# Immortal's Handbook continuation thread



## Dinkeldog (Jan 23, 2003)

The other thread just got too long.  You can find it here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18636

Please continue where you left off.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 23, 2003)

*Immortals Handbook FAQ*

Hi all! 

Here is the initial responses; expect answers to questions #1 and #9 to be greatly expanded over the next day or so.

If you have any further questions or want certain points clarified feel free to post in this thread.

Immortals Handbook 

Frequently Asked Questions 

*1. What is the Immortals Handbook?*
A: The Immortals Handbook is a body of work that expands; explains and outlines all aspects of using deities within a campaign. 

*2. Is this a d20 product?*
A: Yes. As well as presenting a plethora of new material it seeks to marry ideas from Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook.

*3. Is this a standalone game?*
A: No. It requires the Core Rulebooks and the Epic Level Handbook. Deities & Demigods is compatible but not necessary.

*4. Who is publishing it?*
A: The publisher will be announced after Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook are entered into the System Reference Document.

*5. Will this be an electronic product, a print product or both?*
A: Initially the book will be released as four electronic products (Apotheosis; Grimoire; Bestiary and Chronicle); which will then be conjoined as a print product.

*6. Where should we expect to see it?*
A: The pdf will be available from websites such as www.rpgnow.com

*7. When should it be finished?*
A: The first pdf should be available shortly after the SRD is updated.

*8. Why has it taken so long?*
A: Aside from multiple expansions and numerous revisions throughout its inception it was decided last year that the work, which was already compatible with the core rulebooks would benefit a greater audience if it was fully compatible with Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook. As such we have been forced to wait until this material entered the SRD, though during this time the work has been further developed and refined.

*9. I’ve played in immortal campaigns before (Amber RPG; D&D Immortals; Primal Order) - how is this different, or better?*
A: The key difference between this work and previous material on the subject is that the focus is not solely on the gods themselves, but rather, the relationship between mortals and immortals. 

*10. I don’t really want to run an immortal campaign - why should the Immortals Handbook interest me?*
A: Firstly, the bulk of the material could just as easily bless any Epic campaign. Non-epic campaigns will also find a wealth of ideas helping them develop their worlds religions from both divine and mundane perspectives.

*11. I’ve heard you are making some changes to the core rules just what are they and why are you making them?*
A: The only major change to the core rules are revisions to the Challenge Rating/Encounter Level Rules.
Some of the dynamics of divinity itself have been changed, and a number of divine abilities have been redressed from how Deities & Demigods presents them.

*12. Are the changes optional or required?*
A: The changes are optional, but strongly advocated.

*13. What support can we expect in the future?*
A: There is already a wealth of support material planned; some already underway in fact. However, at this juncture it wouldn’t be prudent to reveal its exact composition.

*14. What are your main inspirations/sources?*
A: Primarily religion; mythology and the occult. Though certainly comic books; fantasy literature; movies and roleplaying games have also proved inspirational.

*15. Shouldn’t gods be beyond stats?*
A: If the Gamesmaster so wishes. However many Gamesmasters prefer to use deities in a more physical (rather than ephemeral) capacity. 

*16. Is the system modular, if so, to what degree?*
A: Practically the entire body of work is modular.

*17. Will it be easy to incorporate into an existing campaign?*
A: Yes, with minimal effort. 

*18. Do you have methods to convert existing gods from my campaign to fit your new and expanded rules?*
A: Yes, however to avoid copyright issues I must be circumspect in how I outline such conversion.

*19. I have heard about some weird stuff like Cosmic Abilities and Esoteric Divine Abilities, what are those and are they easy to add to existing gods?*
A: Cosmic Abilities are the powers attributed to Sidereals (also know as Cosmic or Over-deities) who could be described as the gods of the gods.
The term Esoteric is applied as a prefix to abilities beyond the power of deities to manifest in and of their own power. Immortals who gain Cosmic Abilities do so through esoteric means.

*20. How will the release of the Revised Core Rulebooks affect its contents?*
A: No more so than they will affect the current rules. With the provision for updating the print version of the Immortals Handbook in light of any pertinent changes.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 23, 2003)

Ars Magica, I believe.


Not that I can add something to that topic.


I think I'm drawing closer to favor dropping Epic Attack Bonusus...


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson (Jan 24, 2003)

I'm not dead!

I really don't have much else to say except: Krust-o, I read that you don't know what stuff you'll be able to use and stuff (SRD stuff I think, I dunno, I never quite understood that).  Any way, if I were you (which they tell me I'm not) I'd have something prepared for everything just in case (Justin, Who?  I think I went to school with that guy).  Better to have what you don't need than need what you don't had.  Although you may be overworked, or who knows what... 

Well, yeah, thats it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 24, 2003)

Hey Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Ars Magica, I believe.
> 
> Not that I can add something to that topic.*




I think there is both good and bad in the "Vancian" D&D magic system but I would be happy with a change for 4th Edition.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I think I'm drawing closer to favor dropping Epic Attack Bonusus...*




You mean I hadn't already convinced you! 

Actually in a day or so I will post the FAQ for the IH herein (I'll probably edit my opening salvo in the process so that its at the top of the page)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 24, 2003)

Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I'm not dead!*




I should certainly hope not! 

Otherwise your ability to still post would be quite frightening. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *I really don't have much else to say except: Krust-o, I read that you don't know what stuff you'll be able to use and stuff (SRD stuff I think, I dunno, I never quite understood that).*




I'm going on the assumption that everythings going in but I really only need SDAs; epic feats and epic spells.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Any way, if I were you (which they tell me I'm not) I'd have something prepared for everything just in case (Justin, Who?  I think I went to school with that guy).  Better to have what you don't need than need what you don't had.  Although you may be overworked, or who knows what...
> 
> Well, yeah, thats it. *




Well if they don't include the epic spell system (unlikely) then my Magic chapter is going to need one hell of a rewrite. 

If they don't include epic feats (very unlikely) some of my examples will need attending too.

If they don't include SDAs (and lets face it why add D&Dg without them!?) I will have to rewrite a number of abilities.

Other elements may warrant a mention but are certainly not fundamental.


----------



## Gez (Jan 24, 2003)

'd morning, sirs.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I think there is both good and bad in the "Vancian" D&D magic system but I would be happy with a change for 4th Edition.*




Me too. I would not like to see the "fire&forget" way of casting disappear totally. Although, arguably, classes like the Bard, the Sorcerer, the Harper Scout (FRCS prestige class) or the Sugenja (OA base class) are not anymore Vancian; and the Psion and Psychic Warrior are even less (not even spell slots).


But all these classes still works with a rigid magic system (spell list-based) rather than a dynamic one (with magical improvisation). I'd love to see a good adaptation of the Ars Magica magic system for D&D. This would start with a skill-based magic system, rather than a level-based one.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 24, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *'d morning, sirs.*




Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Me too. I would not like to see the "fire&forget" way of casting disappear totally. Although, arguably, classes like the Bard, the Sorcerer, the Harper Scout (FRCS prestige class) or the Sugenja (OA base class) are not anymore Vancian; and the Psion and Psychic Warrior are even less (not even spell slots).
> 
> But all these classes still works with a rigid magic system (spell list-based) rather than a dynamic one (with magical improvisation). I'd love to see a good adaptation of the Ars Magica magic system for D&D. This would start with a skill-based magic system, rather than a level-based one. *




The way I see it they have the perfect opportunity. 

They can retain the Vancian system for the Wizard class but create something infinitely more flexible for the Sorceror class.

In fact when you think about it you could have variable system for all the classes (I know you have certain ideas on clerical magic yourself).

Personally, I would like to see perhaps a difference between Black and White magic more pronounced (Black Magic might be more powerful; but also more dangerous and taxing). I have read that the Book of Vile Darkness may have ideas along those lines but I still haven't seen that book.


----------



## kkoie (Jan 24, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I have read that the Book of Vile Darkness may have ideas along those lines but I still haven't seen that book. *




BoVD has spells where part of the casting requirements actually reduce an ability score.  The most horrible of the lot being a spell called Apocalypse from the Sky (imagine a fireball spell that covers everything within a multiple mile radius) that reduces wisdom and con by... I forget... something like 4d6 each or worse.  Anyway I'm sure you get the idea.  

They also have spells where its required you be under the influence of a specific drug, or afflicted with a specific disease, to be albe to cast the spell.


----------



## Gez (Jan 24, 2003)

_Salut à vous, belle compagnie !_

(This greeting © Pen of Chaos, in Naheulbeuk's Dungeon).


I believe the idea of spells reducing ability scores when cast comes from the Call of Chtulluh d20 book (written by, unsurprisingly, the same author, Monte Cook).

I've seen the BoVD in a hobbyshop, however at 46 ? it was a bit too much (I rather took the Tome of Horrors, at 32 ?). Although I have ordered it at another shop, who promised me to get it for less than 40 ?, but I know that'll take about 3 months before they do get it (last time I ordered something there, it was Seas of Blood, and that was about the time they needed to get it). It's quite sad it's so easier to get this kind of stuff _via_ Kazaa & co. than through legal means.

Hmmm. To be more on-topic, have you had news from WotC about the progress of the SRD ?I know you had already exchanged mail with some WotC official in the past about that, are you kept informed ?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 24, 2003)

Hi kkoie mate! 

I trust you and the family are keeping well?



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *BoVD has spells where part of the casting requirements actually reduce an ability score.  The most horrible of the lot being a spell called Apocalypse from the Sky (imagine a fireball spell that covers everything within a multiple mile radius) that reduces wisdom and con by... I forget... something like 4d6 each or worse.  Anyway I'm sure you get the idea.
> 
> They also have spells where its required you be under the influence of a specific drug, or afflicted with a specific disease, to be albe to cast the spell. *




Sounds interesting; looking forward to getting that book...eventually. 

Do any of the spells temporarily lower your level?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 24, 2003)

Bonsoir mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Salut à vous, belle compagnie !
> 
> (This greeting © Pen of Chaos, in Naheulbeuk's Dungeon).*




Whole websites in french are probably beyond my very limited understanding of the language unfortunately. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> * I believe the idea of spells reducing ability scores when cast comes from the Call of Chtulluh d20 book (written by, unsurprisingly, the same author, Monte Cook).*




Indeed.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> * I've seen the BoVD in a hobbyshop, however at 46 ? it was a bit too much (I rather took the Tome of Horrors, at 32 ?). *




Whats that Euros? 46 Euros are about £31. The Book of Vile Darkness should only cost about £23 (at most) or about 35 Euros.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> * Hmmm. To be more on-topic, have you had news from WotC about the progress of the SRD ?I know you had already exchanged mail with some WotC official in the past about that, are you kept informed ? *




...well it was only a week ago I found out things were definately on the way. I haven't heard anything new since.


----------



## kkoie (Jan 25, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi kkoie mate!
> 
> I trust you and the family are keeping well?
> *





They are doing great! thanks for asking 



> *
> Sounds interesting; looking forward to getting that book...eventually.
> 
> Do any of the spells temporarily lower your level? *




I don't _think so_... I'll have to check the book again to make sure.  But I'm pretty sure that its mostly ability scores, mainly con and wisdom, for the most part anyway.  I would imagine though that you could have a spell that would temp drain a level.  It wouldn't be more horrible than existing spells.  I know that the apocalypse from the sky spell takes away enough ability scores (among other things) that unless its an uber spellcaster, they will be dead as a result of casting the spell.


----------



## Gez (Jan 25, 2003)

A quick hello to everyone,



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Whats that Euros? 46 Euros are about £31. The Book of Vile Darkness should only cost about £23 (at most) or about 35 Euros.*




Yes, euros, unfortunately. Expensive stuff.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 25, 2003)

Hi, all!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hey Knight Otu mate!
> 
> I think there is both good and bad in the "Vancian" D&D magic system but I would be happy with a change for 4th Edition.
> *




As an option, sure, but don't drop it just for the sake of being different (This is the impression I get from Monte Cook's AU, so I'm a bit ... less impressed by it. )



> *
> You mean I hadn't already convinced you!
> *



Where would the fun be if we were of exactly one opinion?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 27, 2003)

kkoie said:
			
		

> *They are doing great! thanks for asking  *








			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *I don't think so... I'll have to check the book again to make sure.  But I'm pretty sure that its mostly ability scores, mainly con and wisdom, for the most part anyway.  I would imagine though that you could have a spell that would temp drain a level.  It wouldn't be more horrible than existing spells.  I know that the apocalypse from the sky spell takes away enough ability scores (among other things) that unless its an uber spellcaster, they will be dead as a result of casting the spell. *




I'll get the book eventually, I just saw a number of similarities with ideas I had myself.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 27, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *A quick hello to everyone,*




Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Yes, euros, unfortunately. Expensive stuff. *




Be careful you are not getting 'stroked'* on the price.

*As we say here.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 27, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, all!*




Hello Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *As an option, sure, but don't drop it just for the sake of being different (This is the impression I get from Monte Cook's AU, so I'm a bit ... less impressed by it.   )*




Like I said we could keep the Wizard class as is and experiment with the Sorceror Class.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Where would the fun be if we were of exactly one opinion?  *




No fun at all. 

Incidently for those of you following the discussion over at Andy Collins Forums we thrashed out a number of changes to the CR factors (in the CR/EL pdf). Most of these are for better accuracy:

Ability Scores (Total -60 divide by ten...to get CR modifier*)

*Suggested previously as an option; now the standard.

Clarification on Characters with either NPC wealth or no wealth at all.

Aberrations added to the Hit Dice table; Undead split between mindless (1/4 HD) and intelligent (1/3 HD).

Integrated (Spell) Levels now +0.25 CR each

Flight now +0.2 Clumsy; 0.4 Poor; 0.6 Average etc.

Natural Armour +0.1/point

Energy Drain now +1, +0.5/additional level
Ability Score Drain now +0.5, +0.25/additional point.

Energy Resistance +0.1/10 points

Spell Resistance +0.1/point above 10

...and a bunch of other things mostly aimed at rating special abilities more accurately (including Breath Weapons).

The only thing I currently haven't settled on is the revision of Spell-like Abilities.


----------



## Gez (Jan 27, 2003)

Ave !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Ability Scores (Total -60 divide by ten...to get CR modifier*)
> 
> *Suggested previously as an option; now the standard.*




Maybe minus 63 would be better, since usually half the ability scores are odd. (I.e., a human with 10, 11, 10, 11, 10, 11 would get a +0.3 ECL with this system.)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Clarification on Characters with either NPC wealth or no wealth at all.*




And with PC wealth as well (I know we shouldn't make NPC with PC wealth, too much a reward for those party who just happen to kill and loot everyone, but...).

Don't have other comments about that.

Ah, totally off-topic, I just saw (on the General Discussion forum) that one of my favorite game ever, Rêve de Dragon, is now available in English ! 3 PDFs, the first free, the two others bundled for $13. I heartily recommend it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 27, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Ave !*




Bonjour! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Maybe minus 63 would be better, since usually half the ability scores are odd. (I.e., a human with 10, 11, 10, 11, 10, 11 would get a +0.3 ECL with this system.)*




It was suggested that the odd numbers still play a part in things like feat prerequisites and ability score checks so they are still a pertinent factor.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *And with PC wealth as well (I know we shouldn't make NPC with PC wealth, too much a reward for those party who just happen to kill and loot everyone, but...).*




Well PC wealth is intrinsic to 1 Level = +1 CR.

For NPC wealth its +0.75 CR/Level (still testing)
For no wealth its +0.5 CR/Level (still testing)

I am sceptical that all the core classes (notably spellcasters) benefit the same amount by wealth/equipment though.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Ah, totally off-topic, I just saw (on the General Discussion forum) that one of my favorite game ever, Rêve de Dragon, is now available in English ! 3 PDFs, the first free, the two others bundled for $13. I heartily recommend it. *




Dream of Dragons...?

I'll check out the first pdf when I get the chance.


----------



## Gez (Jan 27, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *It was suggested that the odd numbers still play a part in things like feat prerequisites and ability score checks so they are still a pertinent factor.*




Yes, but on average, everyone is supposed to have 3 odds and 3 evens. (6 odds would be a slight bonus compared to that figure, and 6 evens would be a slight penalty.)




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Well PC wealth is intrinsic to 1 Level = +1 CR.
> 
> For NPC wealth its +0.75 CR/Level (still testing)
> For no wealth its +0.5 CR/Level (still testing)
> ...




The monk is maybe the one who have the less use of wealth in combat (no magic armors, no magic weapons, only "clothings" can be useful). For a wizard, wealth also determine extra spells he knows.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Dream of Dragons...?
> 
> I'll check out the first pdf when I get the chance.  *




Rather than a simple name like that, or something like "When Dragons Dream", they chose something maybe a bit too esoteric (Rêve: the Dream Ouroboros"). I should search the exact origin of ouroboros one of these days, I've seen it used for anything and everything, like "eidolon" (incarnation).

The thread is here, and the game is here.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 27, 2003)

Bon soir mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Yes, but on average, everyone is supposed to have 3 odds and 3 evens. (6 odds would be a slight bonus compared to that figure, and 6 evens would be a slight penalty.)*




Maybe I should have added the ability scores are rated as low as 0.1 now, rather than increments of 0.5.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The monk is maybe the one who have the less use of wealth in combat (no magic armors, no magic weapons, only "clothings" can be useful). For a wizard, wealth also determine extra spells he knows.*




Exactly.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Rather than a simple name like that, or something like "When Dragons Dream", they chose something maybe a bit too esoteric (Rêve: the Dream Ouroboros"). I should search the exact origin of ouroboros one of these days, I've seen it used for anything and everything, like "eidolon" (incarnation).
> 
> The thread is here, and the game is here. *




I seem to recall seeing a review of that at RPGnet recently.


----------



## Impeesa (Jan 29, 2003)

So I'm finally getting a chance to dredge up my campaign, which reached 19th level some time ago and then stalled due to most of the original players moving, and I'm wondering about a few things. I have some odd questions for the only man I know who comes close to resembling an authority on the subject: 

1) You mentioned at some earlier point that the book would include a template for the children of deities. What I'd like to know is, what would you give the grandchild of a deity? 

2) What happens to a spellcasting god's familiar? Does it gain any improved status? Would it be able to enter an area that divine beings are barred from (like, say, Sigil), even though its master can't?

The second one comes from an NPC in my world, who is basically god of magic but resides on the Prime for a variety of reasons. I thought it would be interesting if, thousands of years ago when the world was young (it's still young, as far as worlds go ), he adopted a young dragon as a familiar, and maintained the bond as the dragon got older and became an independant and powerful being in its own right.

Which reminds me: Does anyone have any ideas for an appropriate familiar bonus for a dragon, if a PC wants to take one? I'm thinking something like prerequisite Improved Familiar, spellcaster level 12 + dragon's cr, and a bonus to something like spellcraft or SR penetration (might be too powerful..).

--Impeesa--


----------



## poilbrun (Jan 29, 2003)

My opinion would be that there is no need for a bonus if the spellcaster has a dragon. A dragon is already powerful enough as is. Even in the normal familiars (the ones in the PHB), the eagle (I do not have my books with me, but I think that's the one) doesn't give any bonus. I believe several familiars in T&B do not give any bonus either. But I think dragons would not be a good choice as a familiar. I would rather use them as a cohort or eventually, a follower if the wizard is high-level enough to have such powerful follower. According to the ELH, a character with the epic leadership feat can have followers that belong to one of the PC classes, but no epic NPC can be a follower to a character (which I find stupid ;  why couldn't a supra-high level character have an epic-level NPC as follower? After all, that's more or less what happens with gods). Why could a character have a level 19 fighter as follower, but not a CR 19 dragon?

Just my 2ct anyway


----------



## Gez (Jan 29, 2003)

Improved Familiars don't give *any* bonus. They are supposed to be cool and useful enough. And that's generally true.

What happen to a god's familiar is a good question. Myself, I would give it proxy or avatar powers -- a familiar is the same being as its master, while being also someone else, a definition that suit the avatar concept IMO. However, the proxy and avatar rules in D&DG were a bit _kaput_ (broken get overused).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 29, 2003)

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *So I'm finally getting a chance to dredge up my campaign, which reached 19th level some time ago and then stalled due to most of the original players moving, and I'm wondering about a few things. I have some odd questions for the only man I know who comes close to resembling an authority on the subject:  *




I'll try to live up to expectations. 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *1) You mentioned at some earlier point that the book would include a template for the children of deities. What I'd like to know is, what would you give the grandchild of a deity?  *




Again, it really depends on the parents. Children with two divine parents are more powerful than those with simply one.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *2) What happens to a spellcasting god's familiar? Does it gain any improved status?*




The quick answer is that it gains anything you want it to. The deity can augment the creature anyway it sees fit (providing it expends enough power to do so); including bestowing divinity upon it.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Would it be able to enter an area that divine beings are barred from (like, say, Sigil), even though its master can't?*




Well, personally I am of the opinion that restriction only applies to Demigods or better (not Hero or Quasi-deities; since those encompass Solars).

So provided the familiar itself was not a Demigod I see no reason why it could not enter Sigil.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *The second one comes from an NPC in my world, who is basically god of magic but resides on the Prime for a variety of reasons. I thought it would be interesting if, thousands of years ago when the world was young (it's still young, as far as worlds go ), he adopted a young dragon as a familiar, and maintained the bond as the dragon got older and became an independant and powerful being in its own right.*




I agree with poilbrun (hello mate) that a dragon is more of a cohort than a famliar; unless it stayed in pseudodragon form most of the time...or the god was very tall...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 29, 2003)

Bonjour mon ami Gez! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *What happen to a god's familiar is a good question. Myself, I would give it proxy or avatar powers -- a familiar is the same being as its master, while being also someone else, a definition that suit the avatar concept IMO.*




Provided the deity wishes to bestow the power then I don't see why not. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *However, the proxy and avatar rules in D&DG were a bit kaput (broken get overused). *




I'm sure we can sort them out...


----------



## Impeesa (Jan 30, 2003)

poilbrun said:
			
		

> *My opinion would be that there is no need for a bonus if the spellcaster has a dragon. A dragon is already powerful enough as is. Even in the normal familiars (the ones in the PHB), the eagle (I do not have my books with me, but I think that's the one) doesn't give any bonus. I believe several familiars in T&B do not give any bonus either. But I think dragons would not be a good choice as a familiar. I would rather use them as a cohort or eventually, a follower if the wizard is high-level enough to have such powerful follower. According to the ELH, a character with the epic leadership feat can have followers that belong to one of the PC classes, but no epic NPC can be a follower to a character (which I find stupid ;  why couldn't a supra-high level character have an epic-level NPC as follower? After all, that's more or less what happens with gods). Why could a character have a level 19 fighter as follower, but not a CR 19 dragon?
> 
> Just my 2ct anyway  *





I see where you guys are coming from on this... I like the concept of a wyrmling as a familiar though, I'm thinking perhaps making Dragon Familiar a feat of its own, with Improved Familiar as a prerequisite. There would be one extra caveat, the mage must raise the dragon from a hatchling and take it as a familiar before it's more than a few months old.



> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust_
> *
> Again, it really depends on the parents. Children with two divine parents are more powerful than those with simply one.
> *




In the specific case that I have, the character's mother was human, his father was a dragon who was in turn the son of a dragon god and a mortal dragon. 2E style half-dragons, though. Hooray for fantasy genetics. 

Hm... question about the book itself (what a concept): Since there have been so many delays, are you still planning on waiting a while between the pdf release and sending the print copy off to the publisher's? Or will the print copy follow the pdf as soon as it can be ready?

--Impeesa--


----------



## Gez (Jan 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Impeesa _Hm... question about the book itself (what a concept)[/B]




What a snarky comment. You mean we were going off-topic there ?

 




> _Originally posted by Impeesa _Since there have been so many delays, are you still planning on waiting a while between the pdf release and sending the print copy off to the publisher's? Or will the print copy follow the pdf as soon as it can be ready?[/B]




I had the feeling the print would follow after the PDF had proved the book sells well. Just an intuition.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 30, 2003)

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *I see where you guys are coming from on this... I like the concept of a wyrmling as a familiar though, I'm thinking perhaps making Dragon Familiar a feat of its own, with Improved Familiar as a prerequisite. There would be one extra caveat, the mage must raise the dragon from a hatchling and take it as a familiar before it's more than a few months old. *




Sounds interesting.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *In the specific case that I have, the character's mother was human, his father was a dragon who was in turn the son of a dragon god and a mortal dragon. 2E style half-dragons, though. Hooray for fantasy genetics.  *




Yeah thats all easily determined. 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Hm... question about the book itself (what a concept):*








			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Since there have been so many delays, *








			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *are you still planning on waiting a while between the pdf release and sending the print copy off to the publisher's? Or will the print copy follow the pdf as soon as it can be ready? *




I think there are a number of intermediate factors involved (which hopefully I can get sorted between the release of the first and last pdf.). As Gez (bonjour mon ami) pointed out there is always the success factor to consider; replacing my art is another which may or may not be looked into...?

