It was a voluntary mistake, but actually I realize I was wanting to say "the worstiest" 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *There is a difference between using an item and becoming skilled with an item.
> 
> Also the term 'use' a magic sword is misleading given in function it operates no different from a normal sword.*




Yes, however what I meant by that was that a mere mortal would, in this approach, be unable to use the magical capacity of the sword (i.e., not activate capacities like flaming, and not benefit from magical enhancement bonuses) unless the sword would have been created specifically to be usable by simple mortals (something few wizards would bother to do, as that would be more complicated).

I won't claim that would be easily balanced -- just that it's the way I would tend to apprehend these stuff.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Supernatural skills aside (most of which were inspired by Hong Kong 'wire-fu' movies) glancing at the 30th-level NPC Fighter in the ELH I don't see any great magical prowess either generated in and of his own abilities or from magic items; looks like he has about three spells at his disposal...?*



Now, of course, the Fighter is not what we could call an "especially advantaged class for skills". But some things he can do with the right combat feats would probably seem like witchcraft is at work behind his blows.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Thats far too close for me; the best warrior in the universe is practically pegged by an equal level wizard who has never bothered to study the martial arts (if they did they would have taken Fighter Levels). *




That's what I would call an extreme attitude. At low level, a wizard do practice martial arts. I knew it from experience. Even a sorcerer run short of spell at low level. He may not study it deeply and with an intense devotion, but to say he avoid it altogether... Well, maybe if he's got the luck of traveling in a party of 8. My gnome wizard had slain her share of ogres and goblins (and other bandits) with her mere dagger, and had to continue resorting to physical violence even up to level 7 (after, the campaign has been interrupted).

And, in the other way, I don't see an interest in combat training to warrant multiclassing in fighter or a like-class. At low-level again, that would force nearly everyone save barbs, fighters, rangers and paladins to multiclass in one of these aforementionned combat class. Class are not straighjacket, you have some place to move and define the character.

(See how adressing problems that pops up at high level bring other problems at low level ?)

Note that your 40th wizard, with a BAB of 10+10 and two attacks per round, will still be at other disadvantages compared to the 40th fighter. For a strange reason, the most common magic weapons are martial weapons the wizard can't use without a penalty (while the fighter will get bonus from his focus and spec). There may be some daggers (the only wizard weapon that's "frequently" magicked up to artifact level), but overall the fighter will get superior weaponry.

And then, there's the hit point problem. As far as I know, the discrepancy between d10 and d4 is not removed, and the gap between them continue to grow (of course, a natural 1 on your massive damage save make pretty irrelevant whether you have 1000 or "merely" 400 hit points).


----------



## Gez

.


----------



## Gez

[Triple post because of connection glitches.]


----------



## Knight Otu

Gez said:
			
		

> *
> The issue I saw was numbered 150-something... But 2000 ? That's just "worsier". The author just can't be human. Or, there are about 50 authors that spend their time writing (potential continuity troubles).*



Multiple authors, plus one mostly writing the exposés for the plot, plus one for all things technical and arkonidian. 
I do not know how far the series has progressed in France



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Knight Otu is the real expert but as far as I know Perry Rhodan is massive in Germany - I mean we are talking television and movies either in planning or already shown...whats the deal with those Knight Otu mate?)*



There is a trilogy in the making, which apparently is moving slowly but steadily. And I deny the existance of a previous movie!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bonsoir mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *It was a voluntary mistake, but actually I realize I was wanting to say "the worstiest"  *




I think we save that for when its really, really bad! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Yes, however what I meant by that was that a mere mortal would, in this approach, be unable to use the magical capacity of the sword (i.e., not activate capacities like flaming, and not benefit from magical enhancement bonuses) unless the sword would have been created specifically to be usable by simple mortals (something few wizards would bother to do, as that would be more complicated).
> 
> I won't claim that would be easily balanced -- just that it's the way I would tend to apprehend these stuff.*




Depends who the weapon was made for; by and large I would imagine they are created for fighter types.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Now, of course, the Fighter is not what we could call an "especially advantaged class for skills". But some things he can do with the right combat feats would probably seem like witchcraft is at work behind his blows.*




Any non-epic examples?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *That's what I would call an extreme attitude. At low level, a wizard do practice martial arts. I knew it from experience. Even a sorcerer run short of spell at low level. He may not study it deeply and with an intense devotion, but to say he avoid it altogether... Well, maybe if he's got the luck of traveling in a party of 8. My gnome wizard had slain her share of ogres and goblins (and other bandits) with her mere dagger, and had to continue resorting to physical violence even up to level 7 (after, the campaign has been interrupted).*




Yes but at low levels the difference is negligable.