Currently I am shaping up for a mid March release for the first pdf (of course the SRD needs updating prior to that) with each subsequent release to follow in brief increments (a few weeks) after that.

Until I know exactly when the SRD is being updated there is always some rule I am liable to play around with or tweak; or something I am likely to add. In the light of the Revised Core Rulebooks I am tempted to add a tactics paragraph for the monsters...and deities.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Jan 30, 2003)

*Add a tactics paragraph!*

Pleeeeease add a tactics paragraph!  I'll love you forever if you follow the keen new monster stat-block format.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jan 30, 2003)

*Re: Add a tactics paragraph!*

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Pleeeeease add a tactics paragraph!*




...of course I was considering this long before I saw the revised core rulebook Pit Fiend. 

It should go well will my adventure ideas paragraph. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *I'll love you forever if you follow the keen new monster stat-block format. *




...I'll hold you to that! I expect roses; a card and chocolates next St. Valentines Day!


----------



## Impeesa (Jan 30, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What a snarky comment. You mean we were going off-topic there ?
> 
> ...




It's been known to happen. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Knight Otu (Jan 31, 2003)

A tactics paragraph? Good!


----------



## DarkElven (Feb 1, 2003)

After not showing my face for almost half a year now ( I stopped all my message posting anywhere in August), Upper_Krust AGAIN forces me to return to the world of posting.

This is the fourth time I had to sign up this name at ENWorld AGAIN!

Darn you U_K!

I have three questions.


When will it be out?

When will it be out?

When will it be out?


----------



## Gez (Feb 2, 2003)

Hello, coalblack-skinned and pointy-eared one 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *After not showing my face for almost half a year now ( I stopped all my message posting anywhere in August), Upper_Krust AGAIN forces me to return to the world of posting.
> 
> This is the fourth time I had to sign up this name at ENWorld AGAIN!
> 
> ...





I'm not UK, but I think I can try to answer your questions for him.






			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *When will it be out?*




After the essential rule materials from Deities & Demigods (and the EpicLevel Handbook as well) has been put in the SRD...



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *When will it be out?*




... Which is probably after the update of the SRD with the revised rules...



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *When will it be out? *




... Hopefully not long after.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *When will it be out? *




... But if this takes too much time, maybe you could start petition Antonny "Zulkir" Valterra at wotc for hurrying up the process.


Basically, UK needs to use SDA, divine ranks, and maybe epic feats. If these three concepts are included in the SRD, he will have no more excuse not to release the stuff we in this thread have all been eagerly waiting for.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 2, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *A tactics paragraph? Good!  *




I can just see some of them now:

_Round 0: Your entire multiverse ceases to exist._


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 2, 2003)

Hi DarkElven mate! 

Been a while; I hope you, your family and friends are all keeping well!? 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *After not showing my face for almost half a year now ( I stopped all my message posting anywhere in August), Upper_Krust AGAIN forces me to return to the world of posting.*




I seem to have that power over people! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *This is the fourth time I had to sign up this name at ENWorld AGAIN!
> 
> Darn you U_K!*




Dr Evil has nothing on me. BUWAHAHA!



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I have three questions.*




Okay fire away.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *When will it be out?
> 
> When will it be out?
> 
> When will it be out? *




I'm gearing up towards mid March for the release but it is still in the hands of WotC at this point.

If the SRD is updated in February (unlikely but possible I suppose) the release will be a few weeks later. If the SRD is updated in March or anytime thereafter it will take about a week to get things sorted.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 2, 2003)

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Basically, UK needs to use SDA, divine ranks, and maybe epic feats. If these three concepts are included in the SRD, he will have no more excuse not to release the stuff we in this thread have all been eagerly waiting for. *




Actually I don't need Divine Ranks; because I don't use them. Though if they are SRD I will show how my rules are totally compatible with them.

I need SDAs (even though I have revised one third of them in some fashion); Epic Feats for examples and Epic Spells/Magic.

Its probably also better to have their outline for Divinity since mine is fairly close (though not identical*).

*For example Deities don't get any Energy Immunities unless they have the requisite Portfolio(s).


----------



## DarkElven (Feb 2, 2003)

Freelancer AND the Immortal Handbook!

Hell will freeze over in March.



------------
And dont go telling me that hell has a frozen layer. Thats not the part I mean. 

P.S. Well my family and friends have gone through an extremely trying time in the past series of months, which contributed in a large part to me not harrassing you about the IH for a while. No jokes on this now, its a very tragic issue.  

PPS. Thanks a bunch Gez! However you answered my question one more time than I asked it  
Now thats dilligence!


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 2, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Round 0: Your entire multiverse ceases to exist.  *




Be careful where you put this weapon ... claw ... whatever ... thing... 

Is your FAQ ready?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 2, 2003)

Hi DarkElven mate! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *Freelancer AND the Immortal Handbook!
> 
> Hell will freeze over in March.  *




...and dare I say about bloody time too! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *And dont go telling me that hell has a frozen layer. Thats not the part I mean.  *




Or even two frozen layers. 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *P.S. Well my family and friends have gone through an extremely trying time in the past series of months, which contributed in a large part to me not harrassing you about the IH for a while. No jokes on this now, its a very tragic issue.  *




I remembered the bad news you mentioned in your last email all those months ago which was why I sought to ask if everything was well.

If you need someone to chat to mate you know where to find me.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 2, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Be careful where you put this weapon ... claw ... whatever ... thing...  *






Don't worry the previous example was an extreme case. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Is your FAQ ready? *




Probably (I have been concentrating on another element of the work these past few days); but give me a few days.


----------



## Gez (Feb 4, 2003)

Hallo, mein gut Freunde,



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Don't worry the previous example was an extreme case.
> *




After all your rants on how the possibility of interaction was important, and that how the immune-to-anything deities from D&Dg were boring and unusable because of that, this had better be a joke, indeed !  

Oh, and zboing!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 4, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hallo, mein gut Freunde,*




You're teasing me now are'nt you. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *After all your rants on how the possibility of interaction was important, and that how the immune-to-anything deities from D&Dg were boring and unusable because of that, this had better be a joke, indeed !*




Absolutely, but you also know that the IH scales up to Gamesmaster. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Oh, and zboing! *




Appreciate the love mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 4, 2003)

*Question about the Revised Core Rulebooks*

Hi all! 

What are your opinions about updating the Immortals Handbook *print* version with any pertinent Revised Core Rulebook material?

Obviously the pdfs will be released (hopefully long) before the Revised Core Rulebooks, but the print version probably won't be released until shortly after them.

Any thoughts?


----------



## poilbrun (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Question about the Revised Core Rulebooks*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> What are your opinions about updating the Immortals Handbook print version with any pertinent Revised Core Rulebook material?
> 
> ...



Point of view 1 : it would be great, since I will probably use D&D 3.5, this way I won't have to convert the IH from D&D 3.0 to D&D 3.5

Point of view 2 : that would suck, since D&D 3.5 may suck, and I may not use it, which means I'll have the trouble of converting the IH from D&D 3.5 to D&D 3.0

Point of view 3 : the problem with this is, what will you do if WotC announces another book after the revised books that might have an impact on the IH? Will you wait for it to be released in the SRD, or will you release the printed version of the IH that would not be compatible with that book? I think a line needs to be drawn to know how long you wait to release the book, but unfortunately, I believe you will see several different point of views and you'll have to draw that line yourself.

My real opinion would be point of view 1.


----------



## Gez (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Question about the Revised Core Rulebooks*

Hello,



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You're teasing me now are'nt you. *




Was ? Nein ! Absolutely not, I just try to avoid the blandness of repetition.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *What are your opinions about updating the Immortals Handbook [/]print version with any pertinent Revised Core Rulebook material?*



*

Of course that seems a good idea, having the book the most compatible possible with the latest edition, however...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		


Obviously the pdfs will be released (hopefully long) before the Revised Core Rulebooks, but the print version probably won't be released until shortly after them.

Click to expand...



Are you sure ? I thought they would release the revised SRD before any additional material -- notably in the hope of revising the material in D&Dg and ELH so that it is in line with the new rules. Things like damage reduction and energy resistance, for example, have changed.*


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 4, 2003)

Soll ich Gez korrigieren? 

Since I am planning for the print version, as I already said, I would like it to be consistent with R3E. I like much of what I see of Revised.


----------



## Gez (Feb 4, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Soll ich Gez korrigieren? *




Jawohl. Ich schreibe Deutsch ganz falsch. Und mein sprecht ist schlechter ! 

I think the above don't really make sense. At least, ich kann kleinen texten reden und understanden. Kleinen texten.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Question about the Revised Core Rulebooks*

Bonjour mon ami poilbrun! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Point of view 1 : it would be great, since I will probably use D&D 3.5, this way I won't have to convert the IH from D&D 3.0 to D&D 3.5
> 
> Point of view 2 : that would suck, since D&D 3.5 may suck, and I may not use it, which means I'll have the trouble of converting the IH from D&D 3.5 to D&D 3.0
> 
> ...




I can't really see the revisions necessitating _much_ of a rewrite for the Immortals Handbook.

But its nice to know I have your support!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Question about the Revised Core Rulebooks*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Hello,*




Konban wa tomodachi Gez! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Was ? Nein ! Absolutely not, I just try to avoid the blandness of repetition.*




Mon dieu!  



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Of course that seems a good idea, having the book the most compatible possible with the latest edition, however...*




Thats two in favour. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Are you sure ? I thought they would release the revised SRD before any additional material -- notably in the hope of revising the material in D&Dg and ELH so that it is in line with the new rules. Things like damage reduction and energy resistance, for example, have changed. *




Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook are to enter the SRD *long before* the release of the Revised Core Rulebooks. At least thats what Anthony Valterra intimated.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 4, 2003)

So, you wanted it. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Hallo, mein gut Freunde,
> *



would be either "meine guten (or "lieben") Freunde" in plural, or "mein guter Freund" singular.



> *Und mein sprecht ist schlechter ! *




"Und meine Aussprache ist schlechter!"



> *ich kann kleinen texten reden und understanden. Kleinen texten.*



"Ich kann kleine (better: "kurze") Texte reden und verstehen. Kurze Texte."


Sorry for the hijacking!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 4, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Since I am planning for the print version, as I already said, I would like it to be consistent with R3E. I like much of what I see of Revised.  *




I like the new Pit Fiend; roll on the Solar! 

Incidently I will post the Immortals Handbook FAQ late tomorrow afternoon (I am busy tomorrow morning). I just need to tidy up one or two points.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 4, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Incidently I will post the Immortals Handbook FAQ late tomorrow afternoon. *



Looking forward to it.


----------



## Gez (Feb 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Question about the Revised Core Rulebooks*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Konban wa tomodachi Gez! *










See ? That's better !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook are to enter the SRD long before the release of the Revised Core Rulebooks. At least thats what Anthony Valterra intimated. *




Really ? Well, maybe the WotC goblins are nicer than what I thought.



PS: Knight Otu, thanks. But now I feel ashamed of how fast my little (and hardly gained), knowledge of german is fading...


----------



## Blacksad (Feb 5, 2003)

Gutten Tag! 

On the print version of the IH with 3.5, something that might be interesting, depending on what is in the SRD, because WotC has probably no plans to revise the ELH and D&Ds, would be to release a 416 pages book that would be the compilation, updated to 3.5, of the IH, ELH and D&Ds (because some Epic Feat list, or skill by level probably need some changes).

Plus it would motivate me to buy the 3.5 books. 

What do you think?

Personally I would like this version or only the IH with 3.0 rules.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 5, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Looking forward to it.  *




Actually give me a few more hours on this; two or three of the twenty answers are not yet up to my standards.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 5, 2003)

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Gutten Tag!
> 
> On the print version of the IH with 3.5, something that might be interesting, depending on what is in the SRD, because WotC has probably no plans to revise the ELH and D&Ds, would be to release a 416 pages book that would be the compilation, updated to 3.5, of the IH, ELH and D&Ds (because some Epic Feat list, or skill by level probably need some changes).
> 
> ...




I really don't see the changes being that far reaching with regards the Immortals Handbook. Certainly a few feats or skills may be renamed but I see no extensive problems one way or the other.

Incidently I am going to post the FAQ at the start of this thread in a moment. I just hope I can copy and paste! 

I may expand on a few of the answers over the next few days.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 6, 2003)

UK, sorry to do this, but I still have to point out some obvious flaws in your system regarding lower levels.

I point you to the bugbear, CR 2 by the book, CR 2.2 by your system.  Your system would also suggest that a single bugbear is an EL 5 encounter.  Um, sorry, but that is OBVIOUSLY not the case.  A standard level 1 party could defeat a bugbear with only minor difficulty.  In fact, the ONLY current CR 2 monsters worthy of an EL 5 mark are the ogre and the loxo, and I think even they are only a 3 or 4.

I still think messing with the lower levels is a bad idea.

I also think that taking the rolles ability scores into consideration for purposes of determining PEL is pedantic and unnecessary.  Where do you draw the line?  What happens when a bull's strength spell is cast on the character?  Does he suddenly rise up in his EL?  NO.  Duh.  The actual levels take ALL of this into account to begin with, which is why you gain no XP for summoned creatures as well.

What about permanent magical items such as a belt of giant strength?

Basically, you're "double-taxing" this stuff.  Level accounts for wealth which accounts for the magical items, and level and race account for ability scores.  I do think that "above the norm" ability scores for other various races (such as Str+10 for the ogre) should be taken into account, but ONLY when determining ECL for purposes of character level.

Also, XP should NOT be gained by EL, but by each creature's individual CR, otherwise you're screwing PCs out of XP.  EL works for matched encounters because the XP is the same anyway, but for mixed, it does not work at all.  Take your example in that PDF with the pit fiends, gelugons, and dragon.  The example puts it at EL 24.  For a PEL 20, that nets 24000 XP.  If, however, you do it the RIGHT way and determine XP per monster, the XP award is actually 31000.  That 7000 can make a huge difference, ya' know.  Or is your purpose actually to prevent effective level gaining as per the rules?

Methinks you should rethink some of this stuff.  As it stands, I'm not sure how to incorporate the good parts of your system (the ELs over 20 and other such things) without using the parts that are obviously flawed as much as the core rules.  Perhaps you could enlighten me on these.

(On a side note, ECL can be determined by your current tables and done as a simple permanent modifier to character, so problem solved there.  But that still makes a big problem with normal races.)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 6, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 

I hope you have been keeping well?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, sorry to do this, but I still have to point out some obvious flaws in your system regarding lower levels.*




Feel as free to point them out as I will to easily debunk them mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I point you to the bugbear, CR 2 by the book, CR 2.2 by your system.  Your system would also suggest that a single bugbear is an EL 5 encounter.  Um, sorry, but that is OBVIOUSLY not the case.*




You understand when you make these sweeping statements in upper case format it just makes the eventual smackdown that much sweeter. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A standard level 1 party could defeat a bugbear with only minor difficulty.*




Okay lets assume a party of four 1st-level PCs with default array ability scores (15; 14; 13; 12; 10; 8).

Individual PC CR 1 + 1.2 for ability scores = CR 2.2 (CR 2)

CR 2 = EL 5

Four PCs = EL +4 (PEL = EL-4)

Therefore PEL = 5

The bugbear represents a moderate encounter (EL +/-0). The PCs should win easily. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *In fact, the ONLY current CR 2 monsters worthy of an EL 5 mark are the ogre and the loxo, and I think even they are only a 3 or 4.*




Try not to forget that the PC Encounter Level is modified the same as Monster EL.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I still think messing with the lower levels is a bad idea.*




Not at all.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I also think that taking the rolles ability scores into consideration for purposes of determining PEL is pedantic and unnecessary.*




It is both necessary and hardly overtly pedantic given its almost never going to have a negligable effect.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Where do you draw the line?*




At all non-permanent effects and magic items as I specified.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What happens when a bull's strength spell is cast on the character?  Does he suddenly rise up in his EL?  NO.  Duh.  The actual levels take ALL of this into account to begin with, which is why you gain no XP for summoned creatures as well.*




Did you miss the sidebar pointed out in the document I gave you!? All this is already explained I fail to see where your confusion stems from!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What about permanent magical items such as a belt of giant strength?*




Personally I wouldn't count them. Simply because they are part of your wealth allowance.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, you're "double-taxing" this stuff.  Level accounts for wealth which accounts for the magical items, and level and race account for ability scores.*




No I'm not double taxing stuff - you are! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I do think that "above the norm" ability scores for other various races (such as Str+10 for the ogre) should be taken into account, but ONLY when determining ECL for purposes of character level.*




Ability Scores are pertinent.

IT WAS YOU WHO INITIALLY POINTED THIS OUT TO ME! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, XP should NOT be gained by EL, but by each creature's individual CR, otherwise you're screwing PCs out of XP.*




Actually the total opposite is true. If you assign EXP by CR, THEN you are screwing them out of EXP.

eg. Are you trying to say 109th-level characters should gain no EXP from defeating 100th-level opponents even though we know the difference in power is negligable!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *EL works for matched encounters because the XP is the same anyway, but for mixed, it does not work at all.  Take your example in that PDF with the pit fiends, gelugons, and dragon.  The example puts it at EL 24.  For a PEL 20, that nets 24000 XP.  If, however, you do it the RIGHT way and determine XP per monster, the XP award is actually 31000.  That 7000 can make a huge difference, ya' know.  Or is your purpose actually to prevent effective level gaining as per the rules?*




The Core Rules don't give anywhere near an accurate outline of mixed opponents.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Methinks you should rethink some of this stuff.*




I appreciate your help mate - though I think I have everything under control.

Keep trying to break the system though; its always possible I have missed something.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As it stands, I'm not sure how to incorporate the good parts of your system (the ELs over 20 and other such things) without using the parts that are obviously flawed as much as the core rules.  Perhaps you could enlighten me on these.*




Judging by your above arguments - its all good.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *(On a side note, ECL can be determined by your current tables and done as a simple permanent modifier to character, so problem solved there.  But that still makes a big problem with normal races.) *




What problem with normal races?


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 6, 2003)

Great FAQ, UK!
So here are some questions for your next(or updated) one 

1) Will you have examples of Over/Elder/Cosmic Deities?

2) How much will the PDFs and print retail for?

3) Is there a great difference in the power between a DvR 20 and a DvR 21 Deity? Is the difference like Lvl 20 and 21 characters? Or like 20th and 100th Lvl characters?

4) Have you play-tested with a group of your own?

.......theres alot more but I don't wanna bog you down and keep you from the book!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 6, 2003)

Hi there Dark Wolf 97! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Great FAQ, UK! *




Thanks! Although I think one or two points need expanding upon, especially the opening question.

But I was reticent to give out lists of certain elements since I'm sure I will still end up changing things before the works release. So I could rattle off details like: 60+ new Epic Spells; 60+ new Deific Abilities; 60+ new Cosmic Abilities; 30+ new Omnific Abilities; 15+ Metempiric Abilities (Don't even ask!  ); 60+ new Weapon Special Abilities; 30+ new Armour Special Abilities; 60+ new Artifacts; 60+ new Epic Monsters*; 46 Portfolios and much, much more - but the chances are those details are likely to ebb and flow as I tinker with things right up until the release.

*I actually have over 100 Monsters but I have to draw the line somewhere. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *So here are some questions for your next(or updated) one  *




Sure fire away!  



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *1) Will you have examples of Over/Elder/Cosmic Deities?*




Yes; at least five. I am trying to squeeze in as much as possible so maybe one or two others?

I will confirm that Surtur is one of those detailed. Lets just say the version in Deities & Demigods was an Avatar at best; this one is the 200' tall mythological big bad elder entity of fire and evil; ready to reduce your world to ashes. A being even Odin fears.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *2) How much will the PDFs and print retail for?*




It will vary depending on things like  page count and the amount of art. The opening pdf 'Apotheosis' will be 96 pages; as will the Bestiary section although obviously it will have much more art. I'll try and squeeze the other pdfs into 48 pages though that may not be possible.

The exact price is yet to be determined between myself and the publisher but I am confident it will be competitive with current pdf prices.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *3) Is there a great difference in the power between a DvR 20 and a DvR 21 Deity? Is the difference like Lvl 20 and 21 characters? Or like 20th and 100th Lvl characters?*




I don't use Divine Ranks; I use Divine Status (Demigod; Lesser God; Intermediate God etc.) instead. Divine Rank is much too pedantic and totally unnecessary. However, practically all my revisions are compatible with Divine Ranks.

Each Divine Status is _roughly_ x1.5 CR beyond the previous status.

Elder Gods will be in and around CR 250 or so.

Once you get to beings like Time Lords their capabilities are so insane that challenge rating just goes berserk. I mean I have sketched out CR 60,000 Eternals* ~ but even I realise at that point its anybodies guess. The bulk of the material is of course directed at Immortals (Hero-deities to Greater Deities) though; so don't worry I haven't overloaded on the cosmic stuff; theres just enough to flesh all that out and make it interesting. 

*...and yes there are things even more powerful. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *4) Have you play-tested with a group of your own?*




With the Worship Points System mechanics yes. But with the recent stuff I have devised all playtesting has been inhouse shall we say.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *.......theres alot more but I don't wanna bog you down and keep you from the book!  *




Hey thats what I'm here for, fire away.

You might think of something I haven't that I could add in.


----------



## DarkElven (Feb 7, 2003)

As usual great work U_K! I know that all this waiting hasn't been in vain.

"Yes. As well as presenting a plethora of new material it seeks to marry ideas from Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook."

A wedding!? And I haven't been invited?

Well I can see that you were busy and all, and its excusable that you might forget, once.
Just reading about the goodies that you have in store for us has me chomping at the bit.    

This question is one you have undoubtedly answered before (quite likely you've already told ME this once or twice but you know what a glutton I am for the same information) but the adventures you have planned out generally have the character deities at what level of power? 

And another thing, how have you been able to get so much work done while answering all these questions? Methinks your avatar is out there slavishly typing out pages for you while you blithely drop hints to whip people into a frenzy, tearing each other apart in anticipation. I dont suppose YOUR character would be making any cameos. Maybe we should try to get you to write a Story Hour  .

I had some questions on the cosmology you would use as a basis but I can get to that at another time (primarily because I really should be sleeping right now  )

Peter Molyneux really ought to hire you as a consultant for Black & White 3.I know that they already have the b&w series planned out to 5. They should not be allowed to even think of approaching this without your definitive work guiding their hands but alas...

Edit: Hmmm it appears I've fallen in the middle of some sort of long running mechanics debate. I guess thats what happens when I can only check up once in a while


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 7, 2003)

WOW, sounds great.

And if what you say is any indication, once I get the print, I'll have several sleepless, caffeine filled nights.  I'm looking foward to it!

Until you paraphrased everything in it, I never realized the scope of the IH, and I am thankful for all the creative people (yourself among others) willing to spend months (or years) making my and fellow gamer's campains funner and more fufiling. Unfortunatly, I'll probably never use half of this stuff, but thats ok.

So, I say again.....WOW.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> I hope you have been keeping well?
> *




Yep!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Feel as free to point them out as I will to easily debunk them mate!
> 
> 
> ...




Yet if the PCs all had 10 in every score, you're saying they should receive four times the XP!  Um, no.  They party with 10 in everything should be able to have only a marginally tougher time, not a significantly more difficult.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Try not to forget that the PC Encounter Level is modified the same as Monster EL.
> 
> 
> ...




I must have missed that.  So you're saying only the natural scores count then?




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Personally I wouldn't count them. Simply because they are part of your wealth allowance.
> 
> 
> ...