Think of it like this: when two kids at school begin education the difference between them won't be so great. But when the two finish university; one a doctor the other an architect - you don't phone the architect when you feel sick.

Likewise at low levels the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard is less pronounced than at high levels.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *And, in the other way, I don't see an interest in combat training to warrant multiclassing in fighter or a like-class. At low-level again, that would force nearly everyone save barbs, fighters, rangers and paladins to multiclass in one of these aforementionned combat class. Class are not straighjacket, you have some place to move and define the character.*




I'm afraid you are guilty of wanting to have your cake AND eat it. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *(See how adressing problems that pops up at high level bring other problems at low level ?)*




Nope...?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Note that your 40th wizard, with a BAB of 10+10 and two attacks per round, will still be at other disadvantages compared to the 40th fighter.*




None that couldn't be more than offset by spellcasting.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *For a strange reason, the most common magic weapons are martial weapons the wizard can't use without a penalty (while the fighter will get bonus from his focus and spec). There may be some daggers (the only wizard weapon that's "frequently" magicked up to artifact level), but overall the fighter will get superior weaponry.*




Weapon Focus and Speciality require feat slots of course.

Wizards know that any melee combat prowess they possess will always take a secondary role to spellcasting.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *And then, there's the hit point problem. As far as I know, the discrepancy between d10 and d4 is not removed, and the gap between them continue to grow (of course, a natural 1 on your massive damage save make pretty irrelevant whether you have 1000 or "merely" 400 hit points). *




You know of course that wizards deal out more damage (and against potentially more opponents) than Fighters of that level.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *And I deny the existance of a previous movie!   *




I reckon this would be worth the comedy potential alone; I'll have to hunt it down! It can't be any worse than Star Trek IX: Insurrection.


----------



## Anubis

I have to side with the "leave the system alone" side when it comes to Epic Levels for attacks and saves.  The reasoning is simple.

Diversity in AC.

At such a level, first the fighter already has a 10-point advantage.  Add to that all the nifty other tricks the fighter can do with Weapon Focus (Epic Weapon Focus) and magical items, and that advantage grows and grows.  AC also continues to grow for both PCs and opponents.

If UK's system is put in place, a high-level wizard will almost NEVER be able to hit in combat due to low attack rates.  Either that or the fighter will ALWAYS hit.  Either way, you have a problem.  The EAB and stuff balances that fact out, see?


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have to side with the "leave the system alone" side when it comes to Epic Levels for attacks and saves.  The reasoning is simple.*




Thats certainly your prerogative.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Diversity in AC.*




Don't you mean less Diversity in AC!? What you are suggesting is a more restricted range of BAB so therefore by extension AC as well!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *At such a level, first the fighter already has a 10-point advantage.  Add to that all the nifty other tricks the fighter can do with Weapon Focus (Epic Weapon Focus) and magical items, and that advantage grows and grows.  AC also continues to grow for both PCs and opponents.
> 
> If UK's system is put in place, a high-level wizard will almost NEVER be able to hit in combat due to low attack rates.  Either that or the fighter will ALWAYS hit.  Either way, you have a problem.  The EAB and stuff balances that fact out, see? *




Exactly, as I previously showed it doesn't matter whether we retain the epic BAB progression or not because by the time we reach 30th-level the difference between single class Fighter and Wizard attack bonus is already greater than 20.

So given that even the epic BAB progression doesn't solve this dilemma but creates another (Fighters being less skilled than most Monsters) it becomes pointless.

A single classed Wizard that finds himself in melee (not of his choice; through things like Tensers Transformation) is guilty of being out-thought not out-fought.


----------



## Gez

Salut Craig,



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Any non-epic examples?*




Why ? Ah! I said "at high level". I meant at epic level, of course (since I then mentionned epic use of skills).





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes but at low levels the difference is negligable.
> 
> Think of it like this: when two kids at school begin education the difference between them won't be so great. But when the two finish university; one a doctor the other an architect - you don't phone the architect when you feel sick.
> 
> Likewise at low levels the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard is less pronounced than at high levels.*




So, you really don't think the myriad of epic (or mundane) combat feats and twice times attacks is a pronounced difference ?




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I'm afraid you are guilty of wanting to have your cake AND eat it. *




Where's the problem ? If I have my cake, I can eat it without the slightiest inconvenience, provided I'm hungry and the cake is good (which I would be somewhat doubtful if I just looted it from the proverbial orc).

However, once I ate it, I'll have it no more, but hey!, that's after I finished eating it.





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *None that couldn't be more than offset by spellcasting.*




So, where's the problem ? If the wizard is more efficient when "wizarding" than when "fightering", why would he fight ? So, how could his combat prowess be compared to that of the fighter ?



Note that BAB is not used _only_ for weapon attack -- spellcaster have plenty of melee and ranged (usually touch attack, but I've seen some exceptions) spell requiring a to-hit roll.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Weapon Focus and Speciality require feat slots of course.*




Of which the fighter is rather plentiful...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Wizards know that any melee combat prowess they possess will always take a secondary role to spellcasting.*




Of course. When given the possibility, they'll always cast a spell rather than swing a staff.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You know of course that wizards deal out more damage (and against potentially more opponents) than Fighters of that level. *




Usually, yes. That's his role as an "artillery wargame unit".

Wizards are a varied lot. I played in two Ars Magica saga (that game lingo for campaign), and while in one my mage, Sorlin, was quite archetypal (non-combatant, knowledge-hungry bookworm), my character for the second, Necam, was rather oddball, as he was roguish/swashbucklerish in behaviour and used nearly only what we could call "buffing spell", and fought with sword (usually once enlarged to double his size, with a copperish skin for armor, and airborn on the wings of winds).

Of course, in D&D term, he would have been forced to be something like a spellsword, and would thus lose several caster level, while in Ars Magica he was perfectly able of casting spell of the same high magnitude than his fellow (especially in the Corporem (spells that affect a body) and Muto (spells that modify something) arts).

What I'm just trying to say by this exo-D&D example is that a wizard (or sorcerer) with a BAB that don't stray too far low from a fighter is not necessarily unlegitimate.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Gez said:
			
		

> *Salut Craig,*




Wait a second isn't that Spanish...or Italian? Are you trying to confuse me Gez mate!? 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Why ? Ah! I said "at high level". I meant at epic level, of course (since I then mentionned epic use of skills).*




Its simply to balance the various class levels.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *So, you really don't think the myriad of epic (or mundane) combat feats and twice times attacks is a pronounced difference ?*




Nope.

Not as pronounced as the difference between the spellcasting abilities of each.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Where's the problem ? If I have my cake, I can eat it without the slightiest inconvenience, provided I'm hungry and the cake is good (which I would be somewhat doubtful if I just looted it from the proverbial orc). However, once I ate it, I'll have it no more, but hey!, that's after I finished eating it.  *




The trouble is you have to pay for the cake first.

The wizard class doesn't pay enough to get comparable fighter progression at epic levels.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *So, where's the problem ? If the wizard is more efficient when "wizarding" than when "fightering", why would he fight ? So, how could his combat prowess be compared to that of the fighter ?
> 
> Note that BAB is not used only for weapon attack -- spellcaster have plenty of melee and ranged (usually touch attack, but I've seen some exceptions) spell requiring a to-hit roll.*




Yes and AC is usually at least halved (or better) against touch spells.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Of which the fighter is rather plentiful...*




Yes but the Wizard gets feats too...AND spells.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Of course. When given the possibility, they'll always cast a spell rather than swing a staff.*




Exactly and I don't see why the balance between melee and magic should be any different for the Wizard at epic levels.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Usually, yes. That's his role as an "artillery wargame unit".
> 
> Wizards are a varied lot. I played in two Ars Magica saga (that game lingo for campaign), and while in one my mage, Sorlin, was quite archetypal (non-combatant, knowledge-hungry bookworm), my character for the second, Necam, was rather oddball, as he was roguish/swashbucklerish in behaviour and used nearly only what we could call "buffing spell", and fought with sword (usually once enlarged to double his size, with a copperish skin for armor, and airborn on the wings of winds).
> 
> Of course, in D&D term, he would have been forced to be something like a spellsword, and would thus lose several caster level, while in Ars Magica he was perfectly able of casting spell of the same high magnitude than his fellow (especially in the Corporem (spells that affect a body) and Muto (spells that modify something) arts).
> 
> What I'm just trying to say by this exo-D&D example is that a wizard (or sorcerer) with a BAB that don't stray too far low from a fighter is not necessarily unlegitimate. *




You can still have a Wizard that can competantly fight; they are called multi-class Wizard-Fighters.