FOR MONSTERS.  NOT for PCs.  I have NEVER supported taking PC ability scores into account when assigning power levels and XP.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Actually the total opposite is true. If you assign EXP by CR, THEN you are screwing them out of EXP.
> 
> eg. Are you trying to say 109th-level characters should gain no EXP from defeating 100th-level opponents even though we know the difference in power is negligable!?
> *




That's not what I meant.  Your system says to assign XP based on the "overall encounter level" of the entire encounter, and THAT screwed PCs out of XP.  XP should be assigned PER MONSTER, using each single monster's EL.

On that note, I would HIGHLY suggest changing some definitions so that yours do not collide with the core rules as they now do.  I would keep EL as overall encounter level, only for a DM to determine challenge.  You can't change CR any more than it already is, so just give what YOU call EL another name, such as ACR (Adjusted Challenge Rating) or EPR (Effective Power Rating).  Then use EL ONLY for DM reference for challenges, while using single monster EPRs (formerly ELs) when determining XP.  That way, your system takes full effect while not screwing PCs out of XP due to lumping everything together.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The Core Rules don't give anywhere near an accurate outline of mixed opponents.
> *




Only your XP awarding is flawed on the mixed encounter thing.  Other than that, I like it.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I appreciate your help mate - though I think I have everything under control.
> 
> Keep trying to break the system though; its always possible I have missed something.
> *




Well I can easily do so.

You say ability scores go to the adjusted CR of a PC?  What happens with monster PCs and the like?  Their LEVEL needs to be adjusted upwards because of ability scores in most cases.  Yet YOU would ALSO tax them twice by making them earn even less XP due to their ability scores being counted twice!

For instance, take the ogre.  An ogre PC gets Str +10, Dex -2, Con +4, Int -4, Cha -4.  That's a total of ECL +0.4 for ability scores.  Then we get +1 for 4 Giant HD, +0.5 for 5 natural armor, and +0.5 for being Large.  So we have an over +2.4 ECL for ogre characters, which rounds to +2 ECL.  Sounds fair.  An ogre with one class level is character level 3 and so on and so forth.  So far so good.

Now we get to his CR.  His ability scores are worth 7.6, he has 3 character levels, and still gets +1 for Giant HD, +0.5 for natural armor, and +0.5 for being Large, bringing the total to 12.6!  To make it worse, that also makes him UK EL (EPR/ACR, whatever you decide to change it to, which I hope you do) 15!  I'm sorry, but that is WAY too much for an ogre with ONE class level.  Not only that, you are indeed double-taxing EVERYTHING.  It's all in the ECL to begin with, and then it gets added AGAIN for CR!

How do you intend to correct this?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Judging by your above arguments - its all good.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gez (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Immortals Handbook FAQ*

Hiya !

I've read the FAQ, and there's one thing that bugs me...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *3. Is this a standalone game?*
> A: No. It requires the Core Rulebooks and the Epic Level Handbook. Deities & Demigods is compatible but not necessary.




... I have bought Deities & Demigods, but not the ELH...


----------



## poilbrun (Feb 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yet if the PCs all had 10 in every score, you're saying they should receive four times the XP!  Um, no.  They party with 10 in everything should be able to have only a marginally tougher time, not a significantly more difficult.*



I feel the difference in ability scores is most important at low level, the example you're using yourself. You can't really be serious when you say that a freshly-created 1st-level character with 10 in every ability score is more or less the equal of a freshly-created 1st-level character with 18 in every ability score. I agree that some classes benefit less than others from high ability scores, but for some, it is really important. A fighter with only 18's has an AC that is higher by 4, has 40% more hit points, has +4 to hit and damage compared to a fighter with 10's in his ability scores. Of course, at level 100, the difference would be a lot less important. But you cannot say that the ability scores do not have an impact at all. And if it has an impact on the character, I think it should be reflected in the character's CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 7, 2003)

Hi DarkElven mate! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *As usual great work U_K! I know that all this waiting hasn't been in vain.*




I should sincerely hope not! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *"Yes. As well as presenting a plethora of new material it seeks to marry ideas from Deities & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook."
> 
> A wedding!? And I haven't been invited?*




I was told you always cry at weddings and I didn't want to upset you. 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *Well I can see that you were busy and all, and its excusable that you might forget, once.
> Just reading about the goodies that you have in store for us has me chomping at the bit.    *




Sometimes those bits can be mighty tasty!  



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *This question is one you have undoubtedly answered before (quite likely you've already told ME this once or twice but you know what a glutton I am for the same information) but the adventures you have planned out generally have the character deities at what level of power?*




There is a very brief adventure for Hero-deities but the main adventure is for Demigods (though I am sure it could be easily tweaked for Quasi-deities or Lesser Gods).



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *And another thing, how have you been able to get so much work done while answering all these questions?*




I haven't been answering too many questions lately. The discussion over at Andy Collins Forums two weeks ago did tax me somewhat but that one had to be taken all the way; honour was at stake.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *Methinks your avatar is out there slavishly typing out pages for you while you blithely drop hints to whip people into a frenzy, tearing each other apart in anticipation.*




Admittedly it would be nice if I had an Avatar; but that would mean using up worship points. 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I dont suppose YOUR character would be making any cameos. *




Yes, Thrin is one of the Immortal iconics.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *Maybe we should try to get you to write a Story Hour  .*




Technically there is already a thread in the Story Hour by S'mon. However, its only with Clerics of Thrin rather than the big guy himself.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I had some questions on the cosmology you would use as a basis but I can get to that at another time (primarily because I really should be sleeping right now  ) *




The cosmology is big, lets put it like that. The book doesn't claim to be a setting so I'll be trying to keep this stuff in check; I know that most of you have your own cosmologies. Most of it seems modular; I mean if you don't want to acknowledge Time Lords you don't have to; or even if you don't want to use Cosmic deities or create your own progression then thats okay.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *Peter Molyneux really ought to hire you as a consultant for Black & White 3.I know that they already have the b&w series planned out to 5. They should not be allowed to even think of approaching this without your definitive work guiding their hands but alas...*




Funny enough I would like to try my hand at computer game design; in fact thats what I was planning on doing before I got sidetracked into this roleplaying game malarkey! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *Edit: Hmmm it appears I've fallen in the middle of some sort of long running mechanics debate.*




I'll have that sorted faster than a Darth Vader edification.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I guess thats what happens when I can only check up once in a while  *




No harm done mate I assure you.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 7, 2003)

Hello again Dark Wolf 97 mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *WOW, sounds great.*




I'll try not to disappoint you. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And if what you say is any indication, once I get the print, I'll have several sleepless, caffeine filled nights.   I'm looking foward to it!*




Its only fair considering the sleepless nights I have had throughout its inception. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Until you paraphrased everything in it, I never realized the scope of the IH, and I am thankful for all the creative people (yourself among others) willing to spend months (or years) making my and fellow gamer's campains funner and more fufiling. *




If we didn't enjoy it I am sure we wouldn't be doing it.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Unfortunatly, I'll probably never use half of this stuff, but thats ok.*




I would be curious if I had actively used more than half the spells in the PHB or more than half the magic items in the DMG.

Better to have too many ideas than too few; that way theres more chance of someone finding something they like.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *So, I say again.....WOW. *




I appreciate the love mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 7, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yep!*




Glad to hear it! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yet if the PCs all had 10 in every score, you're saying they should receive four times the XP!  Um, no.  They party with 10 in everything should be able to have only a marginally tougher time, not a significantly more difficult.*




As poilbrun also mentioned, ability scores have more of an impact on the outcome (EL) at low level than at any other time.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I must have missed that. *




No harm done mate. Have a look at the sidebars in the pdf.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *So you're saying only the natural scores count then?*




Yes (this includes the permanent inherant and divine bonuses of course).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *FOR MONSTERS.  NOT for PCs.  I have NEVER supported taking PC ability scores into account when assigning power levels and XP.*




But you did support the fact that ability scores are relevant to Challenge Rating and since CR is inextricably linked to EL which in turn is linked to EXP we can deduce that ability scores will affect EXP (from both PC AND Monster perspectives).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's not what I meant.  Your system says to assign XP based on the "overall encounter level" of the entire encounter, and THAT screwed PCs out of XP.  XP should be assigned PER MONSTER, using each single monster's EL.*




I advocate that EXP is assigned on the encounter difficulty because it makes things much easier to officiate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *On that note, I would HIGHLY suggest changing some definitions so that yours do not collide with the core rules as they now do.  I would keep EL as overall encounter level, only for a DM to determine challenge.  You can't change CR any more than it already is, so just give what YOU call EL another name, such as ACR (Adjusted Challenge Rating) or EPR (Effective Power Rating).  Then use EL ONLY for DM reference for challenges, while using single monster EPRs (formerly ELs) when determining XP.  That way, your system takes full effect while not screwing PCs out of XP due to lumping everything together.*




I'm happy the way things are now. The bottom line is that my Encounter Levels are correct and the official rules are incorrect. If anyone should change terminology it should be them! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Only your XP awarding is flawed on the mixed encounter thing.  Other than that, I like it.*




If you wish to change that rule by all means do. 

However in certain circumstances it actually bestows more EXP since you total fractions which allows for creatures below EL -8 to increase the amount. Not that I advocate such.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well I can easily do so.*




Be careful of counting chickens... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You say ability scores go to the adjusted CR of a PC?*




Yes I do.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What happens with monster PCs and the like?  Their LEVEL needs to be adjusted upwards because of ability scores in most cases.  Yet YOU would ALSO tax them twice by making them earn even less XP due to their ability scores being counted twice!*




Not at all; the problem here is that you are factoring ability scores into ECL and then counting ability scores again for the PC.

However, I purposefully stated on several occasions in the pdf that Templates and the like don't include ability scores and that you should be careful of factoring an ability twice. I seem to recall this caveat is in semibold type on page 1 of the pdf and again mentioned in the appropriate sidebars when templates and so forth are mentioned.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For instance, take the ogre.  An ogre PC gets Str +10, Dex -2, Con +4, Int -4, Cha -4.  That's a total of ECL +0.4 for ability scores.  Then we get +1 for 4 Giant HD, +0.5 for 5 natural armor, and +0.5 for being Large.  So we have an over +2.4 ECL for ogre characters, which rounds to +2 ECL.  Sounds fair.  An ogre with one class level is character level 3 and so on and so forth.  So far so good.
> 
> Now we get to his CR.  His ability scores are worth 7.6, he has 3 character levels, and still gets +1 for Giant HD, +0.5 for natural armor, and +0.5 for being Large, bringing the total to 12.6!  To make it worse, that also makes him UK EL (EPR/ACR, whatever you decide to change it to, which I hope you do) 15!  I'm sorry, but that is WAY too much for an ogre with ONE class level.  Not only that, you are indeed double-taxing EVERYTHING.  It's all in the ECL to begin with, and then it gets added AGAIN for CR!
> 
> How do you intend to correct this?*




I don't need to; you jumped to a flawed assumption (as with the previous post). I have stated on many occasions that you don't calculate an ability twice.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> * *


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Immortals Handbook FAQ*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Hiya ! *




Konnichi wa tomodachi Gez! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I've read the FAQ, and there's one thing that bugs me...*




I know its not the Vermiurge? 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *... I have bought Deities & Demigods, but not the ELH... *




Well; Deities & Demigods is still all relevant and compatible.

However obviously I need access to Epic Feats to detail high-level characters properly. Likewise Epic Spells are similarly pertinent. Epic class progression, while obvious, is also still a factor.

Personally you could probably second guess most of the Epic Feats and as long as you weren't planning on creating too many Epic Spells I think you could get away without it.

That said the Epic Level Handbook is a much better book than Deities & Demigods! Not sure what other people herein who have both think?


----------



## poilbrun (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Immortals Handbook FAQ*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *That said the Epic Level Handbook is a much better book than Deities & Demigods! Not sure what other people herein who have both think? *



Even though I have not actually used any of these two books yet (yesterday, I killed my girlfriend's 19th-level character!), I would say that the ELH is much better than D&Dg for one simple reason. I think about 90% of the ELH can be useful to me, whereas all D&Dg except the rules (and maybe the D&D pantheon, but then I mostly play in the FR or in a homebrew world) is useless since I REALLY do not agree with Wizards' vision of earth pantheons.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> As poilbrun also mentioned, ability scores have more of an impact on the outcome (EL) at low level than at any other time.
> *




Maybe . . . I guess my real problem is how much math this entails . . . It would certainly slow down the game to calculate ALL this stuff . . .

You are, however, slowly winning me over on some points . . .




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> No harm done mate. Have a look at the sidebars in the pdf.
> *




Was there also a sidebar where the rounding for CR is done to the nearest whole as well?  I seem to recall something of that nature . . .




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Yes (this includes the permanent inherant and divine bonuses of course).
> *




I still have an issue with that.  Inherent bonuses should be counted under the wealth limit instead, as the only truly effective way of getting such bonuses is with items.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> But you did support the fact that ability scores are relevant to Challenge Rating and since CR is inextricably linked to EL which in turn is linked to EXP we can deduce that ability scores will affect EXP (from both PC AND Monster perspectives).
> *




It makes me uneasy, though . . . I still think it might be, although more accurate, unnecessary as the change ONLY has a significant effect at low levels.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I advocate that EXP is assigned on the encounter difficulty because it makes things much easier to officiate.
> *




I know that.  You're still screwing PCs out of XP, though.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'm happy the way things are now. The bottom line is that my Encounter Levels are correct and the official rules are incorrect. If anyone should change terminology it should be them!
> *




You're missing the point.  You have great ideas, but you are NOT WotC, and this IS their license.  Therefore, you should accomidate ALL people looking at both systems with an unbiased eye.  Besides, adding one term would cease any and all confusion.  I know they're wrong, but that it is still their mistake to make.  You, as the outsider designer, should mold your system AROUND their's without changing base terminology.  Can you at least concede THAT point?




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> If you wish to change that rule by all means do.
> *




I intend to.  There's no reason why a gelugon should be worth less XP just because some pit fiends and a dragon are also in the battle.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> However in certain circumstances it actually bestows more EXP since you total fractions which allows for creatures below EL -8 to increase the amount. Not that I advocate such.
> *




Ah, but I assign XP for EVERYTHING.  I simply extrapolate the table further down.  If a Level 100 character wants to wipe out the entire population of New York City for 95 XP at the rate of 0.000047684 XP per person, he's more than welcome to do so.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Be careful of counting chickens...
> 
> 
> ...




Your PDF, however, does NOT cover ECL.  That is something I have been bugging you about ever since.  That's why I took it upon myself to figure it out.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> However, I purposefully stated on several occasions in the pdf that Templates and the like don't include ability scores and that you should be careful of factoring an ability twice. I seem to recall this caveat is in semibold type on page 1 of the pdf and again mentioned in the appropriate sidebars when templates and so forth are mentioned.
> *




For templates, not for things like ogre PCs.  You never state ANYTHING about ECL for PCs in there.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I don't need to; you jumped to a flawed assumption (as with the previous post). I have stated on many occasions that you don't calculate an ability twice.
> 
> 
> ...




I think perhaps you see the problem and are trying to cover your ass.  That's just fine, especially since you have basically stated the solution already.

Basically you're saying to calculate a PCs CR and ECL for a monster race SEPERATELY, no?  In other words, a level 1 fighter ogre will be character level 3 due to ECL +2, but CR would only be the ogres CR 2.7 (3) plus the class level (1) for a CR 4 and an EL of 9.  Do I now assume correctly?

Also, when could we get an updated PDF explaining how to do ECL and with your latest changes from the initial page of this thread?


----------



## Gez (Feb 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I still have an issue with that.  Inherent bonuses should be counted under the wealth limit instead, as the only truly effective way of getting such bonuses is with items.*




Wizards with 25000 XP to spend in one minute are indeed a minority among characters, even after level 17.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *In other words, a level 1 fighter ogre will be character level 3 due to ECL +2, but CR would only be the ogres CR 2.7 (3) plus the class level (1) for a CR 4 and an EL of 9.  Do I now assume correctly?*




*go fetch some asprin*


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Immortals Handbook FAQ*

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Even though I have not actually used any of these two books yet (yesterday, I killed my girlfriend's 19th-level character!),*




I'm sure Isabelle still loves you. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I would say that the ELH is much better than D&Dg for one simple reason. I think about 90% of the ELH can be useful to me, whereas all D&Dg except the rules (and maybe the D&D pantheon, but then I mostly play in the FR or in a homebrew world) is useless since I REALLY do not agree with Wizards' vision of earth pantheons. *




The major flaw of Deities & Demigods was of course not providing accurate rules for Divine Ascension.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 7, 2003)

Hello again Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Maybe . . . I guess my real problem is how much math this entails . . . It would certainly slow down the game to calculate ALL this stuff . . .*




Much like any new system you have to allow for a period of acclimatisation.

For me its actually faster; but then again I am intimately familiar with it all.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You are, however, slowly winning me over on some points . . .*




I knew that Charm Person scroll would one day prove useful. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Was there also a sidebar where the rounding for CR is done to the nearest whole as well?  I seem to recall something of that nature . . .*




Well, in the discussion over at Andy Collins Forums we determined that rounding factors to the nearest point was more prudent.

2.4 = 2
2.5 = 3
etc.

Also that determining abilities to 0.1 also helped.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I still have an issue with that.  Inherent bonuses should be counted under the wealth limit instead, as the only truly effective way of getting such bonuses is with items.*




Inherant Bonuses can also be gained through wishes. Personally I think its much more convenient to keep ALL inherant bonuses the same.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It makes me uneasy, though . . . I still think it might be, although more accurate, unnecessary as the change ONLY has a significant effect at low levels.*




Yes but remember CR has a less significant effect on Encounter Level the higher we ascend.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I know that.  You're still screwing PCs out of XP, though.*




Actually I double checked my pdf and there is nothing that states you determine EXP in totality rather than individually.

Personally either way is valid; providing you stick to it from the onset.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're missing the point.  You have great ideas, but you are NOT WotC.*




No doubt to their detriment. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and this IS their license.*




It is an *open gaming license* lets not forget.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Therefore, you should accomidate ALL people looking at both systems with an unbiased eye.*




I do. I accomodate the fact that their method is broken and mine is not. I have not at any juncture forced anyone to use my ideas (either peicemeal or in their totality) simply pointed out the official flaws and corrected them.

If people still want to use the official rules then I say good luck to them. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Besides, adding one term would cease any and all confusion.  I know they're wrong, but that it is still their mistake to make.  You, as the outsider designer, should mold your system AROUND their's without changing base terminology.  Can you at least concede THAT point?*




I see the point you are trying to make mate. However, terminology is critical (remember all the trouble the initial system got me into because it wasn't identical to the core rules, now; when I have everything right you are asking me to change things back again!?). 

The bottom line is that I am simply following the mantra set out by the core rules regarding Challenge Rating (+1 Level = +1 CR) and Encounter Level (4_x_ = _x_+4)*

*where _x_ is Encounter Level of course.

The problem with the official rules is that they don't follow their own mantra.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I intend to.  There's no reason why a gelugon should be worth less XP just because some pit fiends and a dragon are also in the battle.*




I think the example was for Barbazu.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ah, but I assign XP for EVERYTHING.  I simply extrapolate the table further down.  If a Level 100 character wants to wipe out the entire population of New York City for 95 XP at the rate of 0.000047684 XP per person, he's more than welcome to do so.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your PDF, however, does NOT cover ECL.  That is something I have been bugging you about ever since.  That's why I took it upon myself to figure it out.*




Well it does, but I understand you are refering to ECL affecting  EXP progression - which I mentioned in Andy Collins Forums was something I would include in the final version.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For templates, not for things like ogre PCs.  You never state ANYTHING about ECL for PCs in there.*




Admittedly there is a caveat with regard ECL determination (which is almost* always equal to CR in my rules) in that ability score modifiers need to be determined seperately since normal characters don't automatically start with all 10's.

*Not counting things like Fast Healing/Regeneration.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think perhaps you see the problem and are trying to cover your ass.  That's just fine, especially since you have basically stated the solution already.*




Easy tiger! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically you're saying to calculate a PCs CR and ECL for a monster race SEPERATELY, no?  In other words, a level 1 fighter ogre will be character level 3 due to ECL +2, but CR would only be the ogres CR 2.7 (3) plus the class level (1) for a CR 4 and an EL of 9.  Do I now assume correctly?*




Ogres are CR 3 (remember Hit Dice would be +1.3)

Hit Dice +1.3
Size +0.5
Natural Armour +0.5
Ability Scores +0.7

But to determine Ogre ECL you need to first work out the ability score modifiers such a 'template' would add:

An Ogre is ECL 2.3 (ECL 2) not counting any ability score modifiers.

If we give it Str +4; Con +2; Dex -2; Wis -4; Cha -2 (Total -0.2 ECL)

Final tally ECL 2.1 (ECL 2)



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, when could we get an updated PDF explaining how to do ECL and with your latest changes from the initial page of this thread? *




I must admit I wasn't planning on creating another pdf until the Immortals Handbook is ready.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I knew that Charm Person scroll would one day prove useful.
> *








			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well, in the discussion over at Andy Collins Forums we determined that rounding factors to the nearest point was more prudent.
> 
> 2.4 = 2
> ...




In other words, to the nearest whole.  Got it.  Sounds good.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Inherant Bonuses can also be gained through wishes. Personally I think its much more convenient to keep ALL inherant bonuses the same.
> *




Isn't the XP and/or money cost more than enough to pay for those ability scores?  Why tax things even further?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Yes but remember CR has a less significant effect on Encounter Level the higher we ascend.
> 
> Actually I double checked my pdf and there is nothing that states you determine EXP in totality rather than individually.
> *




It's in the example with the gelugons, pit fiends, and red dragon.  Turns out as EL 24.75 or something like that.  It says to give XP based on the overall EL.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Personally either way is valid; providing you stick to it from the onset.
> 
> No doubt to their detriment.
> ...




What I'm saying is that you should keep all current definitions the same.  Your EL is different than their EL.  In the core rules, EL does NOT determine XP, it determines overall challenge.  CR represents the level a party of four would need to defeat one such monster.  You have an extra something in there to calculate XP directly that never was defined in the core rules, so give it your own definition!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I see the point you are trying to make mate. However, terminology is critical (remember all the trouble the initial system got me into because it wasn't identical to the core rules, now; when I have everything right you are asking me to change things back again!?).
> 
> The bottom line is that I am simply following the mantra set out by the core rules regarding Challenge Rating (+1 Level = +1 CR) and Encounter Level (4x = x+4)*
> ...




I don't feel like looking it up.  Either way, it was weak compared to the rest.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Well it does, but I understand you are refering to ECL affecting  EXP progression - which I mentioned in Andy Collins Forums was something I would include in the final version.
> ...




Something like that.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Easy tiger!
> 
> Ogres are CR 3 (remember Hit Dice would be +1.3)
> *




That's what I said.  I didn't add fractions to the CR for HD, though.  It comes out the same either way, 2.7 (rounded to 3) without the fraction for HD, 3.03 (rounded to 3) with adding the fraction.  So should those HD fractions be counted?

Also, I still protest your NPC class ratings.  I still say I had a good idea before.  I did send that to you, I believe.  After the first few levels, Warriors get +1/2, Commoners get 1/4, and the rest get 1/3.  Playtesting supports this.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hit Dice +1.3
> Size +0.5
> Natural Armour +0.5
> ...




Ogres, by the rules, get Str +10, Dex -2, Con +4, Int -4, Cha -4.  Remember, to find the bonus for high ability scores, subtract 10 from an even number or 11 from an odd number to get the modifier for monsters with classes.  There is a table for penalties for things with low scores, but the subtract 10 from an even number and subtract 11 from an odd number works the same and gives the same results for the most part.

For the ECL, simply take the ability score modifiers and use your formula.

Ability Scores: +4 total, +0.4 ECL
HD: 4 Giant, +1.33 ECL
Natural Armor: +5, +0.5 ECL
Size: Large, +0.5 ECL
Total: +2.73 ECL (rounded to +3 ECL)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I must admit I wasn't planning on creating another pdf until the Immortals Handbook is ready.
> *




Don't make me beg!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 8, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *In other words, to the nearest whole.  Got it.  Sounds good.*




Yep.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Isn't the XP and/or money cost more than enough to pay for those ability scores?  Why tax things even further?*




If you were to remove the wealth the characters would still have the ability score bonuses; thats why they are calculated.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's in the example with the gelugons, pit fiends, and red dragon.  Turns out as EL 24.75 or something like that.  It says to give XP based on the overall EL.*




It says determine EL by totalling as shown, but not EXP for mixed opponents.

Thats another point I will have to clarify.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What I'm saying is that you should keep all current definitions the same.  Your EL is different than their EL.  In the core rules, EL does NOT determine XP, it determines overall challenge.  CR represents the level a party of four would need to defeat one such monster.  You have an extra something in there to calculate XP directly that never was defined in the core rules, so give it your own definition!*




CR is still a measurement of a _moderate_ opponent.

EL under my auspices adheres to the 4_x_ = _x_+4.

You MUST determine EXP from Encounter Level; otherwise it doesn't make any sense at all.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Something like that.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's what I said.  I didn't add fractions to the CR for HD, though.  It comes out the same either way, 2.7 (rounded to 3) without the fraction for HD, 3.03 (rounded to 3) with adding the fraction.  So should those HD fractions be counted?*




Yes. See I told you it was easy.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, I still protest your NPC class ratings.  I still say I had a good idea before.  I did send that to you, I believe.  After the first few levels, Warriors get +1/2, Commoners get 1/4, and the rest get 1/3.  Playtesting supports this.*




I already told you in our email I prefered your measurement of the NPC classes - I just haven't got round to changing them yet.

Also the difference is so negligable anyway that I am not in any hurry.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ogres, by the rules, get Str +10, Dex -2, Con +4, Int -4, Cha -4.*




Where does it say that? I couldn't find it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Remember, to find the bonus for high ability scores, subtract 10 from an even number or 11 from an odd number to get the modifier for monsters with classes.  There is a table for penalties for things with low scores, but the subtract 10 from an even number and subtract 11 from an odd number works the same and gives the same results for the most part.*




Just subtract 10 from all scores.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For the ECL, simply take the ability score modifiers and use your formula.
> 
> Ability Scores: +4 total, +0.4 ECL
> HD: 4 Giant, +1.33 ECL
> ...




See how easy it is! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Don't make me beg!  *




It will be at the back of the IH.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Where does it say that? I couldn't find it.
> *




Monster Manual/SRD:



> Ogre
> Large Giant
> Hit Dice: 4d8+8 (26 hp)
> Initiative: -1 (Dex)
> ...


----------



## Anubis (Feb 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> If you were to remove the wealth the characters would still have the ability score bonuses; thats why they are calculated.
> *




It doesn't matter to you that they use wealth to get that stuff in the first place?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> It says determine EL by totalling as shown, but not EXP for mixed opponents.
> 
> Thats another point I will have to clarify.
> ...




I think you should use individuals' ELs, however, as opposed to the "total" EL for the encounter.  That's what I'm saying.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Yes. See I told you it was easy.
> ...




My memory sucks.  Heh.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Where does it say that? I couldn't find it.
> *




MM p.144 and DMG p. 58

The ogre has Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7.

Using the system for determining ability score modifiers in the DMG, that means an ogre PC gets Str +10, Dex -2, Con +4, Int -4, Cha -4 as per the DMG.  Well it has a different method for determining penalties, but this way is much faster and accurate anyway, and the NPC Adjustments on DMG p. 58 use that system anyway.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Just subtract 10 from all scores.
> *




No, it's 10 from evens, 11 from odds.  This avoids odd modifiers, and as we all know, D&D revolves around those evens.  That's the simplest way to deal with it anyway.  



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> See how easy it is!
> 
> It will be at the back of the IH.
> *




 

I want that damn book!

I'm gonna mail blitz WotC until they get what you need out there!  Those fools are slower than the government!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 9, 2003)

Firstly thanks Knight Otu mate! 

I am sure I have read over that bit a hundred times but it just slipped my (admittedly poor) memory.

Hello Anubis matey! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It doesn't matter to you that they use wealth to get that stuff in the first place?*




Nope.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think you should use individuals' ELs, however, as opposed to the "total" EL for the encounter.  That's what I'm saying.*




Seemingly that should avoid confusion.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My memory sucks.  Heh.*




You and me both mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *MM p.144 and DMG p. 58
> 
> The ogre has Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7.
> 
> Using the system for determining ability score modifiers in the DMG, that means an ogre PC gets Str +10, Dex -2, Con +4, Int -4, Cha -4 as per the DMG.  Well it has a different method for determining penalties, but this way is much faster and accurate anyway, and the NPC Adjustments on DMG p. 58 use that system anyway.*




Indeed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *No, it's 10 from evens, 11 from odds.  This avoids odd modifiers, and as we all know, D&D revolves around those evens.  That's the simplest way to deal with it anyway.*




True but something that was pointed out in the Andy Collins Forum thread was that odd ability scores are used for things like Feat Prerequistes among other things, so they are still pertinent.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I want that damn book!*




Don't worry it'll be worth the wait! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm gonna mail blitz WotC until they get what you need out there!  Those fools are slower than the government! *




Time spent responding to your mail blitz might inadvertantly slow them...perhaps its just better to let nature take its course.

I know for a fact that the book I am iminently set to launch is much, much better than the one I would have released nine months ago*.

* when the decision was made to wait for D&Dgs inclusion into the SRD.

Incidently I have been tinkering with some of the items in the Epic Level Handbook a handful of which required some fine tuning and a few of which were a bit bonkers it terms of price(Souldrinker sword for instance is WAY undervalued). So expect some minor surgery of them in the relevant section of the IH (as I have with about a half dozen Epic Feats).


----------



## Anubis (Feb 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> True but something that was pointed out in the Andy Collins Forum thread was that odd ability scores are used for things like Feat Prerequistes among other things, so they are still pertinent.
> *




Oh, I know that.  I'm not debating that fact.  My concern is only to keep with the standard when it comes to ability score modifiers for races, and that's all.  The standard for races is even numbers, so for the sake of simplicity (and so as not to change things that truly are unnecessary for the most part), we should keep that standard, as it follows what is stated in the PH and the DMG.

Besides, half the races alreayd have values set forth in the DMG that are determined by that very system, so unless you were planning on listing all the changes, it's just not worth worrying about.

Basically, the standard system is perfectly fine for ability scores for various races.  No need to get picky about something as minor as that.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> (Souldrinker sword for instance is WAY undervalued)
> *




Hehehe . . . Yeah . . . Considering it's the single best weapon listed in any of the core D&D books, being ten times better than the Everwhirling Chain, Unholy Despoiler, and Holy Devastator and costs about one tenth the amount . . .

By the way, UK, is it just me, or does the Holy Devastator seem grossly underpowered?  After all, it's supposed to be a beefed up Holy Avenger, but it's barely better at all and has half the abilities!  Do you intend to tweak it?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 10, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Oh, I know that.  I'm not debating that fact.  My concern is only to keep with the standard when it comes to ability score modifiers for races, and that's all.  The standard for races is even numbers, so for the sake of simplicity (and so as not to change things that truly are unnecessary for the most part), we should keep that standard, as it follows what is stated in the PH and the DMG.*




If people want to maintain even numbered bonuses for determining Templates/ECLs (derived from the method you advocate) then by all means do so. I don't see how that unduly upsets my system either way though.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Besides, half the races alreayd have values set forth in the DMG that are determined by that very system, so unless you were planning on listing all the changes, it's just not worth worrying about.*




I'm not worrying about it at all I assure you! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, the standard system is perfectly fine for ability scores for various races.  No need to get picky about something as minor as that.*




Isn't your argument in effect 'picky' then!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hehehe . . . Yeah . . . Considering it's the single best weapon listed in any of the core D&D books, being ten times better than the Everwhirling Chain, Unholy Despoiler, and Holy Devastator and costs about one tenth the amount . . .*




Yes I fail to see how they could make such a glaring error; I price the Souldrinker at 32 million GP (about 70 times more than the ELH). 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, UK, is it just me, or does the Holy Devastator seem grossly underpowered?  After all, it's supposed to be a beefed up Holy Avenger, but it's barely better at all and has half the abilities!  Do you intend to tweak it? *




Thats not one of the ones (or two factoring the Unholy Despoiler) on my list.

However I do have my own version of the alignment centric weapon powers called:

[Aligned*] Scion

*Chaotic; Holy; Lawful; Unholy etc.

I was very disappointed in the Epic Armour and Weapon Special Abilities; I mean they only had 4+3 (Armour & Shield) and 5+3 (Melee & Ranged) abilities that they fleshed out with different variations. I don't brook that sort of deception; so when I say I have 30+ Armour/Shield and 60+ Melee/Ranged abilities thats not counting the same idea twice but with a different energy signature etc.

As well as a few tweaks to Epic Items I have spotted a few non-epic items that I will also redress:

Rings of Protection (deflective '+' is squared but no longer doubled to find out the price)

Disruption (only works on a critical now) and Vorpal Weapon Special Abilities (only function on a 19-20 rather than a critical hit).


----------



## Anubis (Feb 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Disruption (only works on a critical now)
> *




Aw, c'mon!  In that case, you better bump up the save needed to prevent destruction!  It's only DC 15 as-is, which is hardly game-breaking.  If you make it work only on critical hits, bump up the DC to that of a coup de grace or something.  Gotta make it useful at least.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> and Vorpal Weapon Special Abilities (only function on a 19-20 rather than a critical hit).
> *




Actually, I had a pretty good fix for Vorpal weapons that you might be interested in.  I had posted it a while ago, but it's not near the front anymore.  Lemme go find it . . .

There it is!  Needs some tweaking, though . . .

First off, make Vorpal a +10 bonus instead of a +5.  Anyway, make all hits do double damage, doubling the damage AFTER *all other damage modifiers, including stuff that normally isn't counted in a critical hit such as sneak attack damage, flaming, etc.  This works on ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.  Next, all threats are automatically critical hits, and that damage is also doubled.  This, however, is subject to the normal critical hit rules, so some things are not hurt by it such as undead and elementals.  Finally, on a natural 20, treat it as a threat for an instant kill, as per the variant rule on DMG page 64.  This works on *anything with a Constitution score*, even if normally immune to criticals.  This makes the Vorpal power super-deadly and harder to get, and doesn't nerf it while not keeping it TOO powerful for the price of admission.

For a +5 variant, use the old "Sharpness" power.  For these weapons, all threats are automatically critical hits, subject to the normal critical hit rules of course.  Other than that, it works exactly as in the DMG except that the threat for a beheading is only on a natural 20.  All other restrictions still apply.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 10, 2003)

By the way, UK, I think I will actually test your CR/EL system in my current campaign.  The only house changes will be that I will give XP per creature instead of per encounter, and I will use the values I previous sent you for NPC classes.  Other than that, I will test them fully as-is in an actual campaign, a campaign that begins at Level 1.  I will report all results per game session.

Is there any other errata I need to know about besides what was on the first page of this thread?

Anyway, you have me pretty much convinced that this system works! 

I bet you figured this day would come all along, didn't ya'?


----------



## Gez (Feb 10, 2003)

Buon Giorno !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *True but something that was pointed out in the Andy Collins Forum thread was that odd ability scores are used for things like Feat Prerequistes among other things, so they are still pertinent.*




I have a different view on that, but maybe that's just because I'm a naughty person. Odd ability scores are irrelevant and useless, being like those half-ranks in cross-class skills, and the feat prerequisite thing is only an artificial _a posteriori_ attempt at making them look pertinent. 

In other words, this mechanism is there only to make people believe they still use the old D&D 3 -- 18 range, rather than Johnattan Tweet's Ars Magica's -5 -- +5 range.

Another thing to consider is that, since the average of 3 dice is 10.5, an average character will have 3 odds and 3 evens (for a truly average, 10-11-10-11-10-11).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 10, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Aw, c'mon!  In that case, you better bump up the save needed to prevent destruction!  It's only DC 15 as-is, which is hardly game-breaking.  If you make it work only on critical hits, bump up the DC to that of a coup de grace or something.  Gotta make it useful at least.*




DC becomes 21 as far as I can tell.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, I had a pretty good fix for Vorpal weapons that you might be interested in.  I had posted it a while ago, but it's not near the front anymore.  Lemme go find it . . .*




Sure.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There it is!  Needs some tweaking, though . . .
> 
> First off, make Vorpal a +10 bonus instead of a +5.*




Not sure the masses would go for it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, make all hits do double damage, doubling the damage AFTER *all other damage modifiers, including stuff that normally isn't counted in a critical hit such as sneak attack damage, flaming, etc.  This works on ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.  Next, all threats are automatically critical hits, and that damage is also doubled.  This, however, is subject to the normal critical hit rules, so some things are not hurt by it such as undead and elementals.  Finally, on a natural 20, treat it as a threat for an instant kill, as per the variant rule on DMG page 64.  This works on *anything with a Constitution score*, even if normally immune to criticals.  This makes the Vorpal power super-deadly and harder to get, and doesn't nerf it while not keeping it TOO powerful for the price of admission.*




Dunno; I'll have a think - seems a bit too complicated.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For a +5 variant, use the old "Sharpness" power.  For these weapons, all threats are automatically critical hits, subject to the normal critical hit rules of course.*




You are getting into dangerous territory here.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Other than that, it works exactly as in the DMG except that the threat for a beheading is only on a natural 20.  All other restrictions still apply. *




I think Vorpal needs to be divorced from Critical Hit because you can still decapitate certain undead and constructs it just won't necessarily kill them (corporeal Undead aside).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, UK, I think I will actually test your CR/EL system in my current campaign.  *




Thanks mate! Let me know if you find any loopholes?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The only house changes will be that I will give XP per creature instead of per encounter, and I will use the values I previous sent you for NPC classes.  *




Sure.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Other than that, I will test them fully as-is in an actual campaign, a campaign that begins at Level 1. I will report all results per game session.
> 
> Is there any other errata I need to know about besides what was on the first page of this thread? *




Probably. Let me think:

You know things are taken to 0.1 rather than 0.5 (eg. Spell resistance; Natural Armour etc.).
Round fractions to the nearest whole.
Energy Drain is +1.5 (One level drain) +0.5 extra level drained
Ability Score Drain is +0.75 (One point) +0.25 extra point
Flight is now +0.2 per maneouverability (eg. Poor to Perfect)

Incidently there is a whole lot of other stuff I am working on and I am still not settled with Spell-Like Abilities.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, you have me pretty much convinced that this system works!  *




About time! 

...couldn't have done it without the help of everyone here. Thanks all! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I bet you figured this day would come all along, didn't ya'?  *




It was preordained; we just had to wait for the appropriate celestial conjunction.


By the way, the most powerful weapon ability in the Immortals Handbook has a +1250 rating. It makes the Vorpal effect look like a paper cut. I don't expect it to see much use but I just thought I would throw it in to give people an idea how the big boys play.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 10, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Buon Giorno !*




Charbeetar! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I have a different view on that, but maybe that's just because I'm a naughty person. Odd ability scores are irrelevant and useless, being like those half-ranks in cross-class skills, and the feat prerequisite thing is only an artificial a posteriori attempt at making them look pertinent.
> 
> In other words, this mechanism is there only to make people believe they still use the old D&D 3 -- 18 range, rather than Johnattan Tweet's Ars Magica's -5 -- +5 range.
> 
> Another thing to consider is that, since the average of 3 dice is 10.5, an average character will have 3 odds and 3 evens (for a truly average, 10-11-10-11-10-11). *




Its not just Feat prerequisites. What about things like Ability Score Checks? Ability Score Drain/Loss?


----------



## Anubis (Feb 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> DC becomes 21 as far as I can tell.
> *




OH, so you were talking about the GREATER Disruption ability.  Assuming you made the same change to Disruption, however, I think you kinda nerfed these abilities . . .

DC 21?  That doesn't go far at Epic Levels . . .



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Sure.
> 
> Not sure the masses would go for it.
> ...




I dunno.  I just wanted to take some power out of it without nerfing it.  Say it only responds to life force or something.  Whatever.  It's magic!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Thanks mate! Let me know if you find any loopholes?
> 
> Sure.
> ...




Noted.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> About time!
> 
> ...couldn't have done it without the help of everyone here. Thanks all!
> ...




 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> By the way, the most powerful weapon ability in the Immortals Handbook has a +1250 rating. It makes the Vorpal effect look like a paper cut. I don't expect it to see much use but I just thought I would throw it in to give people an idea how the big boys play.
> *




          

+1250!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

DUDE!  The most powerful character in existence couldn't make such a weapon!  Hell, you'd need 3750 levels to even have the first prerequisite (caster level needing to be three times the bonus) met!

Hell, a +1250 weapon would have a market price of 31,250,000,000 gp, would cost 15,625,000,000 gp in raw materials and 312,510,000 XP, and would take almost 86 Greyhawk years to finish (WITH Efficient Item Creation)!

I still remember one time when you debated with me about all magical items having to have been created at some point . . . Who could possibly create such an item?  Or are we getting into Time Lord power levels here that would make Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta cry like a little girl?

What the heck does that thing do, detonate entire galaxies with a free action?


----------



## DarkElven (Feb 11, 2003)

So what happens when the player gets to big for their britches?

Player: You DARE to tell me that the army of greater gods manage to hit me for a point of damage? I'll TELL YOU how the multiverse works, not the other way around.

DM: Have you gone mad? You die.

Player: Pulls out super major artifact wand of DM control. Waves it in front of the DM. "I do not die."

DM: "You do not die"

Player: "You will bring me a coke"

DM: "I will bring you a coke."

How much is too much?


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 11, 2003)

+1250? DM control rod indeed (just what I need..hehe).

Sounds like a multiverse-changing Artifact, and you say thats an ability, so I can make a +13,000 Colossal Greatsword with a few of that ability, huh? That is if I'm an Elder God right?

I must say, unless this ability doesn't kill and Overgod in one hit, I might be a tad dissapointed, note - just a tad. 

And I must have missed your PDF on your ECL and CR rules, so a link would be cool, if you will.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 11, 2003)

Oh, and I rather you not spoil it, but maybe the name for this ability wouldn't be too much.


----------



## Impeesa (Feb 11, 2003)

Yes, do share the name at least. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Gez (Feb 11, 2003)

Tagazok !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Its not just Feat prerequisites. What about things like Ability Score Checks? *




They use the associated modifier, not the score.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Ability Score Drain/Loss? *




There, OK. But see the half-ranks, and consider also that 2d6 Con damage on a 3 -- 18 score is statistically about the same as 1d6 Con damage on a -5 -- +5 modifier.


D&D uses both, no question of that -- but the emphasis is on the modifier, not the score, so that the advantage of having a 15 rather than a 14 is rather weak: you just are nearer from the next increase, and you may qualify for some more feats. The former is logical and natural, but the later is wholly artificial and sounds like a poor attempt at justifying the existence of odd scores.

That said, I have no problem with them and use the system as it is.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *OH, so you were talking about the GREATER Disruption ability.  Assuming you made the same change to Disruption, however, I think you kinda nerfed these abilities . . .
> 
> DC 21?  That doesn't go far at Epic Levels . . .*




No I was talking about the Non-Epic Disruption ability.

The Epic Version disrupts on a hit (rather than a crit) and the DC is 29.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I dunno.  I just wanted to take some power out of it without nerfing it.  Say it only responds to life force or something.  Whatever.  It's magic! *




I just think the simpler the better.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *   ...
> 
> +1250!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *DUDE! *




SWEET! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The most powerful character in existence couldn't make such a weapon!  Hell, you'd need 3750 levels to even have the first prerequisite (caster level needing to be three times the bonus) met!
> 
> Hell, a +1250 weapon would have a market price of 31,250,000,000 gp, would cost 15,625,000,000 gp in raw materials and 312,510,000 XP, and would take almost 86 Greyhawk years to finish (WITH Efficient Item Creation)!*




Absolutely! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I still remember one time when you debated with me about all magical items having to have been created at some point . . .*




The majority of the powers I have created don't reach triple digits let alone four; but I thought I would metaphorically let my hair down and see what happened.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Who could possibly create such an item?  Or are we getting into Time Lord power levels here that would make Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta cry like a little girl?*




Beyond most Time Lords. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What the heck does that thing do, detonate entire galaxies with a free action? *




My lips are sealed.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Hi Dark Elven mate! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *So what happens when the player gets to big for their britches?*




Give them an EL+8 Encounter.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *Player: You DARE to tell me that the army of greater gods manage to hit me for a point of damage? I'll TELL YOU how the multiverse works, not the other way around.
> 
> DM: Have you gone mad? You die.
> 
> ...








			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *How much is too much?  *




When you can do anything and everything; and are in actuality supplanting the DM.

...then its too much.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf 97 mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> * +1250? DM control rod indeed (just what I need..hehe).
> 
> Sounds like a multiverse-changing Artifact,*




Absolutely! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> * and you say thats an ability,*




Yes. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> * so I can make a +13,000 Colossal Greatsword with a few of that ability, huh?*




Technically yes! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> * That is if I'm an Elder God right?*




You need to be a 'tad' more powerful than that. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> * I must say, unless this ability doesn't kill and Overgod in one hit, I might be a tad dissapointed, note - just a tad. *




Read the Immortals Handbook and find out. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> * And I must have missed your PDF on your ECL and CR rules, so a link would be cool, if you will. *




It can't be posted online because of the copyright infringements.

email me and I will send it to you.

agooddesigner@hotmail.com



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Oh, and I rather you not spoil it, but maybe the name for this ability wouldn't be too much. *




See below...

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Yes, do share the name at least.  *




Unfortunately its not cryptic enough - if I give away the name I will give away the power...which I don't want to do!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Tagazok !*




nuqneH! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *There, OK. But see the half-ranks, and consider also that 2d6 Con damage on a 3 -- 18 score is statistically about the same as 1d6 Con damage on a -5 -- +5 modifier.
> 
> D&D uses both, no question of that -- but the emphasis is on the modifier, not the score, so that the advantage of having a 15 rather than a 14 is rather weak: you just are nearer from the next increase, and you may qualify for some more feats. The former is logical and natural, but the later is wholly artificial and sounds like a poor attempt at justifying the existence of odd scores.
> 
> That said, I have no problem with them and use the system as it is. *




It also affects Carrying Capacity. 

Basically I am just trying to keep things as simple as possible.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> No I was talking about the Non-Epic Disruption ability.
> ...




I think that can be called overcompensation.  For a +6 ability to be able to kill even atropals automatically with a 65% success rate is a tad much.

Actually, uh . . . I need to change my stance here . . . I read up on the undead in both books and checked the abilities themselves (+2 and +6 respectively), and decided that both are perfectly fine as-is.

You see, undead have crappy Fortitude saves.  Even Nightcrawlers have only a +8, and Disruption is a +2 ability.  Greater Disruption is a +6 ability.  The best undead has a +22 save and is CR 50, and I think that something designed to challenge Level 50 characters damn well should be able to survive such abilities.

So in conclusion, I see nothing unbalanced with both abilities as-is.  Both have reasonable saves and conditions, so . . .

Perhaps you should make a +10 version called Ultimate Disruption that is DC 33?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I just think the simpler the better.
> *




Not always.  For something as powerful as Vorpal is supposed to be, it SHOULD be a bit complex.  It's not overly complex, after all.  Double all final damage, threats are automatically criticals unless the victim is immune, and anything with a Constitution score is a threat of an instant kill on a natural 20.  What's so complex about that?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> SWEET!
> ...




                    



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> My lips are sealed.
> *





Okay, how about you make up a new +1250 ability right here and now that is equally as powerful as the other and let us see it?  That way the ability in the book is still a surprise, but we get a general idea of how powerful it is?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> It also affects Carrying Capacity.
> 
> Basically I am just trying to keep things as simple as possible.
> *




Hate to do it (because I've been one of the people who thinks odd scores are useless), but I can help you here.

Strength changes carrying capacity.

Constitution, if you use my (much better than the core rules') death system of not dying until negative amount equal to Level plus Constitution, lets you go longer without dying.

Intelligence determines the maximum spell level for Intelligence-based spellcasting.

Wisdom determines the maximum spell level for Wisdom-based spellcasting.

Charisma determines the maximum spell level for Charisma-based spellcasting.

The only score that doesn't have any effect by the score itself is Dexterity, but that score is a prerequisite for some of the best feats and feat chains in the game, such as the Whirlwind Attack chain, Ambidexterity, etc.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 11, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Okay, how about you make up a new +1250 ability right here and now that is equally as powerful as the other and let us see it?  That way the ability in the book is still a surprise, but we get a general idea of how powerful it is?*




Oh god PLEASE!  Let us see the overwhelming orgasmic power of the +1250 equivalent weapon enchantment!  I'll send you roses, seriously, if you do.