I am not familiar with Ars Magica but it must attempt some balance between Fighter types and Spellcaster types, otherwise everyone plays a spellcaster.


----------



## Gez

Coucou Craig !




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Nope.
> 
> Not as pronounced as the difference between the spellcasting abilities of each.*




The fighter needs potions, rings and rods, true. Plus his constant effect items.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The trouble is you have to pay for the cake first.*




We French says "wanting the butter and the money of the butter".



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The wizard class doesn't pay enough to get comparable fighter progression at epic levels.*




What could they pay ? Their BAB progression don't increase (their Fort and Ref save do, though, likewise the fighter's Ref and Will).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes and AC is usually at least halved (or better) against touch spells.*




A fighter with a brillant energy weapon is practically (well, epic monsters tend to have huge natural armor) doing touch attacks also.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes but the Wizard gets feats too...AND spells.*




Much less feats, and very, very few wizards take combat feats. AFAIK, no martial feat is on his epic bonus feat list.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Exactly and I don't see why the balance between melee and magic should be any different for the Wizard at epic levels.*




I don't had the feeling the wizard started being better at hacking'n'slashing that at spellweaving past epic levels.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You can still have a Wizard that can competantly fight; they are called multi-class Wizard-Fighters.*




That's what I said by spellsword, the PrC is practically a multiclass figther/wizard without bonus feats but freed of arcane spell failure for armor.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I am not familiar with Ars Magica but it must attempt some balance between Fighter types and Spellcaster types, otherwise everyone plays a spellcaster. *






The purpose of Ars Magica is to play a spellcaster. Actually, everyone has at least two characters, a mage and a powerful non-spellcaster (they may create others if they want, notably servants). Ars Magica is a game centered on the mage covenant, which is a sort of meta-character, rather than on a party. Depending on the scenario, you play one or one other character, and may switch character inside a session.

The balance is clearly biased toward mages -- the only offset of being a mage is you have half the skill points other characters have to invest in mundane skills (like weapon skills).

That's an excellent game, by the way, and I long to playing it again.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Coucou Craig !*




I probably am! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The fighter needs potions, rings and rods, true. Plus his constant effect items.*




All of which the wizard gets; and more.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *We French says "wanting the butter and the money of the butter".*




Maybe it loses something in the translation. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *What could they pay ? Their BAB progression don't increase (their Fort and Ref save do, though, likewise the fighter's Ref and Will).*




I'm not asking them to pay; I am simply maintaining their current progression.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *A fighter with a brillant energy weapon is practically (well, epic monsters tend to have huge natural armor) doing touch attacks also.*




Hardly _de rigeur_ though, and what about spells that never miss like Magic Missile?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Much less feats,*




Yet infinitely more spells.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *and very, very few wizards take combat feats. AFAIK, no martial feat is on his epic bonus feat list.*




Exactly, why would any sane wizard attempt to melee. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I don't had the feeling the wizard started being better at hacking'n'slashing that at spellweaving past epic levels.*




But the epic BAB progression tells us otherwise.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *That's what I said by spellsword, the PrC is practically a multiclass figther/wizard without bonus feats but freed of arcane spell failure for armor.*




Well then use the Spellsword PrC; presumably it must be balanced in some regards.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The purpose of Ars Magica is to play a spellcaster. Actually, everyone has at least two characters, a mage and a powerful non-spellcaster (they may create others if they want, notably servants). Ars Magica is a game centered on the mage covenant, which is a sort of meta-character, rather than on a party. Depending on the scenario, you play one or one other character, and may switch character inside a session.
> 
> The balance is clearly biased toward mages -- the only offset of being a mage is you have half the skill points other characters have to invest in mundane skills (like weapon skills).*




I rest my case! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *That's an excellent game, by the way, and I long to playing it again. *




I keep hearing a lot about its excellent magic system.


----------



## Gez

Hello again,



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I probably am! *



 I've a feeling you looked at the wrong meaning in your dictionnary...