----------



## Gez (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm not that interested in a +1250 weapon ability. I doubt I'll ever reach such a lofty height.

However, if you could give a sample of a +1249 weapon ability...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think that can be called overcompensation.  For a +6 ability to be able to kill even atropals automatically with a 65% success rate is a tad much.
> 
> Actually, uh . . . I need to change my stance here . . . I read up on the undead in both books and checked the abilities themselves (+2 and +6 respectively), and decided that both are perfectly fine as-is.
> 
> ...




Actually my revision of Mighty Disruption places it at +10.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not always.  For something as powerful as Vorpal is supposed to be, it SHOULD be a bit complex.  It's not overly complex, after all.  Double all final damage, threats are automatically criticals unless the victim is immune, and anything with a Constitution score is a threat of an instant kill on a natural 20.  What's so complex about that?*




Its not that its _so_ complex but rather that its more complex.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *   etc.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Okay, how about you make up a new +1250 ability right here and now that is equally as powerful as the other and let us see it?  That way the ability in the book is still a surprise, but we get a general idea of how powerful it is?*




Offhand I can't think of another +1250 ability. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hate to do it (because I've been one of the people who thinks odd scores are useless), but I can help you here.
> 
> Strength changes carrying capacity.
> 
> ...




Thanks.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Actually my revision of Mighty Disruption places it at +10.
> *




I think my idea is better . . . Talk about "more complex" . . . Why not keep the two the same, as they aren't AT ALL unbalanced, and then add a new one at +10?

I simply fail to see how Disruption and Mighty Disruption are unbalanced as-is.  Some others do need tweaking, but I see nothing at all wrong with those two.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Its not that its so complex but rather that its more complex.
> *




It pales in comparison to the complexity of your new system, ya' know.  I think a very small amount of complexity for such a big thing is perfectly fine, even necessary.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Offhand I can't think of another +1250 ability.
> *




How would you rate a weapon that can kill any deity of up to Greater Deity Status in one hit, Fortitude save DC 100?  How would you rate a weapon that deals an extra 100d100 force damage to an opponent?  How about a weapon with the ability to always maximize damage and then multiply it by 10?  How about an ability that multiples the critical multiplier by 10?  How about an ability that makes all hits automatic critical hits?  Just give us basic ideas of what pluses these abilities would be at.

Oh, how about an ability that kills anything and everything outright in one hit, regardless of level or deific status?  (In other words, one hit would kill even a Time Lord outright, no save allowed.)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Thanks.
> *




No problem!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Oh god PLEASE!  Let us see the overwhelming orgasmic power of the +1250 equivalent weapon enchantment!  I'll send you roses, seriously, if you do.    etc. *




Oh okay then; the ability is called "Exterminating" and it makes whatever you hit 'extinct'...all of them that is, throughout the multiverse. Fort DC to avoid is 1270.

eg. Hit one dragon and all the dragons in the multiverse are exterminated. etc.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Bonsoir mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I'm not that interested in a +1250 weapon ability. I doubt I'll ever reach such a lofty height.*




Most  (90%) of the powers I have created lie somewhere between +5 and +50. A few are beyond that.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *However, if you could give a sample of a +1249 weapon ability...  *




Effronte!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 11, 2003)

Hello again Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think my idea is better . . . Talk about "more complex" . . . Why not keep the two the same, as they aren't AT ALL unbalanced, and then add a new one at +10?*




Probably because I already show how to make a vorpal variant at +10 (up to +50 in fact*). 

*Yes thats it always decapitating.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I simply fail to see how Disruption and Mighty Disruption are unbalanced as-is.  Some others do need tweaking, but I see nothing at all wrong with those two.*




No point going into that now. I'll show all my reasoning in the book.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It pales in comparison to the complexity of your new system, ya' know.  I think a very small amount of complexity for such a big thing is perfectly fine, even necessary.*




I knew you were going to say that! 

But something should only be as complex as its form necessitates. The CR/EL system is complex in that it has to accurately cover myriad factors. The vorpal ability does not have myriad factors therefore you should make it as simple as you can.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How would you rate a weapon that can kill any deity of up to Greater Deity Status in one hit, Fortitude save DC 100?*




If you stipulated it only worked on Divine Beings then you could gain "God Slaying" (DC 109) at +50.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How would you rate a weapon that deals an extra 100d100 force damage to an opponent?*




If damage was delivered 'every hit' (on average +5050 damage) then you would have to say +2525.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How about a weapon with the ability to always maximize damage and then multiply it by 10?*




The problem with that type of ability (damage multipliers) is that its going to be much more attractive to someone wielding a Greatsword than a Dagger.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How about an ability that multiples the critical multiplier by 10?*




Do you mean adds 10 to the existing multiplier (I have that ability its called "Devastating"**); or one that multiplies the multiplier? I don't think multiplying the multiplier is wise. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How about an ability that makes all hits automatic critical hits?*




Already have that. The ability is called "Rending"**. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Just give us basic ideas of what pluses these abilities would be at.*




Just did, anymore?

**No point giving away details to stuff I already have.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Oh, how about an ability that kills anything and everything outright in one hit, regardless of level or deific status?  (In other words, one hit would kill even a Time Lord outright, no save allowed.)*




Mmmm. I don't like 'no save' situations; especially since DCs scale indefinately. But you can always raise the DCs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *No problem! *


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally Posted By Upper_Krust_
> Oh okay then; the ability is called "Exterminating" and it makes whatever you hit 'extinct'...all of them that is, throughout the multiverse. Fort DC to avoid is 1270.




Whoa, I could use that on my DM, but then I DM games also...Dang


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 12, 2003)

*Over the edge*

*Starbreaker*
Starbreaking weapon, when used against a star, cause the star to immediately begin the process of erupting in to a supernova explosion.  The explosion occurs in 1d4 hours and can only be stopped by epic magic.  The explosion erradicates the star and does [absurd number]d100 heat damage to all targets affected, plus [absurd number]d10 doses of radation.

What plus?

*Splattering*
Splattering weapons must be bludgeoning weapons.  A Splattering weapon inflicts all damage to living targets as Constitution damage, and also functions as a quadruple-strength Wounding weapon.

What plus?

*Merciless*
Merciless weapons, when used for a Coup De Grace attack, allow the Coup De Grace to be made as a free action, with a +30 bonus to the Fortitude DC.

What plus?


----------



## Gez (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Over the edge*



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Starbreaker
> Starbreaking weapon, when used against a star, cause the star to immediately begin the process of erupting in to a supernova explosion.  The explosion occurs in 1d4 hours and can only be stopped by epic magic.  The explosion erradicates the star and does [absurd number]d100 heat damage to all targets affected, plus [absurd number]d10 doses of radation.
> 
> What plus?*




I've no idea of the +, but such a weapon would have to be at least size Colossal+64 (Colossal+1 is double the minimum size for Colossal, Colosaal+2 is double the size of Colossal+1, etc.).

Or you could make it a projectile-only ability. That would require a distance enchantment at +600. Like the sun-killing arrows of the Great Archer Yi. Although Yi would not have wanted his arrows to turn the 9 excedentary suns into supernovae, black holes, or anything equally annoying. But maybe he just got lucky and only targeted _mirror images_ of the real sun.


----------



## Ashardalon (Feb 12, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *eg. Hit one dragon and all the dragons in the multiverse are exterminated. etc. *




Certainly you mean that red dragons are immune, right?  

Seriously, would it affect all dragons of all variants, or just one variant? (eg. hit one of those annoying golds, and only the golds die?)


----------



## Ashardalon (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Over the edge*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *
> I've no idea of the +, but such a weapon would have to be at least size Colossal+64 (Colossal+1 is double the minimum size for Colossal, Colosaal+2 is double the size of Colossal+1, etc.).*




Unless used from within the sun. This illithid is unpredictable in this regard.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 12, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf 97 mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Whoa, I could use that on my DM, but then I DM games also...Dang *




Dark Wolf let me know if you received my email? I tried sending it to you via hotmail three times but it didn't work (said something about your address doesn't exist which seemed anachronistic). So I used another email address and it seems to have worked - but let me know just to be on the safe side.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Over the edge*

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Starbreaker
> Starbreaking weapon, when used against a star, cause the star to immediately begin the process of erupting in to a supernova explosion.  The explosion occurs in 1d4 hours and can only be stopped by epic magic.  The explosion erradicates the star and does [absurd number]d100 heat damage to all targets affected, plus [absurd number]d10 doses of radation.
> 
> What plus?*




There are a number of problems in detailing this weapon. Firstly who in their right mind would ever put the ability in a melee weapon ~ so as Gez attests its more likely to be a missile weapon.

Secondly; regarding damage I think this is one of those cases where you might as well just put down that everything in the blast radius is destroyed; certainly all orbiting planets would be obliterated.

As such its going to have to be a case of my best estimate rating the power at +160 pending a closer review.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Splattering
> Splattering weapons must be bludgeoning weapons.  A Splattering weapon inflicts all damage to living targets as Constitution damage, and also functions as a quadruple-strength Wounding weapon.
> 
> What plus?*




Two problems again; firstly the weapon would deal no damage against beings with no Con score. Secondly the effect is going to be different depending on the weapon itself if you maintain the HP damage/Con Damage switch (which I don't recommend).

Quadruple strength Wounding effect is merely +8.

Constitution damage +8 per hit would cost +25.

If it was the Constitution damage you wanted to continue dropping (instead of hit points) then an extra +80 would give you -4/additional round.

So +105 for a weapon that delivers 8 CON damage per hit with 4 CON damage each subsequent round.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Merciless
> Merciless weapons, when used for a Coup De Grace attack, allow the Coup De Grace to be made as a free action, with a +30 bonus to the Fortitude DC.
> 
> What plus? *




Looks like +20.

Any others - I am enjoying this!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Over the edge*

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I've no idea of the +, but such a weapon would have to be at least size Colossal+64 (Colossal+1 is double the minimum size for Colossal, Colosaal+2 is double the size of Colossal+1, etc.).*




Presumably you would only need to thrust it into the sun to cause the effect.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Or you could make it a projectile-only ability. That would require a distance enchantment at +600.*




I thought epic characters can already hit any target they can see.

One of the problems with firing the 'arrow' from an orbiting planet is that it may take several years to reach the sun! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Like the sun-killing arrows of the Great Archer Yi. Although Yi would not have wanted his arrows to turn the 9 excedentary suns into supernovae, black holes, or anything equally annoying. But maybe he just got lucky and only targeted mirror images of the real sun. *




Presumably this refers to escapades in the IR thread? I really should catch up.


----------



## Gez (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Over the edge*

Hello,



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Presumably this refers to escapades in the IR thread? I really should catch up.  *




Not at all -- this comes from Asian (Chinese, probably) myth, as far as I can trust White Wolf on the matter. For a reason I have forgotten, the sun decupled itself, and the ten suns' light and heat was beginning to destroy all life on the world, drying rivers, wilting plants, etc. The Great Archer Yi shot 9 arrows at 9 of the suns, destroying each one with one arrow, so the world was back to a normal situation: only one sun.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 12, 2003)

Hi Ashardalon mate! 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *Certainly you mean that red dragons are immune, right?  *




There are ways individuals could be immune other than making the save DC of 1270...but its unlikely. 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *Seriously, would it affect all dragons of all variants, or just one variant? (eg. hit one of those annoying golds, and only the golds die?) *




It would affect as per opponent 'type' as represented with the extended Bane/Dread table in the ELH.

So all those with the dragon 'type' would be affected.

You could conceivably make a weaker version that further subdivided the scope of the effect of course.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 12, 2003)

Hmmm



> _Originally posted by Upper Krust_
> Dark Wolf let me know if you received my email? I tried sending it to you via hotmail three times but it didn't work (said something about your address doesn't exist which seemed anachronistic). So I used another email address and it seems to have worked - but let me know just to be on the safe side.




Unfortunatly I have not recieved it. My email is (just in case):
DARK_WOLF97@hotmail.com  

But if I don't get it this time, do not worry about, I can wait a few more months.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 12, 2003)

Alright, let's see what else I can cook up.  Feel free to toss any of these in to the IH if you want!  It would make me giggle.

*Shredding*
A Shredding weapon makes all secondary attacks at maximum bonus as though they were primary attacks.  For example, a 20th level fighter normally makes four attacks in a full attack action, at +20/+15/+10/+5.  If he was wielding a Shredding weapon, his attacks would be made at +20/+20/+20/+20.

*Projecting*
Only melee weapons can be projecting.  A projecting weapon can be used to strike opponents within 30 feet of the weapons reach as though they were within reach.  You can flank an opponent using a projecting weapon.  A projecting weapon is a force-based effect, and extends in to the ethereal plane.

*Eradicating*
On a natural 20, an Eradicating weapon rerolls a second attack as though threatening a critical hit.  If this threat is verified, the target must make a Will save equal to 1/2 the damage dealt or be Teleported in to a random black hole lightyears away from the current location.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 12, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf 97 mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Unfortunatly I have not recieved it. My email is (just in case):
> DARK_WOLF97@hotmail.com  *




I just sent it again to the new email address provided - seems to have worked...let me know.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *But if I don't get it this time, do not worry about, I can wait a few more months.  *




Muts just be a temporary email glitch. I am confident it has worked now.



Incidently I have solved the Spell Resistance determination that was plagueing me for the past few weeks. I still need to do some more testing but it seems to give great results.

Essentially:

1. Total every 'At Will' Spell-like ability Level.
2. Those listed as 1/day are divided by 5 (2/day = 2/5ths; 3/day = 3/5ths; 4/day = 4/5ths; 5 or mor times per day are treated as 'At Will'.)
3. Multiply the total by Spellcaster Level.
4. Divide final figure by 1000 to find CR modifier.

eg. Balor

At Will = 66 Levels 
1/day = 17 divided by 5 = 3.4
69.4 x 20th level = 1388
1388 divided by 1000 = +1.38 CR (+1.4*)

*I would suggest just rounding the second decimal.

For Epic Spells instead of using Spell Level use the Spellcraft DC

Some others:

Infernal = +3.7
Solar = +2
Pit Fiend = +1.2
Vrock = +0.3
Dretch = +0.02 (0)

Any comments? I still need to do some more tests.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 12, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Alright, let's see what else I can cook up.  Feel free to toss any of these in to the IH if you want!  It would make me giggle.*




I may just do that! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Shredding
> A Shredding weapon makes all secondary attacks at maximum bonus as though they were primary attacks.  For example, a 20th level fighter normally makes four attacks in a full attack action, at +20/+15/+10/+5.  If he was wielding a Shredding weapon, his attacks would be made at +20/+20/+20/+20.*




I like both the name and the idea - though I don't see them fitting each other.

Seems like a +5 bonus.

Very nice. Kudos. Annoyed that I never thought of it! 

I'll have to add your name to the IH special thanks on the credits page. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Projecting
> Only melee weapons can be projecting.  A projecting weapon can be used to strike opponents within 30 feet of the weapons reach as though they were within reach.  You can flank an opponent using a projecting weapon.  A projecting weapon is a force-based effect, and extends in to the ethereal plane.*




I already have this weapon effect; though I call it "Lashing".



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Eradicating
> On a natural 20, an Eradicating weapon rerolls a second attack as though threatening a critical hit.  If this threat is verified, the target must make a Will save equal to 1/2 the damage dealt or be Teleported in to a random black hole lightyears away from the current location. *




Seems a bit contrived. Also never happy when DC is related to damage.

I actually have a black hole based weapon ability but it doesn't work anything like the above idea.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 13, 2003)

Hello Upper Krust!

I did indeed recieve, the email, and as soon as I am typing this up, I willl proceed to review. Thank you very much!


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 13, 2003)

Very Nice Upper Krust! 

Of course I have to get out my books and test some of this, but it appears to be good, despite what many are criticizing. Although many of your udated challenge ratings will be radically changed by 3.5 (if the Pit Fiend is any indication). 

With the revised Pit Fiend I calculated 37.5 CR, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Which makes it EL 21 (on one chart it shows the old one is EL 21, but by your system it is incorrect, the encounter type chart on the Pit Fiend-fodder, irrelevent...) So 4-5 characters of CR 32-39 should stand up to this guy pretty easily?

What about magical items, I have always seen those as increasing CR, or should their abilities be factored in (CR +.5 for Flying Boots?)?

And oh yes, I love the layout, will this be changed, or perhaps in color? I have trouble admiring non-colored monsters.

  I'm quite pleased!


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 13, 2003)

*More weapon abilities!*

*Maiming*
All damage done by a Maiming weapon (not counting bonus damage from enchantments such as Flaming, but counting bonus damage from abilities such as Sneak Attack) is permanent.  It can only be healed by a Heal spell or equivalent magic, and even such potent healing spells will only restore one hit point per caster level.  Chronomantic spells that pull a target forward in time from before the wounds were inflicted will restore this damage entirely.

*Foreverblade*
On a critical hit, a weapon with this enchantment spawns a spectral copy of itself that follows the target and unerringly strikes him, once per round, for normal, non-critical damage, as though wielded by the person who inflicted the critical hit, until the spectral copy is dispelled or disjoined (effective caster level something something) or until the target dies.
A lesser version of this effect, Twinblade, spawns a spectral copy that strikes once, the following round, and then vanishes.

*Heartraper*
A Heartraping weapon causes bonus damage dice from sneak attack to deal maximum damage.

*Solar*
A Solar weapon glows brightly, continually shedding light as a Daylight spell.  It can critically hit undead, and when it does it forces them to make a Fortitude save (DC 64) or be Helpless with writhing agony for 3d6 rounds.

*Dark Matter*
A Dark Matter weapon sucks in light, continually shedding blackness as a Deeper Darkness spell.  It can critically hit any creature with a Constitution score, and upon a critical hit, the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 64) or receive 2d6 negative levels, fortitude save to remove DC 32.

*Snail-Spawning*
This weapon, when used by a wielder with both Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack, may spawn an infinite number of snails per round.  These snails are magically attracted to the blade, giving no chance of missing.  In this way a wielder of a snail-spawning weapon can unleash an infinite number of attacks per round, and thus instantly annihilate the entire multiverse if he's willing to roll that many dice.

*Oneiromantic*
Anyone struck by this weapon instantly falls asleep for one round.  No saving throw.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 13, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Hello Upper Krust!*




Hi Dark Wolf 97 mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I did indeed recieve, the email, and as soon as I am typing this up, I willl proceed to review. Thank you very much! *




Don't mention it - least I could do.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Very Nice Upper Krust!*




Of course I have to get out my books and test some of this, but it appears to be good, despite what many are criticizing. Although many of your udated challenge ratings will be radically changed by 3.5 (if the Pit Fiend is any indication).

As you can see yourself the revised creatures are just as easily determined. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *With the revised Pit Fiend I calculated 37.5 CR, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong.*




Its been a few weeks since I looked at it but I seem to remember I though it was in around CR 38.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Which makes it EL 21 (on one chart it shows the old one is EL 21, but by your system it is incorrect, the encounter type chart on the Pit Fiend-fodder, irrelevent...) So 4-5 characters of CR 32-39 should stand up to this guy pretty easily?*




Seemingly I have mistakenly put the Pit Fiend down as EL 21 in that example ~ when it should be EL 19.  

Must be a typo ~ as you can see from the Mixed Opponents section that two Pit Fiends are EL 21.

However the Revised Pit Fiend should be EL 21 by itself ~ so it could use that example.

For the Pit Fiend it should be:

Irrelevant Encounter for PEL 28 or more
Very Easy ~ PEL 24-27
Easy ~ PEL 20-23
Moderate ~ PEL 19
Difficult ~ PEL 15-18
Very Difficult ~ PEL 11-14
Impossible ~ PEL 10 or less



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *What about magical items, I have always seen those as increasing CR, or should their abilities be factored in (CR +.5 for Flying Boots?)?*




They are already factored in for PCs and NPCs - though I will be adding a wealth factor in the final version.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And oh yes, I love the layout, will this be changed,*




There will be some small changes; there are a few things I am unhappy with.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *or perhaps in color? I have trouble admiring non-colored monsters.*




I am discussing with a friend the possiblity of a colour version; though in all likelihood the print version will be in B&W (as virtually all non-WotC books are) so it would make undertaking a colour version somewhat futile.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *  I'm quite pleased! *




Glad to hear it!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: More weapon abilities!*

Hello again mate! 

Back for more eh!? 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Maiming
> All damage done by a Maiming weapon (not counting bonus damage from enchantments such as Flaming, but counting bonus damage from abilities such as Sneak Attack) is permanent.  It can only be healed by a Heal spell or equivalent magic, and even such potent healing spells will only restore one hit point per caster level.  Chronomantic spells that pull a target forward in time from before the wounds were inflicted will restore this damage entirely.*




I have this although the damage can't be healed. 

I call it "Unfading".



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Foreverblade
> On a critical hit, a weapon with this enchantment spawns a spectral copy of itself that follows the target and unerringly strikes him, once per round, for normal, non-critical damage, as though wielded by the person who inflicted the critical hit, until the spectral copy is dispelled or disjoined (effective caster level something something) or until the target dies.
> A lesser version of this effect, Twinblade, spawns a spectral copy that strikes once, the following round, and then vanishes.*




Mmmm...seems a little too close to Dancing and Everdancing weapons.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Heartraper
> A Heartraping weapon causes bonus damage dice from sneak attack to deal maximum damage.*




I would rate this at +1.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Solar
> A Solar weapon glows brightly, continually shedding light as a Daylight spell.  It can critically hit undead, and when it does it forces them to make a Fortitude save (DC 64) or be Helpless with writhing agony for 3d6 rounds.*




I have a weapon ability called "Devastating" that allows critical hits on things that can't be criticalled.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Dark Matter
> A Dark Matter weapon sucks in light, continually shedding blackness as a Deeper Darkness spell.  It can critically hit any creature with a Constitution score, and upon a critical hit, the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 64) or receive 2d6 negative levels, fortitude save to remove DC 32.*




No doubt the counterpart to the _Solar_ weapon above. 

Losing 2d6 Levels on a Critical Hit is +9 in itself (DC 26).



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Snail-Spawning
> This weapon, when used by a wielder with both Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack, may spawn an infinite number of snails per round.  These snails are magically attracted to the blade, giving no chance of missing.  In this way a wielder of a snail-spawning weapon can unleash an infinite number of attacks per round, and thus instantly annihilate the entire multiverse if he's willing to roll that many dice.*




Wouldn't spawning an infinite number of snails on the first attack render the universe full to the brim with them?



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> * Oneiromantic
> Anyone struck by this weapon instantly falls asleep for one round.  No saving throw. *




The Snoozemaster 9000. 

Firstly some creatures don't sleep (so won't 'fall' asleep). Secondly I am never happy with 'no saving throw' ideas.

However, I would say that a +5 weapon enchantment would force a save (DC 16) or fall asleep. With ever the option of buffing the DC of course.


----------



## Gez (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: More weapon abilities!*

*Maiming*

That looks a bit like unaligned Vile damage.

*Heartraper*

MUST HAVE !!!

'Scuse-me, a character of mine just spoke there.

*Solar* & *Dark Matter*

Flavorful.

*Snail-Spawning*

Outside a book in the _Portable Hole Full of Beer_ serie (love the "dead" template, by the way), I don't see where it could get published.

*Oneiromantic*

I could see it as a vorpal-like effect for blunt weapons. If you crit, you bash in the head hard enough to knock the guy/girl/thing/whatever. Typical enchantment for rolling pins. A whole 30% of them also create 36 floating immaterial candles that circle around the victim's head like ioun stones, and provide lights like a _dancing lights_ spell. The candle meld normally, and are totally used-up when the victim awakens.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 13, 2003)

*The Heartraper*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I would rate this at +1.
> *




Maybe its just me, but that seems a bit too low...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: The Heartraper*

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Maybe its just me, but that seems a bit too low... *




Possibly...?

The effect more or less doubles your average sneak attack damage.

But it is limited to both who can use it (Rogues) and the application itself (Sneak Attacks).

However, the main problem with this type of weapon is that the greater your sneak attack ability the greater the power bestowed upon you.

Which is probably why all such powers in the past (I'm sure I have seen something like this somewhere) have added damage to your sneak attack rather than provide an actual  multiplier.

Personally I would allow +1d6 Sneak Attack damage per '+'.


Incidently I'll just edit this with a link which shows the new artists working on the Thor comic:

http://www.marvel.com/transport.htm...ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000139

Thor:

http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/Thor61cover.jpg

Thor and the Enchantress:

http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/Thor62cover.jpg

Heimdall:

http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/Thor63cover.jpg

Loki:

http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/THOR064covb_100.jpg

Variety of Gods:

http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/THOR061006b.jpg

Thor versus a pseudonatural werewolf?

http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/THOR061008.jpg


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 13, 2003)

*Armor enchantments!*

*Chronoslipping*
Whenever the wearer Chronoslip armor is targetted by an attack that would inflict negative levels, hit point damage, or ability damage, and the attack would successfully strike him, he is transported in to the future before he is affected.  He is transported as far in to the future as is necessary to avoid the brunt of the attack, up to the limit of the armor  Lesser Chronoslip will transport the wearer forward in time exactly one round, and only once per day.  Standard Chronoslip will transport the wearer forward in time up to one minute, and twice per day.  Greater Chronoslip will transport the wearer forward in time up to one hour, and four times per day.

[/b]Chronojack[/b]
The wearer of Chronojack armor can cast a Time Stop effect on himself once per day.  It lasts 3 rounds, and functions exactly as the Time Stop spell.

*Solar*
Solar armor continually radiates positive energy, as a 25th level cleric with the Positive Energy Aura feat.  It extends thirty feet from the wearer.  All undead with 10 HD or less are automatically destroyed - All undead with 20 HD or less are automatically turned.

*Dark Matter*
Dark Matter armor continually radiates negative energy in an aura extending thirty feet from the wearer.  All within the aura suffer 10 negative levels until they leave the area of effect unless they are under the effect of a Death Ward, Negative Energy Protection, or similar effect, in which case they suffer 1 negative level until they leave the area of effect.

*Spelljamming*
Armor with the Spelljamming trait exists only in the Spelljammer universe.  It functions as a Spelljammer, complete with Spelljamming helm, allowing someone wearing it to travel between planets with no other equipment.  Someone wearing Spelljamming armor does not need to breathe, eat, sleep, drink, or excrete wastes.  They can Fly, as per the spell, with a maximum speed of 6750 feet per round (approximately the speed of sound) at a maneuverability of Clumsy.  Once free of the relative gravity of other objects, it can accelerate to the cruising speeds of a Spelljammer.

*Starstriding*
Starstriding armor grants the wearer complete Fire and Radiation immunity, while reducing dangerously high gravitational effects by up to 10,000 g's.

*Singularity*
Singularity armor can reduce dangerously high gravitational effects to 1 g or less, even on the surface of a supermassive black hole.

*Worming*
Worming armor grants the wearer a Burrow speed.  Lesser Worming grants speed 10 through soil and clay, Worming grants speed 20 through stone, and Greater Worming grants speed 30 through normal metals (not Adamantite or Obdurium.)


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Armor enchantments!*



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Singularity*
> Singularity armor can reduce dangerously high gravitational effects to 1 g or less, even on the surface of a supermassive black hole.



I just hada flash-back to the time I first posted on EN-World. This ability is perfect for one of the suits of the Servants of Matter.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 13, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I like both the name and the idea - though I don't see them fitting each other.
> 
> Seems like a +5 bonus.
> *




+5 for something that allows all attacks at the BAB?  Um, you might wanna rethink that.  Consider a Level 10 Tempest with a pair of Bladed Gauntlets of Speed +1 . . . For a total of two +10 weapons, that guy will be dealing HUNDREDS of points of damage per round to almost anything, getting 10 attacks at full bonuses with no penalties.  Uh, no way.

Speed gives an extra attack at full BAB for a +4.  This gives you quite a bit more than that, and thus should be rated AT LEAST +10 or +12.


----------



## Gez (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: The Heartraper*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Personally I would allow +1d6 Sneak Attack damage per '+'.
> *




I think that's not enough -- a +1 should give +2d6 sneak attack. Why ? Because a +1 ability could give +1d6 energy damage, that would apply more often than sneak attacks.

On the other hand, SAD apply more often than bane weapon damage. 3d6 per +2 ?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Armor enchantments!*

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 

Turned your hand to armours I see! I could probably do with some more armour abilities.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Chronoslipping
> Whenever the wearer Chronoslip armor is targetted by an attack that would inflict negative levels, hit point damage, or ability damage, and the attack would successfully strike him, he is transported in to the future before he is affected.  He is transported as far in to the future as is necessary to avoid the brunt of the attack, up to the limit of the armor  Lesser Chronoslip will transport the wearer forward in time exactly one round, and only once per day.  Standard Chronoslip will transport the wearer forward in time up to one minute, and twice per day.  Greater Chronoslip will transport the wearer forward in time up to one hour, and four times per day.*




I'm not totally sure how beneficial this is. If the opponent knows about the armour it could prove detrimental; giving them time to establish an ambush.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Chronojack
> The wearer of Chronojack armor can cast a Time Stop effect on himself once per day.  It lasts 3 rounds, and functions exactly as the Time Stop spell.*




+9



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Solar
> Solar armor continually radiates positive energy, as a 25th level cleric with the Positive Energy Aura feat.  It extends thirty feet from the wearer.  All undead with 10 HD or less are automatically destroyed - All undead with 20 HD or less are automatically turned.*




Depends on whether its Clerics only or available to anyone.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Dark Matter
> Dark Matter armor continually radiates negative energy in an aura extending thirty feet from the wearer.  All within the aura suffer 10 negative levels until they leave the area of effect unless they are under the effect of a Death Ward, Negative Energy Protection, or similar effect, in which case they suffer 1 negative level until they leave the area of effect.*




Maybe +20.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Spelljamming
> Armor with the Spelljamming trait exists only in the Spelljammer universe.  It functions as a Spelljammer, complete with Spelljamming helm, allowing someone wearing it to travel between planets with no other equipment.  Someone wearing Spelljamming armor does not need to breathe, eat, sleep, drink, or excrete wastes.  They can Fly, as per the spell, with a maximum speed of 6750 feet per round (approximately the speed of sound) at a maneuverability of Clumsy.  Once free of the relative gravity of other objects, it can accelerate to the cruising speeds of a Spelljammer.*




Not sure I know enough about Spelljammers in general to determine this one.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Starstriding
> Starstriding armor grants the wearer complete Fire and Radiation immunity, while reducing dangerously high gravitational effects by up to 10,000 g's.*




Depends how prevailant Radiation and Gravity are in the campaign.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Singularity
> Singularity armor can reduce dangerously high gravitational effects to 1 g or less, even on the surface of a supermassive black hole.*




All sounds a bit sci-fi orientated. 

If you are incorporeal you could survive within a Black Hole.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Worming
> Worming armor grants the wearer a Burrow speed.  Lesser Worming grants speed 10 through soil and clay, Worming grants speed 20 through stone, and Greater Worming grants speed 30 through normal metals (not Adamantite or Obdurium.) *




Lesser +3

Greater +5


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Armor enchantments!*

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I just hada flash-back to the time I first posted on EN-World. This ability is perfect for one of the suits of the Servants of Matter.  *




What happened to your link to the Perry Rhodan thread mate?


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 13, 2003)

Solar is intended to be available to anyone.

In retrospect, Sunstriding shouldn't be a unique ability.  There should be

*Acid Immunity*
*Fire Immunity*
*Cold Immunity*
*Lightning Immunity*
*Sonic Immunity*
*Antigravity*
*Singularity*

With the values of each independent.

*Bladebreeding*
All surfaces within 50 feet of a person wearing bladebreeding armor spontaneously sprout razors as per the Relics and Rituals 2 spell Razor Field.  These razors last as long as the armor wearer remains within 50 feet, and fade as soon as the armor wearer leaves.  The armor wearer is immune to these blades.  Only armor equipped with +1 Armor Spikes can have the Bladebreeding enhancement.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 13, 2003)

Hi Guys! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *+5 for something that allows all attacks at the BAB?  Um, you might wanna rethink that.  Consider a Level 10 Tempest with a pair of Bladed Gauntlets of Speed +1 . . . For a total of two +10 weapons, that guy will be dealing HUNDREDS of points of damage per round to almost anything, getting 10 attacks at full bonuses with no penalties.  Uh, no way.
> 
> Speed gives an extra attack at full BAB for a +4.  This gives you quite a bit more than that, and thus should be rated AT LEAST +10 or +12. *




Well the ability bestows an average of +10 to hit on subsequent attacks; which would give it a +5 bonus.

Again this is one of those powers that is better the higher level you are. In fact you wouldn't gain any benefit unless you were over 5th-level.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I think that's not enough -- a +1 should give +2d6 sneak attack. Why ? Because a +1 ability could give +1d6 energy damage, that would apply more often than sneak attacks.
> 
> On the other hand, SAD apply more often than bane weapon damage. 3d6 per +2 ?*




Energy Damage is +1d6/ per +2

I know you don't have the ELH mate. They have a weapon in that (Acidic* Blast) which adds +3d6 and is +6

*and other energy types.


----------



## Gez (Feb 13, 2003)

DMG, page 185, table 8-15:

Flaming: +1 bonus
Frost: +1 bonus
Shock: +1 bonus

Magic of Faerûn, page 139, table 6-3:
Corrosive: +1 bonus
Screaming: +1 bonus


Each of these enchantment deal +1d6 point of energy damage (fire, cold, electricity, acid and sonic respectively) and that is not multiplied by critical hits.

That's why I said energy damage costed +1 per d6.

Now, maybe the ELH changed that for energy damage that can be stacked _ad infinitum_ rather than being taken only once. But IMO, a dagger that would give a rogue wielder +1d6 of sneak attack damage would be extra-weak, as it would be limited by class, nature of the opponent, and circumstance of combat (people tend to forget concealment negates sneak attack, even if you're not immune to it). That's why I stay by my +2d6 sneak attack damage for a +1 ability.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson (Feb 14, 2003)

*Face-seeking weapons*

Forgive me in advance, I'm not good with mechanics, so...yeah...

*Face-Seeking* 
On a critical hit, instead of dealing damge, the weapon causes the opponent to lose an amount of charisma equal to the damage the weapon would've dealt had it not been a critical.  
i.e. face seeking greatsword: on a critical the attackee loses 2d6 cha.  

Did that make any sense at all?  Is it any good...


----------



## Gez (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: Face-seeking weapons*



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Forgive me in advance, I'm not good with mechanics, so...yeah...
> 
> Face-Seeking
> On a critical hit, instead of dealing damge, the weapon causes the opponent to lose an amount of charisma equal to the damage the weapon would've dealt had it not been a critical.
> ...




The problem is that it ties Charisma to beauty (long debate).

I could imagine more easily damage to Int (brain damage) or Wis (weakened eyes/ears).


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 14, 2003)

Just some ideas from Denmarkia. Since im not the most well-informed person out there, I don't know if any of these effects have already been invented.

MAGIC DISSOLVING
Each hit causes an effect equal to that of Dispel Magic. Using the wielders caster level to determine the effect, the target is affected as by a Dispel Magic targeting the highest level spell on the person. It can also be used on people who wish to get rid of a negative-effect spell, even though it be used to dispel anything but the highest level spell affecting the target (the wielder rolling a dice to determine which spell is dispelled, in case of more spells of the same level affecting the person). 

Greater Magic Dissolving affects it's target on all hits
Equal to a +4 bonus

Lesser Magic Dissolving only affects it's target on critical hits
Equal to a +2 Bonus

GOD-HATER
A person suffering a critical by the weapon gains spell resistance 35 against divine magic for the next 1d6+1 rounds. Any divine spells already in effect have to penetrate the spell resistance or be dispelled. This means that not even healing spells or potions can be used. If the target is a divine spellcaster, he has to penetrate the spell resistance when casting spells himself, even if the spells aren't cast on himself. GOD-HATING weapons cause 2d6 points of extra damage against any kinds of Outsiders, including demi-gods, deities and avatars. 
The wielder of GOD-HATING weapons takes 1d4 points of damage / spell level from any divine spell cast on him, both harmful and beneficial spells. Thus, Cure Light Wounds would heal 1d8+CL hit points, but cause 1d4 points of damage as well.

God-Hater counts as a +3 bonus


JESTER
A JESTER weapon is blessed by the gods of humour. Any time a person makes a fumble while wielding a JESTING sword, he is healed of 1d8+5 points of damage as the gods of laughter and joy bless him for lightening up their day. This effect of a JESTING weapon only happens when the wielder is fighting opponents for real. It doesn't occur when undertaking friendly training fights with allies. 

Jester counts as a +1 bonus



Im not sure about the effective + bonusses. Im not good at that part of creating magical items (and I hardly care when creating some for my players).


----------



## Impeesa (Feb 14, 2003)

What about....

*Greater Shredding*
Melee weapons only. For every attack made with the weapon, make an additional attack at your highest base attack bonus.

*Nullification*
Anyone who takes a successful hit from a Nullification weapon must make a will save (DC 10 + wielder's cha mod + 1/2 wielder's level) or have all single-target spells currently affecting them dispelled, have all magic items on their person permanently drained, and lose all spellcasting/spell-like abilities permanently (as if successfully disjoining an artifact and being very unlucky). 

Although I can't imagine you not coming up with the last one already. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 14, 2003)

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Each of these enchantment deal +1d6 point of energy damage (fire, cold, electricity, acid and sonic respectively) and that is not multiplied by critical hits.
> 
> That's why I said energy damage costed +1 per d6.
> 
> Now, maybe the ELH changed that for energy damage that can be stacked ad infinitum rather than being taken only once. *




Not necessarily but I think that the energy damage actually multiplying on a critical is pertinent.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *But IMO, a dagger that would give a rogue wielder +1d6 of sneak attack damage would be extra-weak, as it would be limited by class, nature of the opponent, and circumstance of combat (people tend to forget concealment negates sneak attack, even if you're not immune to it). That's why I stay by my +2d6 sneak attack damage for a +1 ability. *




I am sceptical about making the damage more than (or even the same as) a Bane weapon, though perhaps this should be investigated further...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: Face-seeking weapons*

Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Forgive me in advance, I'm not good with mechanics, so...yeah...*




Are you an alias for Skip Williams? 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Face-Seeking
> On a critical hit, instead of dealing damge, the weapon causes the opponent to lose an amount of charisma equal to the damage the weapon would've dealt had it not been a critical.
> i.e. face seeking greatsword: on a critical the attackee loses 2d6 cha.
> 
> Did that make any sense at all?  Is it any good... *




Well as Gez points out Charisma is not necessarily beauty. Also its generally not a good idea to tie a weapons abilities to the amount of damage it deals (since then you have the problem of the effect meaning different things to different weapons).

I have some ability score draining variants in the Immortals Handbook though; so you could technically say I already have the above ability catered for...in a variety of different flavours too.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Armor enchantments!*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Knight Otu mate!
> What happened to your link to the Perry Rhodan thread mate? *




You mean the one in my sig? It's still there, I just chose to turn it off for this post.

I guess I should dig up the list of powers that the Suits had.  
Remember the one which doubled learning speed?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 14, 2003)

Hi there Clay_More! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Just some ideas from Denmarkia.*




Hey! The more the merrier! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Since im not the most well-informed person out there, I don't know if any of these effects have already been invented.*




A quick glance tells me that I haven't seen any of them before. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *MAGIC DISSOLVING
> Each hit causes an effect equal to that of Dispel Magic. Using the wielders caster level to determine the effect, the target is affected as by a Dispel Magic targeting the highest level spell on the person. It can also be used on people who wish to get rid of a negative-effect spell, even though it be used to dispel anything but the highest level spell affecting the target (the wielder rolling a dice to determine which spell is dispelled, in case of more spells of the same level affecting the person).
> 
> Greater Magic Dissolving affects it's target on all hits
> ...




I am not sure I would use the wielders caster level; more likely the creators caster level.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *GOD-HATER
> A person suffering a critical by the weapon gains spell resistance 35 against divine magic for the next 1d6+1 rounds. Any divine spells already in effect have to penetrate the spell resistance or be dispelled. This means that not even healing spells or potions can be used. If the target is a divine spellcaster, he has to penetrate the spell resistance when casting spells himself, even if the spells aren't cast on himself. GOD-HATING weapons cause 2d6 points of extra damage against any kinds of Outsiders, including demi-gods, deities and avatars.
> The wielder of GOD-HATING weapons takes 1d4 points of damage / spell level from any divine spell cast on him, both harmful and beneficial spells. Thus, Cure Light Wounds would heal 1d8+CL hit points, but cause 1d4 points of damage as well.
> 
> God-Hater counts as a +3 bonus.*




Very interesting. Reminds me of a _lesser_ version of my "Unfading" ability in that the damage would be 'temporarily' permanent...if thats not an anachronism. .



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *JESTER
> A JESTER weapon is blessed by the gods of humour. Any time a person makes a fumble while wielding a JESTING sword, he is healed of 1d8+5 points of damage as the gods of laughter and joy bless him for lightening up their day. This effect of a JESTING weapon only happens when the wielder is fighting opponents for real. It doesn't occur when undertaking friendly training fights with allies.
> 
> Jester counts as a +1 bonus*




Interesting idea on multiple levels. Perhaps a little lightweight for my purposes, but its definately given me ideas. I can't believe I missed using the 'miss' mechanic for any of my weapons. DOH! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Im not sure about the effective + bonusses. Im not good at that part of creating magical items (and I hardly care when creating some for my players). *




Don't worry about that! The original idea is the most important thing; the mechanics can always be tinkered with later.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 14, 2003)

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *What about....
> 
> Greater Shredding
> Melee weapons only. For every attack made with the weapon, make an additional attack at your highest base attack bonus.*




You mean its like doubling your attacks. I'm not sure if this is a plausible. Its a lot like the problems you face when you make the weapon damage relative to the ability. Here you are making # attacks relative to your additional # of attacks.

Such a weapon is impossible to rate.

However, I do have a speed related wepon ability called "Mercurial" in the Immortals Handbook I think people will like. 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Nullification
> Anyone who takes a successful hit from a Nullification weapon must make a will save (DC 10 + wielder's cha mod + 1/2 wielder's level) or have all single-target spells currently affecting them dispelled, have all magic items on their person permanently drained, and lose all spellcasting/spell-like abilities permanently (as if successfully disjoining an artifact and being very unlucky).
> 
> Although I can't imagine you not coming up with the last one already.  *




Actually the above seems more like a converging of two abilities I determined "Dreaming" and "Unmaking".


Isn't it amazing that within this thread alone we have created more Armour and Weapon Ability ideas than exist in the Epic Level Handbook! I definately think the Magic Items section was the weakest chapter of that book.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: Armor enchantments!*

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *You mean the one in my sig? It's still there, I just chose to turn it off for this post.*




Seeking to bamboozle me eh!? 

HALUTANS RULE! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I guess I should dig up the list of powers that the Suits had.
> 
> Remember the one which doubled learning speed?  *




I can't imagine where I got "Learning" Armour from!


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 14, 2003)

Well, I think such an ability as JESTER should be easy to make more powerful. Make it more hitpoints cured, perhaps other things that happen when someone fumbles. Depending on what fumble rules you use, you could have different effects according to how "much" you fumbled.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 14, 2003)

*Flaming/Shocking/Freezing/Caustic/Screaming Armor*
Elemental armors inflict 1d4 of the relevant damage type to anyone who successfully strikes the wearer with a melee attack without a reach weapon. +1.

Burst versions do not exist.  2d4 damage is +3, 3d4 damage is +5, 4d4 is +7...  And so on.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 14, 2003)

*Deathspurning*
Deathspurning armor protects the wearer as a continuous Death Ward spell.

*Unshakable*
Unshakeable armor lets the wearer roll every saving throw twice and take the higher roll.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 14, 2003)

How about..

*Shattering* -
Each time you strike an object (weapons, armor, other), it (not the weilder) makes a Fort Save DC 29 or be destroyed.

*Shifting* -
3/day this weapon may change into a differnt weapon within one size catagory. (Greatsword to Longsword to Shortsword)

*Deciever* -
Each time you strike an opponent, they make a Will Save DC 25+your CHA mod or shift one alignment towards your alignment. (Your AL=CG   Theirs=LE it goes to NE or LN)

*Undoing* -
Once per week, before you hit an opponent you may choose to use this ability, if you do and hit the target they make a Fort Save of 147, if they fail they are completely undone and removed from time, all actions taken in the last 3d6+10 minutes are undone, but the memory remains, if they suceed they are unaffected and the time is wasted for the week. If you miss the target, you may still use this ability.  (Note- this might be impossible to use because of Paradoxes....or maybe the Dm can't remeber everything he has done that will affect things) A creature or object removed in this way can only be brought back by the combined effort of 3 of the Time Lords.

*Damning* -
A creature hit by this, makes a Will Save (caster level of creator) or is banished as the spell Damnation. (the epic spell)

And UK a question - what are the ranks of Gods beyond Greater? I know of Overgod and Time Lord, but thats it.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson (Feb 14, 2003)

Yeah, I know charisma doesn't equal beauty, but I was just goofing around, so it felt good in the moment.  but good-looks would help charisma. I heard somewher that tall politicians are more likely to be elected.  And chalk anything else up to my un-rules-minded-ness.   

Anyway, what effects would a "groin-smashing" weapon have?


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Bjorn Doneerson_
> Anyway, what effects would a "groin-smashing" weapon have?




Probably this:


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 14, 2003)

OK, I admit not all of them sound impressive. 

*The Suit of Time*
Anyone wearing the Suit of Time can learn the history of any dead creature, provided he has access to the skull. There is no limitation on how often the skull can be used, and the time elapsed since the death of the creature matters not.
The skull cannot keep any secrets from the wearer of the suit, and the wearer can even see through the eyes of that creature three times per day.

*The Suit of Darkness*
The Suit of Darkness allows the wearer to walk along the event horizon of black holes without further protection.

*The Suit of Distance*
The Suit of Distance allows grand manipulations of the three dimensions of an object. The wearer can move whole suns, collapse suns by shrinking them, or create new suns from interstellar matter.

*The Suit of Gravitation*
The wearer of this Suit can detect and manipulate gravitational lines, moving whole planets. Suns, however, are usually too large to be affected.

*The Suit of Dream*
The wearer of the Suit of Dreams has a limited power over reality, making his dreams partially come true. He can also capture a whole planet in nightmares. Some say that the suit also speeds up its wearer.

*The Suit of Death*
The wearer of this Suit is suffused with negative energy, making him immune to all attacks using that dread power, and all death attacks. Any living creature within a mile of the wearer dies unless making a Fortitude save with a DC that is increased by 10.

*The Suit of Power*
This Suit increases the save DCs of all the wearer's special attacks, spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities by 30.

*The Suit of Talent*
The wearer of this Suit can learn very fast, learning new abilities at twice the speed he normally would.

*The Suit of Trust*
Anyone seeing the wearer of this Suit cannot help but trust him, becoming a friend of the wearer.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 14, 2003)

GROIN SMASHING
Á person who has been hit by a Groin Smashing weapon must roll a fortitude save against a DC of 129. If he fails, he is stunned for 3d4 rounds. If he succeeds, he is stunned for 1d4 rounds. After the stun-time has elapsed, the target gains the benefit of Greater Rage for the next 2d4 rounds. He will be unable of concentrating on anything except harming the wielder of the Groin Smashing weapon. For the duration of the Greater Rage, the target will remain consciouss to as far as -50 hitpoints with no penalties. After the Greater Rage expires, he collapses in a heap of nut-pain.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 15, 2003)

Oh dear God.....


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 15, 2003)

*Gimme*

UK

This is Grommilus, cannot get my account to work, ie, posting messages and whatnot, so I made a new one.   Send me a copy of your revised CR and ECL calculator.  I will try my darndest to break it =)  email jdke50@mizzou.edu

I could just wait till I see you on Instant messenging, but I'm impatent to find a good base for CR and ECL calculations.

Btw, Grommilus was getting old, been using it for years, gonna do a new alias =)

I particularly think that the special abilities that scale with HD, especially the powerful ones like medusa stone gaze, need some mechanic that takes into effect their increasing save DCs. 

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 15, 2003)

*epic spells*

UK

Additionally, are you planning on including epic spells in the ImHB?

If so, I thought up an interesting one.

It's titled Overkill.