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Maybe it loses something in the translation. *




Possible, but it corresponded to what you said when you said we had to buy the cake, and thus can't have both the cake and the money spent on it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I keep hearing a lot about its excellent magic system. *




It's indeed quite excellent. To sum it up, you can use either formal magic (spells already made, and learned) or spontaneous magic (improvising an effect). Magical effects are based on 5 "verbs" (creo - to make, intellego - to understand, muto - to change, perdo - to destroy, and rego - to control) and 10 "nouns" (animal, aquam -water, auram - air, corporem - human(-like) body, herbam - plant, ignem - fire, imaginem - perceptions, mentem - thought, terram - earth, vim - magic). 

A mage has a score in each of these 15 arts, so a mage specialized in fiery destructive magic will have high score in perdo (to destroy and harm things in general), ignem (to manipulate fire, light and temperature), as well as in creo (to use with ignem for making his _balls of abyssal fire_). A mage may be somewhat generalist, and have medium scores in each art (thus able to do a bit of everything), or specialized and have just 3-4 high scores, and low scores in the other fields. 

A spell always use at least one verb and one noun, but may use several of each -- a spell that turns a man into a toad would be Muto Corporem with an Animal complement.

The highest a score, the most potent the effect may be - lighting a torch is a first magnitude Creo Ignem spell, and may be achieved by nearly any magus, but improvising a D&D-style Fireball will be in the 6th or higher magnitude -- only talented mages will achieve it successfully.

Unless you botch, spontaneous magic always work, but the result are usually rather puny. Formal magic is practically 3 times as potent.

The system is great in that it allows a great deal of flexibility for the characters when making their magic effects, yet it's still easy to know what arts must be used, and what magnitude must be aimed at, for achieving a spell. The Mage: the Ascension system of magic, while thoughtful and well-made, is rather counter-intuitive.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hello again,*




Bonjour mon ami Gez! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I've a feeling you looked at the wrong meaning in your dictionnary...*




No I understood what you meant, I just used the opportunity for some lighthearted relief. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Possible, but it corresponded to what you said when you said we had to buy the cake, and thus can't have both the cake and the money spent on it.*




Indeed. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *It's indeed quite excellent. To sum it up, you can use either formal magic (spells already made, and learned) or spontaneous magic (improvising an effect). Magical effects are based on 5 "verbs" (creo - to make, intellego - to understand, muto - to change, perdo - to destroy, and rego - to control) and 10 "nouns" (animal, aquam -water, auram - air, corporem - human(-like) body, herbam - plant, ignem - fire, imaginem - perceptions, mentem - thought, terram - earth, vim - magic). *




Very interesting!

Actually a few years ago I was designing a computer RPG and I arrived at a similar sort of magic system (though I must confess my initial ideas sprung from one of my favourite computer games of all time 'Dungeon Master').



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *A mage has a score in each of these 15 arts, so a mage specialized in fiery destructive magic will have high score in perdo (to destroy and harm things in general), ignem (to manipulate fire, light and temperature), as well as in creo (to use with ignem for making his balls of abyssal fire). A mage may be somewhat generalist, and have medium scores in each art (thus able to do a bit of everything), or specialized and have just 3-4 high scores, and low scores in the other fields.
> 
> A spell always use at least one verb and one noun, but may use several of each -- a spell that turns a man into a toad would be Muto Corporem with an Animal complement.
> 
> The highest a score, the most potent the effect may be - lighting a torch is a first magnitude Creo Ignem spell, and may be achieved by nearly any magus, but improvising a D&D-style Fireball will be in the 6th or higher magnitude -- only talented mages will achieve it successfully.
> 
> Unless you botch, spontaneous magic always work, but the result are usually rather puny. Formal magic is practically 3 times as potent.
> 
> The system is great in that it allows a great deal of flexibility for the characters when making their magic effects, yet it's still easy to know what arts must be used, and what magnitude must be aimed at, for achieving a spell. The Mage: the Ascension system of magic, while thoughtful and well-made, is rather counter-intuitive. *




I wonder will Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed have something like this? I know he spoke recently on his website about certain changes to magic he is making.


----------



## Dinkeldog

I'm going to lock this thread down because of length.

If you'd like to have it saved permanently in the archives, put it in the thread in Meta and PCat can look at that.  In the meantime, I'll start a second thread and put in a link to this one.


----------