It does the following:

Fort save or be petrified.

Will save or suffer a Trap the Soul

Fort save or die.

Reflex save or be caught in the 10 foot diameter sphere that is annihilated.  If caught, Fort save or be annihilated with the sphere (physical form wiped out of exsistance).  

(One could argue that even if you succeed on this fort save, since the sphere was annihilated, you are now in a 10 foot diameter vacumn, and explosive decompresion and then his friend implosive recompresion from surounding air occur.  You might say this is 20d6 with Fort save for half, since it fits in with the Seed Destroy.  Flesh bags only please, constructs and most undead need not apply.  Unfortunatly, while I was playing the Star Wars d20, we could never find the rules for explosive decompresion, dispite it's frequent occurance, so I have no official d20 rules for it.  By the official rules we could find in both the revised and old star wars books, suffication is what killed you, but the exposure to the cold did some subdual damage, and the radiation (assuming in space) was pretty nasty after they pull you back in the starship).

Spell seeds:  Transform 21 +10(inanimate, nonliving) Ad hoc 30 for trap the soul, slay 25, and finally Destroy 29  

final DC is 115

I must admit, I'm unused to the spell creation system for epic spells, as I don't like the system for casting them.  But if you must use them, based on letting players use their epic handbooks, then here is one i liked.

Advantages of this spell are many fold.  Fail the first save and you are a statue that gets disintegrated, requiring a Wish to get you back.  Fail the second and then you have 2 more chances to die, with your soul trapped, which is a pain unless your group wins the battle.  And if you succeed on the first 2 saves, the other 2 are just plain death spells, nothing to see here, move along, move along.  Reason I do petrification first is that if you trap the soul then petrify, they just need to free the soul and you count as dead for true resurection (least i would rule that).  I see epic battles between organizations as fights to see who makes who expend the most wishes fixing whatever you did to the other guy  (or equivalent epic spell with annoying costs).

anyways, I should go to bed now.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 15, 2003)

Hi all!  

Apologies for the slow replies but I am away from the computer much of Friday and Saturday.

Hello again Clay_More! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, I think such an ability as JESTER should be easy to make more powerful. Make it more hitpoints cured, perhaps other things that happen when someone fumbles. Depending on what fumble rules you use, you could have different effects according to how "much" you fumbled. *




It definately has a lot of potential. Its certainly given me ideas, thanks.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *GROIN SMASHING
> Á person who has been hit by a Groin Smashing weapon must roll a fortitude save against a DC of 129. If he fails, he is stunned for 3d4 rounds. If he succeeds, he is stunned for 1d4 rounds. After the stun-time has elapsed, the target gains the benefit of Greater Rage for the next 2d4 rounds. He will be unable of concentrating on anything except harming the wielder of the Groin Smashing weapon. For the duration of the Greater Rage, the target will remain consciouss to as far as -50 hitpoints with no penalties. After the Greater Rage expires, he collapses in a heap of nut-pain.*




The name is visceral if nothing else! 

Presumably it only works on male opponents?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 15, 2003)

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Flaming/Shocking/Freezing/Caustic/Screaming Armor
> Elemental armors inflict 1d4 of the relevant damage type to anyone who successfully strikes the wearer with a melee attack without a reach weapon. +1.
> 
> Burst versions do not exist.  2d4 damage is +3, 3d4 damage is +5, 4d4 is +7...  And so on. *




I have this power; though I call it "Bleeding" armour.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Deathspurning
> Deathspurning armor protects the wearer as a continuous Death Ward spell.*




Isn't something like this in Defenders of the Faith (or elsewhere?)



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Unshakable
> Unshakeable armor lets the wearer roll every saving throw twice and take the higher roll.*




Interesting. I have been toying with a similar idea (incorporating a reroll) but haven't settled on anything yet.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 15, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *How about..
> 
> Shattering -
> Each time you strike an object (weapons, armor, other), it (not the weilder) makes a Fort Save DC 29 or be destroyed.*




Already sorted! Same name too! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Shifting -
> 3/day this weapon may change into a differnt weapon within one size catagory. (Greatsword to Longsword to Shortsword)*




Interesting. I actually had this power but dismissed it because I couldn't find a suitable enough name. Shifting sounds great though.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Deciever -
> Each time you strike an opponent, they make a Will Save DC 25+your CHA mod or shift one alignment towards your alignment. (Your AL=CG   Theirs=LE it goes to NE or LN)*




Got that. I refer to it as "Corrupting".



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Undoing -
> Once per week, before you hit an opponent you may choose to use this ability, if you do and hit the target they make a Fort Save of 147, if they fail they are completely undone and removed from time, all actions taken in the last 3d6+10 minutes are undone, but the memory remains, if they suceed they are unaffected and the time is wasted for the week. If you miss the target, you may still use this ability.  (Note- this might be impossible to use because of Paradoxes....or maybe the Dm can't remeber everything he has done that will affect things) A creature or object removed in this way can only be brought back by the combined effort of 3 of the Time Lords.*




Very interesting - I could see a version that completely removes the being from ever having existed - but it might be difficult to adjudicate? Very good though - I'll have to develop something along these lines! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Damning -
> A creature hit by this, makes a Will Save (caster level of creator) or is banished as the spell Damnation. (the epic spell)*




I'm sure I have a Damning weapon ability somewhere. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And UK a question - what are the ranks of Gods beyond Greater? I know of Overgod and Time Lord, but thats it. *




Immortals: 

Hero-deity
Quasi-deity

Demigod
Lesser Deity
Intermediate Deity
Greater Deity

Sidereals:

Elder One (Elder Deity)
Old One (Over-deity)
First One (Proto-deity)
Demiurge

Eternals: (Time Lords)

Supernals: ...

I have to keep some secrets!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 15, 2003)

Hi Bjoorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I know charisma doesn't equal beauty, but I was just goofing around, so it felt good in the moment.  but good-looks would help charisma. I heard somewher that tall politicians are more likely to be elected.  And chalk anything else up to my un-rules-minded-ness.*




Sometimes when developing stuff you are better just forgetting the rules and concentrating on the idea.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Anyway, what effects would a "groin-smashing" weapon have?   *




I had to cross my legs just thinking about it!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 15, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *OK, I admit not all of them sound impressive.  *




Maybe a touch sci-fi orientated but thats hardly a crime considering their origins.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Time
> Anyone wearing the Suit of Time can learn the history of any dead creature, provided he has access to the skull. There is no limitation on how often the skull can be used, and the time elapsed since the death of the creature matters not.
> The skull cannot keep any secrets from the wearer of the suit, and the wearer can even see through the eyes of that creature three times per day.*




Should be called the Suit of Secrets methinks! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Darkness
> The Suit of Darkness allows the wearer to walk along the event horizon of black holes without further protection.*




Everybody loves black holes. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Distance
> The Suit of Distance allows grand manipulations of the three dimensions of an object. The wearer can move whole suns, collapse suns by shrinking them, or create new suns from interstellar matter.*




Sounds like one of the Infinity Gauntlet gems.

Maybe a Polymorph Planet spell. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Gravitation
> The wearer of this Suit can detect and manipulate gravitational lines, moving whole planets. Suns, however, are usually too large to be affected.*




I can see this working better as an epic spell.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Dream
> The wearer of the Suit of Dreams has a limited power over reality, making his dreams partially come true. He can also capture a whole planet in nightmares. Some say that the suit also speeds up its wearer.*




I actually have an Omnific Power similar in nature to this.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Death
> The wearer of this Suit is suffused with negative energy, making him immune to all attacks using that dread power, and all death attacks. Any living creature within a mile of the wearer dies unless making a Fortitude save with a DC that is increased by 10.*




Maybe a 'Shroud of Death' epic spell?



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Power
> This Suit increases the save DCs of all the wearer's special attacks, spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities by 30.*




+60



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Talent
> The wearer of this Suit can learn very fast, learning new abilities at twice the speed he normally would.*




Sounds like one I have...okay, borrowed. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The Suit of Trust
> Anyone seeing the wearer of this Suit cannot help but trust him, becoming a friend of the wearer. *




I definately see most of the above working better as epic spells than actual permanent capabilities.

Were these all used within the Perry Rhodan universe?

I'll reply to Grommilus next time I'm online.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 15, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I definately see most of the above working better as epic spells than actual permanent capabilities.
> *




It's not my fault! 



> *
> Were these all used within the Perry Rhodan universe?
> *




More or less.
The Suit of Talent was destoyed by the intended wearer, fearing it could control his mind.
The Suit of Power was used to attack IT (no, not Steven King's!), the "patron" of the galaxy. Later, it was weakened and destroyed for the failure of the wearer.
The wearer of the Suit of Death walked on Terra.
Some others were employed against other allies of the terrans (including the Suit of Time and Suit of Dream). The rest only were described (as the Suit of Darkness).

Edit - Just noticed that this was post 2000.  I'm catching up to you!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Gimme*



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *UK
> 
> This is Grommilus, cannot get my account to work, ie, posting messages and whatnot, so I made a new one.*




Hi Grom mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Send me a copy of your revised CR and ECL calculator.  I will try my darndest to break it =)  email jdke50@mizzou.edu *




Just sent it to you. I must say I thought you already had it though!? 

Remember that many of the elements are already set to be changed (or at least tweaked) in the final version.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I could just wait till I see you on Instant messenging, but I'm impatent to find a good base for CR and ECL calculations.*






I have been going over the changes I am planning to make and it seems like every CR factor (you'll know when you see the pdf) is different - shows what I know (although obviously breaking the fractions down further has imposed itself in many places.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Btw, Grommilus was getting old, been using it for years, gonna do a new alias =) *




We have chatted far more on messenger than on the message boards that I am more used to calling you by your real name.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I particularly think that the special abilities that scale with HD, especially the powerful ones like medusa stone gaze, need some mechanic that takes into effect their increasing save DCs. *




Remember of course that the two factors that govern the actual DC (Hit Dice and Charisma) both add to CR.

Its also easy to recalculate any changes.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Additionally, are you planning on including epic spells in the ImHB? *




Yes the second section "Grimoire" has all the magic and magic items/artifacts elements.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *If so, I thought up an interesting one.*




Sure fire away.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *It's titled Overkill.
> 
> It does the following:
> 
> ...




I like the concept and the name; though I might pick the effects differently myself.


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 16, 2003)

UK



> I like the concept and the name; though I might pick the effects differently myself.




Thats fine.  The original idea came about as "save or die twice."  We just elaborated on how to make "die" actually suck for epic characters =)

Btw, I am very interested in hacking out a decent CR system with you, one that takes a monster and with only minimal eyeballing required turns it into it's actual CR, such that it exactly mirrors typical PC power, including magic items and elite stats (15 14 13 12 10 8).  I'm thinking that a PC's CR is 3/5 character levels, 2/5 magic items, with the elite stats considered average, or perhaps being a flat +.5 to the CR.

Pulling out Ye Goode Olde MM2, and looking at the HD types for the various monsters, and the DMG for npc classes we have what looks like 4 classifications.

3/5 PC classes, PrC, and Dragon, Outsider

1/2 Monsterous Humaniod, Magical Beast, Warrior, Adept

2/5 Aberration, Elemental, Giant, Humaniod, Shapechanger, Aristocrat, Expert

1/3 Animal, Beast, Construct, Fey, Ooze, Plant, Undead, Commoner

Another thing, having a stat of "nil" for Con should count as at least a 10.  It has many advantages over 10 tho, namely, Con damage is no problem, and any Death effect is no problem, no life to kill.  You could classify "nil" as a 10, and then add in the immunities it represents as part of the immunities CR bonus.

For "nil" any other stat, it should be a flat 0.

For intelegence and charisma, since they have reduced effect for encounter effectiveness (cha only effecting Diplomatic encounters, and Int only setting up tactical advantages), perhaps they should have a reduced factor on encounters at low stats.  Might be too much work to do this, and not worth the effort, but hey, it's a thought.

Another thought is that monsterous PCs should be allowed to take NPC classes (or raise their racial HD) in order to force thier ECL/HD ratio down, with the stipulation that HD can never exceed ECL on a PC.

For example.  Dungar is a PC with ECL 10 and 9 HD.  He could advance using Expert levels for 3 levels, gaining one level of expert at level 11 in exp, 2 levels of expert at level 12 in exp, making him ECL 12 with 12 HD and the exp of a level 12 character.  When he gets to level 13 for exp, he can take a level of some PC character class, making him ECL 13, with 13 HD.  So he traded his racial bonuses for crappy character classes until he got his HD up to his ECL.

So (assuming planetouched is +1 ECL), a level 2 fighter planetouched is ECL 3, but a level 3 Aristocrat planetoched is ECL 3 as well.


Anyway, more later.


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 16, 2003)

UK

back to my Medusa fasicanation...

Medusa  6 Monsterous humanoid HD=  +3

total difference over average stats 14 = +1.4

Natural armor 3 = +.3

Poison snake bite ad hoc (extra attack and weak poison)= +1

Petrifying gaze (similiar to bodak death gaze from pdf, 1.5, I think it should be higher) = +2

Total 7.7 (.7 higher than MM, this one is pretty close to book actually)

Medusa as a PC.  Since wealth is 2/5 the character,

medusa statsifies equation

7.7=3/5C

where C is the ECL (assuming has magic items for the ECL, which is 2/5 the ECL)

ECL of medusa PC with normal magic item set is 12 5/6.  So a Pc medusa, with level 13 magic items, is level 13.  Seems too high.  But, judging from the CR/ECL ratio in the MM2, 3/5 is about right.

Lets look at this using my proposed NPC classes to catch up on HD.

Since we must factor in Magic after HD.. lets work in CR from character alone.

Medusa 6 HD, 7.7 CR

want CR to be 3/5 HD
Lets add commoner levels in bunches of 3

level 3, 9HD, 8.7CR
level 6, 12HD, 9.7CR
level 9, 15HD, 10.7CR  want CR 9
level 12, 18HD, 11.7CR want CR 10.8
level 15, 21 HD, 12.7CR want CR 12.6

Holy crap, in order to get a medusa up to HD=ECL, need to be a level 15 commoner, with 6 HD of medusa.  Perhaps 1/3 is too generous for commoner levels.  1/4 might be in order. 1/3 for commoner means that 9 levels of commoner are the equilvalent of 5 levels of fighter.  Going by HP, BAB, and Saves, the common falls a bit short there. however, going by 1/4, 12 levels of commoner are equal to 5 levels of fighter, where the commoner gets 3 more HP, 1 more BAB, and  better ref and will saves (3 feats less tho tho).  If the feats were toughness and weapon focus tho... hmm.. 1/4 might be about right.

Commoner levels in bunches of 4
level 4, 10 HD, 8.7CR
level 8, 14 HD, 9.7 CR
level 12, 18 HD, 10.7  Want CR 10.8, done

Medusa HD=ECL, need to be a level 12 Commoner, with 6 HD of medusa, at ECL 18.

My medusa would have 5d8 +12d4 + 18(bonus con)HP= 8 +4.5*4 +2.5*12 +18= 74 base hp.

Bab = 6+6=12, +2 from bonus dex on ranged, so +14 ranged to hit.
base saves at  fort +6, ref +9, wil +9, with +1 to will and fort from bonus stats, 2 from bonus dex.
total saves fort 7, ref 11, wil 10.

with petrification gaze at DC 10 +1/2HD +2(bonus cha) +CHA = 21+ cha

poison DC 20 +con

that doesn't look so bad for a level 18 character.  crappy fighter, mean gaze attack.

I think, in conclusion, we can agree that the medusa is a hard PC to make.

Also, it seems that the most important calculation to make is "how much does character wealth effect CR"  With this calculation, we can determine exact ECL.  2/5 - 1/4 is what it seems wizards says, based on the MM2 and what I've read of the Savage Species.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Upper Krust_
> Very interesting - I could see a version that completely removes the being from ever having existed - but it might be difficult to adjudicate? Very good though - I'll have to develop something along these lines!




I only intended for the changes to be physical (so if an evil Warlord was removed as you say, all the people he killed personally should come back to life. But if he had ordered his guards to kill people or burn the grain, they would not come back.)  Thats why I said the memories remained.

I like the idea of completely removing them, but I thought it would be much too difficult to handle (I tried it once in a mini-adventure, but I needed more forethought).

I plan to try again, and change the wording to sound good.

What bonus to you think such an ability would have, and if the DC is variable (based on casted level), how would it change it? (DC of 5 would be worthless = 1, DC of 5000 would be = ALOT)

*Polymorphing*
On a critiacl hit, the subject makes a Will save (17) or is polymorphed into whatever the wielder wills.

*Paralysing -* 
On a critical hit, the creature hit makes a Fort save (17) or is Paralysed for 3d4 rounds.

*Maddening -*
Once activated by the owner, this weapon emits horrible sceams and sounds, demoic ranting... all within 30 feet must make a Will save DC 30 or suffer the effets of the Insanity spell, this lasts as long as they are in the radius and 7 rounds after they exit it. The owner is unaffected.

*Blocking -* 
This weapon has a 50% chance to block any physical attack that would hit (attack has suceeded, damage to be resolved) the wielder.

*Greater Blocking -*
This weapon has a 50% chance to block and turn back any physical attack that would hit the wielder. (the attack that would have hit the wielder, now hits the attacker)

*Doom Frost -* 
This weapon always has the spell Dire Winter focused on it, the owner may repress or activate this effect at will.

I'll probably have a few more tommorow.  

Oh and I've been working on a spell to bring eternal night to a plane but I can't figure how, any suggestions?

Looking forward to the Supernals.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 16, 2003)

I need a better name for the Blocking and Greater Blocking abilities. (anybody, feel free)

I'm probably going to copy the lot of this stuff (the item abilites) to use in my campain, maybe I'll see some of it in the IH. 

And UK (or anyone else who knows), why are other D20 books not in color (or as you say colour)? I am quite sure Wizards does not have rights on colored D20 books.


----------



## Avatar of the North (Feb 16, 2003)

Immortals: 



> Hero-deity
> Quasi-deity
> 
> Demigod
> ...




YOU THIEF   

True i use a different term but its still a catagory beyond 'simple' timelords


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 16, 2003)

*Blasphemous* armor enhancement
Blasphemous armor grants the wearer a +8 Profane bonus to saving throws against all Good spells, spell casts by good clerics, or spells cast by clerics of a good Deity.

*Sacrosanct*
As Blasphemous, except for good clerics.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 16, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And UK (or anyone else who knows), why are other D20 books not in color (or as you say colour)? I am quite sure Wizards does not have rights on colored D20 books. *




Quite simple - it's in the money. Few companies in the d20 market have the resources to pay artists for colored pics.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 16, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *UK*




Hiya mate!  



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Thats fine.  The original idea came about as "save or die twice."  We just elaborated on how to make "die" actually suck for epic characters =)*








			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Btw, I am very interested in hacking out a decent CR system with you, one that takes a monster and with only minimal eyeballing required turns it into it's actual CR, such that it exactly mirrors typical PC power, including magic items and elite stats (15 14 13 12 10 8).*




I admit that I should probably change ability scores to Total minus 63 (as a number of people have indirectly suggested).

Though it is much simpler keeping it all bonuses/penalties.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I'm thinking that a PC's CR is 3/5 character levels, 2/5 magic items,*




Unfortunately I don't think its as simple as that. Some classes benefit more from magic items than others. (Fighters benefit more than Wizards for instance).

Its a tricky one to be sure.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *with the elite stats considered average, or perhaps being a flat +.5 to the CR.*




Wouldn't that be +0.9?



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Pulling out Ye Goode Olde MM2, and looking at the HD types for the various monsters, and the DMG for npc classes we have what looks like 4 classifications.
> 
> 3/5 PC classes, PrC, and Dragon, Outsider
> 
> ...




The top rated class/type may depend on what relationship wealth has.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Another thing, having a stat of "nil" for Con should count as at least a 10.  It has many advantages over 10 tho, namely, Con damage is no problem, and any Death effect is no problem, no life to kill.  You could classify "nil" as a 10, and then add in the immunities it represents as part of the immunities CR bonus.
> 
> For "nil" any other stat, it should be a flat 0.*




I see your point. A zero rated ability score is more circumstantial than penalising. Though I would rate all '0' abilities as equal; I wouldn't give Constitution special treatment.

However, this application throws up a number of possible problems. Having a zero related ability score does limit the monsters options (Dex 0 = Immobile; Int 0 = Mindless etc.)



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *For intelegence and charisma, since they have reduced effect for encounter effectiveness (cha only effecting Diplomatic encounters, and Int only setting up tactical advantages), perhaps they should have a reduced factor on encounters at low stats.  Might be too much work to do this, and not worth the effort, but hey, it's a thought.*




Probably too pedantic as you suggest.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Another thought is that monsterous PCs should be allowed to take NPC classes (or raise their racial HD) in order to force thier ECL/HD ratio down, with the stipulation that HD can never exceed ECL on a PC.
> 
> For example.  Dungar is a PC with ECL 10 and 9 HD.  He could advance using Expert levels for 3 levels, gaining one level of expert at level 11 in exp, 2 levels of expert at level 12 in exp, making him ECL 12 with 12 HD and the exp of a level 12 character.  When he gets to level 13 for exp, he can take a level of some PC character class, making him ECL 13, with 13 HD.  So he traded his racial bonuses for crappy character classes until he got his HD up to his ECL.
> 
> So (assuming planetouched is +1 ECL), a level 2 fighter planetouched is ECL 3, but a level 3 Aristocrat planetoched is ECL 3 as well.*




Other than Non-living monsters (Elementals; Outsiders; Undead etc.) I don't see how they could naturally raise their Hit Dice except from growth.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *back to my Medusa fasicanation...
> 
> Medusa 6 Monsterous humanoid HD= +3
> 
> total difference over average stats 14 = +1.4*




If we utilise the 10.5 average okay.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Natural armor 3 = +.3
> 
> Poison snake bite ad hoc (extra attack and weak poison)= +1*




I'm still outlining this revision.

Total Poison Effect (add initial and secondary damage) divided by 10

eg. Medusa 1d6 + 2d6 = 3d6 (average 11) = +1.1

Its plausible that poison should also be limited by application. I mean a creature with a poison attack who has five envenomed attacks is more damgerous than the same creature with only one.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Petrifying gaze (similiar to bodak death gaze from pdf, 1.5, I think it should be higher) = +2*




Actually I think I have found an easier way.

Spell-level effect divided by 10.

Doubled for a Gaze Weapon of course.

eg. Medusas Gaze = Turn to Stone = 0.6 x 2 Gaze (because its automatic - you don't have to 'use' it as you would a Breath Weapon or Ray) = +1.2

eg. Bodaks Gaze = 9th = 0.9 x2 Gaze = 1.8 + 0.5 for Create Spawn = +2.3



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Total 7.7 (.7 higher than MM, this one is pretty close to book actually)*




Total 7 exactly by my above suggestions.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Medusa as a PC. Since wealth is 2/5 the character,
> 
> medusa statsifies equation
> 
> ...




Should Monsters gain PC wealth for their initial CR though!? To be honest I am sceptical!

I mean just because an ogre has more Hit Dice or a higher starting ECL doesn't mean it has automatically been adventuring!

Personally I would keep the Medusa at ECL 7 but not give it PC wealth until it reaches 1st-level.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Lets look at this using my proposed NPC classes to catch up on HD.
> 
> Since we must factor in Magic after HD.. lets work in CR from character alone.
> 
> ...




Indeed Commoner should be 1/4.

That was one of the changes already implemented - just not yet updated.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Commoner levels in bunches of 4
> level 4, 10 HD, 8.7CR
> level 8, 14 HD, 9.7 CR
> level 12, 18 HD, 10.7 Want CR 10.8, done
> ...




It would indeed be interesting to see their findings in Savage Species.

Personally I was thinking +1/4 for Wizards to +1/2 for Fighters. The variable of course being part of the problem. I may settle for a +1/3 or +2/5 as you suggest? (with 2/5 being easier to rate).


----------



## Anubis (Feb 16, 2003)

ARGH!  I was getting ready to test this all out, and now you throw more doubts into the whole thing!  Dammit! 

First off, UK, I found the first glitch.  It has to do with ability scores on PCs.  My group of Level 1 PCs Is CR 4, 3, 3, 3.  An ogre is CR 3, yet a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger challenge for a party of four than any of the PCs would be.  In fact, the PCR suggests that the party could take on several ogres when I doubt they could even take on ONE ogre.  I think some tweaking is necessary there . . .

Argh, maybe I'll just go back to the old way, as it is much less confusing.

I think you need to drop the low-level changes already, man.  I believe I have successfully broken your system.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 16, 2003)

Better yet, lemme give a better example.  The enemy is an ogre.   CR 3.

The PCs are all Level 1 with 10, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 as stats.  Each is CR 3 as well, for PCR 3.

PEL 5 against EL 5.  An even fight, right?

Wrong.  I am willing to bet the ogre would win 80% of fights between the two.  See my point?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 16, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I only intended for the changes to be physical (so if an evil Warlord was removed as you say, all the people he killed personally should come back to life. But if he had ordered his guards to kill people or burn the grain, they would not come back.)  Thats why I said the memories remained.
> 
> I like the idea of completely removing them, but I thought it would be much too difficult to handle (I tried it once in a mini-adventure, but I needed more forethought).
> 
> I plan to try again, and change the wording to sound good.*




I would agree the difficulty is not in outlining the power itself but rather the consequences of that power.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *What bonus to you think such an ability would have,*




At least +50; probably more. I'd have to think about it.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *and if the DC is variable (based on casted level), how would it change it? (DC of 5 would be worthless = 1, DC of 5000 would be = ALOT)*




I am using +2 DC = +1 to market price.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Polymorphing
> On a critiacl hit, the subject makes a Will save (17) or is polymorphed into whatever the wielder wills.
> 
> Paralysing -
> On a critical hit, the creature hit makes a Fort save (17) or is Paralysed for 3d4 rounds.*




I am sure they already have something like this in the Intelligent Weapon Powers.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Maddening -
> Once activated by the owner, this weapon emits horrible sceams and sounds, demonic ranting... all within 30 feet must make a Will save DC 30 or suffer the effects of the Insanity spell, this lasts as long as they are in the radius and 7 rounds after they exit it. The owner is unaffected.*




Wouldn't this make gaining allies a bit tough? 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Blocking -
> This weapon has a 50% chance to block any physical attack that would hit (attack has suceeded, damage to be resolved) the wielder.*




I have a similar ability as a Shield ability



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Greater Blocking -
> This weapon has a 50% chance to block and turn back any physical attack that would hit the wielder. (the attack that would have hit the wielder, now hits the attacker)*




I have another version that blocks any one weapon per round (those with 1st Ed. Deities & Demigods may remember Enlil's Helmet which had a similar power).

I also have "Retributive" Armour that reflects all damage.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Doom Frost -
> This weapon always has the spell Dire Winter focused on it, the owner may repress or activate this effect at will.*




+160



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I'll probably have a few more tommorow.  *




Keep 'em coming! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Oh and I've been working on a spell to bring eternal night to a plane but I can't figure how, any suggestions?*




A permanent eclipse.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Looking forward to the Supernals.  *




My lips are sealed. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I need a better name for the Blocking and Greater Blocking abilities. (anybody, feel free) *




Incorporeal and Retributive...? 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I'm probably going to copy the lot of this stuff (the item abilites) to use in my campain, maybe I'll see some of it in the IH.*








			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And UK (or anyone else who knows), why are other D20 books not in color (or as you say colour)? I am quite sure Wizards does not have rights on colored D20 books.*




As Knight Otu mentioned the costs are prohibitive. I seem to recall a thread where Ryan Dancey outlined the cost difference - (If I recall correctly) I think colour was four times more expensive to print.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 16, 2003)

Hi Avatar mate! 



			
				Avatar of the North said:
			
		

> *Immortals:
> 
> YOU THIEF
> 
> True i use a different term but its still a catagory beyond 'simple' timelords *




I have two categories beyond Time Lords.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 16, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *ARGH!  I was getting ready to test this all out, and now you throw more doubts into the whole thing!  Dammit! *








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, UK, I found the first glitch.  It has to do with ability scores on PCs.  My group of Level 1 PCs Is CR 4, 3, 3, 3.  An ogre is CR 3, yet a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger challenge for a party of four than any of the PCs would be.  In fact, the PCR suggests that the party could take on several ogres when I doubt they could even take on ONE ogre. *




They should comfortably be able to deal with one Ogre.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think some tweaking is necessary there . . .*




Possibly. If we utilise 10.5 as the average then your PCs would be PCR 2.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Argh, maybe I'll just go back to the old way, as it is much less confusing.*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think you need to drop the low-level changes already, man.  I believe I have successfully broken your system. *




Thats defeatist talk, we don't brook that here. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Better yet, lemme give a better example. The enemy is an ogre. CR 3.
> 
> The PCs are all Level 1 with 10, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 as stats. Each is CR 3 as well, for PCR 3.
> 
> ...




Its plausible Size should be +1 per category.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 16, 2003)

Why not, if you're so obsessed with the ability scores factor, make it +0.1 per bonus or +0.05 per ability score point over the 60 (assuming all 10s are average)?

Then make size +1 per category.

That MIGHT work.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 16, 2003)

By the way, UK, what made you decide that CRx2 = EL+4?

I would think that CR x2 = EL+2.  Perhaps you should reconsider the mechanic.

Think about it:

If an EL+2 is twice as difficult, then is means a doubling of the power.  Level 2 is 100% over Level 1 . . . Level 20 is 100% over Level 10 . . .


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 16, 2003)

I just had one ability that I thought of, one that is a little special as well.

Trail of Depravation
A blade with the Trail of Depravation causes 2d6 points of extra, unholy damage. The blade is clouded in blackness, making it appear as if though it was forged by shadows. When the blade is wielded, it leaves behind a trail of shadows, which are harmful to any creatures entering them. Any 5 ft. square in which the blade has been wielded causes 2d6 points of unholy damage to anyone that enters up to five rounds after the blade has been wielded there. In a narrow passage, a fighter can use the Trail of Depravation to create a cloudy wall of negative energy to hinder eventual pursuers. It is possible for a figher to infect all squares around him if doing nothing else. 

Price: +3 Bonus

Dont know if it has already been made, just sounds cool in my ears with a blade that leaves behind a trail of evil where it has been. Off course, anyone running with the blade unsheathed cannot possibly hide..


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 17, 2003)

UK



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hiya mate!
> 
> *



Hey to you too. =P




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I admit that I should probably change ability scores to Total minus 63 (as a number of people have indirectly suggested).
> 
> ...



I agree. you should take each odd stat and subtract 11, and each even and subtract 10, and then divide by whatever, only keep track of full bonuses.  The odd stats, while required for feats, have almost no effect otherwise, certainly not enought to majorly effect CR.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Unfortunately I don't think its as simple as that. Some classes benefit more from magic items than others. (Fighters benefit more than Wizards for instance).
> 
> Its a tricky one to be sure.
> *




I'm not so sure on if fighters benefit more.  Maybe the problem is there are not enough good magic items for spell casters.  Maybe I need to type out my supposed changes to magic item creation, huh? =D



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Wouldn't that be +0.9?
> 
> *



I thought that before reading what you had changed how stats worked, into .1 increments.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The top rated class/type may depend on what relationship wealth has.
> 
> *




Yah, see above.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I see your point. A zero rated ability score is more circumstantial than penalising. Though I would rate all '0' abilities as equal; I wouldn't give Constitution special treatment.
> 
> ...




I dunno, all stats but Con as nil suggest the same value as a 0, which is a penalty.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In savage species i think they let monsters countinue to gain HD instead of classes.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm still outlining this revision.
> 
> ...




Definatly.  Since the medusa only gets poison on one attack, and it is an extra attack, it needs some sort of special case.  Perhaps add a half of the bonus again for each attack the creature can make that has that poison on it.  Also, initial damage should be rated higher than secondary.  3d6 con intial and 1d6 secondary is much tougher than 1d6 initial and 3d6 secondary.  First one means you might die, second means get a neutralize poison or you might die.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually I think I have found an easier way.
> 
> ...




A bodak's gaze is a 9th level spell?  Isn't finger of death 7th level and slay living 5th?  It's much closer to 7th (slay living is touch).  Also, do you think 0.6 is enough for a creature that had the supernatural power to cause one person to turn to stone as a standard action? basically has flesh to stone as an unlimited use, DC 10 +1/2HD +Cha, spell-like power usuable at will?  Perhaps that should be twice 0.6 (1.2), and gaze attacks should be three times, or 1.8.





			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Should Monsters gain PC wealth for their initial CR though!? To be honest I am sceptical!
> 
> ...




Well, in savage species they have rules for monsters gaining levels of monster classes, so you could start the medusa as a first level PC with 1hd of monsterous humanoid.  Also, a ECL 12 medusa, if it started with no character wealth at ECL 7, would have wealth of 12 - wealth of 7, or about 88k- 19k for a PC, 69k gold, which is more than a level 11 character.  I think it's easier to assume that the character has character wealth at all levels, using the advancement ideas from savage species that alow you to play monsters at first level.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Indeed Commoner should be 1/4.
> 
> ...





Ah good, wish I had known that, was alot of work trying to figure out where they belonged =P



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> It would indeed be interesting to see their findings in Savage Species.
> 
> Personally I was thinking +1/4 for Wizards to +1/2 for Fighters. The variable of course being part of the problem. I may settle for a +1/3 or +2/5 as you suggest? (with 2/5 being easier to rate). *




See, once again, if the magic items equally favored both spell caster and warrior, then we'd not have this problem.  Note to self, finish alternate item rules.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 17, 2003)

And more...

*Godsbane -* 
This weapon ability eliminates any non-mortal within a 100 ft radius, without a save. (I know you don't like it)

*Assimilator -* 
Once per day, you may assimilate the body and mind of a being you just killed, you control their body (now at full HP), and know all their memories, can use their spells, attack, and abilities. You remain in this form until you kill another being you want to become, then the old body falls, lifeless.

*Life Bane -* 
This weapon functions as a +5 higher weapon against living beings.

*Lesser Life Bane -* 
This weapon functions as a +2 higher weapon against living beings.

*Greater Life Bane -* 
This weapon functions as a +8 higher weapon against living beings.

*Immortal -* 
While wearing this armor, you do not need food, sleep, or air, you cannot die of old age, all damage dealt to you is reduced to 0, you are immune to all harmful (wearer decides) effects (spells...).  This ability cannot be repressed in any way. (anti-magic, epic dispelling, or immortals)

*Elemental Command -* 
You may cast, at will, as a free action, without components, any damaging elemental spell (fireball, ray of frost), any number of times per day.

*Greater Summoning -* 
By focusing for seven minutes, you can summon an outsider of tremendous power. The enhancement bonus of this spell is equal to the highest HD of creatures you can summon (with a minimum of 20). These outsiders, if they choose not to answer the summons are ripped through the planes (with a save = 20+enhancement bonus/2) to your position,  they must obey you completely, for hours equal to the enhancement bonus. Commands against their nature are ignored.

My mind has been emptied for now.....on the morrow.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 17, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *
> And more...
> 
> Godsbane -
> ...




Personally I'd stick this at +2000.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *
> Assimilator -
> Once per day, you may assimilate the body and mind of a being you just killed, you control their body (now at full HP), and know all their memories, can use their spells, attack, and abilities. You remain in this form until you kill another being you want to become, then the old body falls, lifeless.
> *




+50 perhaps?



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *
> Life Bane -
> This weapon functions as a +5 higher weapon against living beings.
> 
> ...




I'd say +10, +4, and +16.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *
> Immortal -
> While wearing this armor, you do not need food, sleep, or air, you cannot die of old age, all damage dealt to you is reduced to 0, you are immune to all harmful (wearer decides) effects (spells...).  This ability cannot be repressed in any way. (anti-magic, epic dispelling, or immortals)
> *




I'd say that's an artifact, or close to +10000.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *
> Elemental Command -
> You may cast, at will, as a free action, without components, any damaging elemental spell (fireball, ray of frost), any number of times per day.
> *




+18?


----------



## Anabstercorian (Feb 17, 2003)

*Are you high?*

What is with the pricing for the Life Bane things?

Look, it's considered to increase the bonus by some amount, but only when against living opponents.  If it doesn't always function, why does it cost MORE than simply increasing the enchantment, which functions ALL the time against ALL enemies and targets?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 17, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Why not, if you're so obsessed with the ability scores factor, make it +0.1 per bonus or +0.05 per ability score point over the 60 (assuming all 10s are average)?
> 
> Then make size +1 per category.
> 
> That MIGHT work. *




Rating Ability Scores at +0.1 affects almost every other factor (not to mention dozens of relative issues outside the CR/EL pdf itself). Changing them is not an issue.

It may be pertinent to change size. That one has always dogged me.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, UK, what made you decide that CRx2 = EL+4?
> 
> I would think that CR x2 = EL+2. Perhaps you should reconsider the mechanic.
> 
> ...




CR x2 = EL +4 is the proper exchange rate.

Doubling CR is the same as multiplying the number of opponents by four.*

I hit upon the mechanic while I was toying with EXP tables.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 17, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I just had one ability that I thought of, one that is a little special as well.
> 
> Trail of Depravation
> A blade with the Trail of Depravation causes 2d6 points of extra, unholy damage. The blade is clouded in blackness, making it appear as if though it was forged by shadows. When the blade is wielded, it leaves behind a trail of shadows, which are harmful to any creatures entering them. Any 5 ft. square in which the blade has been wielded causes 2d6 points of unholy damage to anyone that enters up to five rounds after the blade has been wielded there. In a narrow passage, a fighter can use the Trail of Depravation to create a cloudy wall of negative energy to hinder eventual pursuers. It is possible for a figher to infect all squares around him if doing nothing else.
> ...




I like it. Reminds me of the motorcycles in Tron. 

However I think the effect is more suited to Armour than a weapon.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 17, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *UK Hey to you too. =P *




Hello again mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I agree. you should take each odd stat and subtract 11, and each even and subtract 10, and then divide by whatever, only keep track of full bonuses.  The odd stats, while required for feats, have almost no effect otherwise, certainly not enought to majorly effect CR.*




Couldn't we just keep it at Total; minus 63 and divide by 10. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I'm not so sure on if fighters benefit more.  Maybe the problem is there are not enough good magic items for spell casters.  Maybe I need to type out my supposed changes to magic item creation, huh? =D*




Fighters benefit offensively and defensively. Wizards benefit more defensively.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I thought that before reading what you had changed how stats worked, into .1 increments.*








			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I dunno, all stats but Con as nil suggest the same value as a 0, which is a penalty.*




I hate having exceptions to simple mechanics - really slows things immensely. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *In savage species i think they let monsters countinue to gain HD instead of classes.*




I can see it working as a mechanic, if not biologically.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Definatly.  Since the medusa only gets poison on one attack, and it is an extra attack, it needs some sort of special case.  Perhaps add a half of the bonus again for each attack the creature can make that has that poison on it. *




Thats what I was thinking.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Also, initial damage should be rated higher than secondary.  3d6 con intial and 1d6 secondary is much tougher than 1d6 initial and 3d6 secondary.  First one means you might die, second means get a neutralize poison or you might die.*




Seems feasible. I like it.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *A bodak's gaze is a 9th level spell?  Isn't finger of death 7th level and slay living 5th?  It's much closer to 7th (slay living is touch).*




Oops 0.7 x2 = 1.4 +0.5 = 1.9 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Also, do you think 0.6 is enough for a creature that had the supernatural power to cause one person to turn to stone as a standard action? basically has flesh to stone as an unlimited use, DC 10 +1/2HD +Cha, spell-like power usuable at will?  Perhaps that should be twice 0.6 (1.2), and gaze attacks should be three times, or 1.8.*




You see this is the problem with Spell-like Abilities.

Ideally you want to rate the top 'At Will' ability and have secondary abilities as fractions of that - since you can only use one ability per round. 

Whereas a Gaze Weapon is automatic and therefore constitutes an additional attack. So actually perhaps its better simply rating it and adding +0.5 rather than doubling it.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Well, in savage species they have rules for monsters gaining levels of monster classes, so you could start the medusa as a first level PC with 1hd of monsterous humanoid.  Also, a ECL 12 medusa, if it started with no character wealth at ECL 7, would have wealth of 12 - wealth of 7, or about 88k- 19k for a PC, 69k gold, which is more than a level 11 character.  I think it's easier to assume that the character has character wealth at all levels, using the advancement ideas from savage species that alow you to play monsters at first level.*




Possibly.

By our current method we arrive at ECL 10.5 (11).

What did Savage Species have again?



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Ah good, wish I had known that, was alot of work trying to figure out where they belonged =P *




Sorry. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *See, once again, if the magic items equally favored both spell caster and warrior, then we'd not have this problem.  Note to self, finish alternate item rules. *




A 10th-level Fighter with PC equipment is equal to a 19th-level Fighter with 1st-level PC equipment.

But you couldn't say the same about two Wizards.

Unfortunately this in turn impacts Integrated 'Spells'. Which in turn impacts Spell-like Abilities...yadda yadda yadda...you end up running round in circles.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 17, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And more...
> 
> Godsbane -
> This weapon ability eliminates any non-mortal within a 100 ft radius, without a save. (I know you don't like it)*




You know me well! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Assimilator -
> Once per day, you may assimilate the body and mind of a being you just killed, you control their body (now at full HP), and know all their memories, can use their spells, attack, and abilities. You remain in this form until you kill another being you want to become, then the old body falls, lifeless.*




A bit close to a cosmic power I already have. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Life Bane -
> This weapon functions as a +5 higher weapon against living beings.
> 
> Lesser Life Bane -
> ...




Surely it would just be better to retain the 'Bane' Special Ability!?



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Immortal -
> While wearing this armor, you do not need food, sleep, or air, you cannot die of old age, all damage dealt to you is reduced to 0, you are immune to all harmful (wearer decides) effects (spells...).  This ability cannot be repressed in any way. (anti-magic, epic dispelling, or immortals)*




Seemingly you have just taken yourself out of the game. When you can't be hurt by anything ever then you are the Dungeon Master.

+infinity

Of course you could always go back in time to before the wearer donned the armour and then kill them... 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Elemental Command -
> You may cast, at will, as a free action, without components, any damaging elemental spell (fireball, ray of frost), any number of times per day.*




+10



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Greater Summoning -
> By focusing for seven minutes, you can summon an outsider of tremendous power. The enhancement bonus of this spell is equal to the highest HD of creatures you can summon (with a minimum of 20). These outsiders, if they choose not to answer the summons are ripped through the planes (with a save = 20+enhancement bonus/2) to your position,  they must obey you completely, for hours equal to the enhancement bonus. Commands against their nature are ignored.*




Interesting. It would be nice if the Armour itself became the two dimensional gate and the summoned creature(s) stepped out of the armour.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *My mind has been emptied for now.....on the morrow.  *


----------



## Gez (Feb 17, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Clay_More mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The weapon at least could be sheated...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Seemingly you have just taken yourself out of the game. When you can't be hurt by anything ever then you are the Dungeon Master.
> 
> +infinity
> 
> Of course you could always go back in time to before the wearer donned the armour and then kill them... *




Or just consider that the armor is very itchy, and you have to make a Will save every hour to not remove it ASAP. I doubt the armor could immunize its wearer against itself, since it's more powerful than everything.

That and the fact you'll need to remove at least part of it if you don't want to pee in your armor...




Assimilator works a bit like superpowered version of my ogre-mages (I house ruled they eat souls as well as flesh, and gain competence bonuses to their skills equals to half their eaten victim's rank in that skill; beside you need to kill an ogre-mage to free the eaten souls if you want to resurrect a victim).


----------



## Anubis (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Are you high?*



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *What is with the pricing for the Life Bane things?
> 
> Look, it's considered to increase the bonus by some amount, but only when against living opponents.  If it doesn't always function, why does it cost MORE than simply increasing the enchantment, which functions ALL the time against ALL enemies and targets? *




Well, bane weapons add +2 to things, and are much more limited than these.  Perhaps the life bane idea itself is out of whack.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 17, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Um, I think you need to look at it again.

One CR 6 creature is NOT the same as four CR 3 creatures.  Where did you get this?  Please elaborate how you got this.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 17, 2003)

About the Immortal ability (don't know what was in my head  ) - I figured a Rogue could just steal it off your body (though honestly I don't know how). I look back at my abilities last night and realized they are bad.   .......I plead temporary insanity.  

Some less....stimulating ones later today.


----------



## Gez (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: Are you high?*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, bane weapons add +2 to things, and are much more limited than these.  Perhaps the life bane idea itself is out of whack. *




_Bane_ weapons also deal 2d6 points of extra damage. 

So, if the lifebane +5 weapon deal also 5d6 bonus damage, its price as a +10 ability would be roughly OK -- but probably on the weak side, IMO. Rather than doubling, I would multiply by 1.5, and make it a +8 ability.

Sean K. Reynolds made up _lesserbane_ and _greaterbane_ weapons, by the way. I share his opinions on _bane_.







I'll join in the fun and create some silly abilities too.

*Turtle Armor*

Cuirass with this enchantment allow the wearer to retract in it in order to get total cover and concealment from touch attacks and targetting spells like _magic missile_.

*Snail Armor*
This is an improvement of the turtle armor. When the wearer retract, he is effectively _planeshifted_ into a _magnificent mansion_, as it is well known that "snails carry their home on their back". You may exit the manor and phase back to your armor with a free action.

When you're in your extradimensional manor, the armor is physically empty, and may be donned by someone else, who may then wink out to the manor as well. You can't exit the manor if someone else is wearing the armor.


*Tojanida Armor*
Another variation on the shell, this suit of armor allows the wearer to behave like a tojanida. This is highly unsettling (as well as unbalancing if you're not also flying), as your head may disappear and reappear at the place of a leg, etc. You are considered to be immune to critical hits and sneak attacks, as only your heads and limbs are truly here, and they just don't stay in place. You gain a dodge bonus from this effect equal to your Dex bonus. However, you suffer a -4 penalty on all your attacks, unless you take a special proficiency feat. Tojanida Armor Fighting may be considered as an exotic weapon proficiency for purpose of class granting bonus feats.

*Hermit Crab Armor*
These armors allows you to instantly teleport once per day in any other suit of armor in sight. The wearer of the other suit of armor, if any, is allowed a will save to prevent the effect from happening. If he fails, he's winked out of his armor, and send to your own, while you follow the reverse path. This ability is frequently put on armors that are both clumsy and unefficient. 

Note that, as a magic armor, the hermit crab armor resize itself instantly to the person teleported in, but you should not necessarily expect the armor of your victim to be similarily enchanted.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 17, 2003)

How about Elemental Armor that allows you to absorb damage of energy types as hit points?  Fire Armor allows you to absorb all fire damage and whatever you would've lost, you gain instead, like if you get hit with a 30 damage fireball, you recover 30 instead.

What would that be?  +18?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 18, 2003)

*Revised HD/Level Modifiers*

Hi all! 

Okay, before I get back to replying (which I attempted last night - but my computer crashed) I wanted to post the following:

Revised Hit Dice/Class Challenge Rating modifiers:

Aberration +0.4/HD
Animal +0.25
Beast +0.3
Construct +0.2
Dragon +0.6
Elemental +0.35
Fey +0.35
Giant +0.35
Humanoid +0.35
Magical Beast +0.5
Monstrous Humanoid +0.45
Ooze +0.2
Outsider +0.6
Plant +0.2
Shapechanger +0.45
Undead (Intelligent) +0.35
Undead (Mindless) +0.2

Adept +0.4/Level
Aristocrat +0.4
Commoner +0.25
Expert +0.4
Warrior +0.4

Character Level or Prestige Class +0.6/Level
NPC Wealth +0.2
PC Wealth +0.4

Integrated Levels +0.3


It all seems accurate enough, however you do get some interesting results:

Astral Deva's +3 Mace of Disruption = 50,000 GP. This equals 11 levels of PC Wealth* which means CR +4.4

*Although 8 Levels (+3.2) using my own method of determining wealth.

However I am not sure if one expensive item is equal to a gaggle of inexpensive items?

PC Wealth: Level x Level x Level x 100 GP
NPC Wealth: Halve Level then treat as PC Wealth (Remove the limitations on possessing magic items - ie. no single item greater than one quarter the entire amount).

eg. 8th-level PC: 8 x 8 x 8 x 100 = 51,200 GP
eg. 12th-level NPC: 6 x 6 x 6 x 100 = 36,000 GP

Incidently I think I will break you in gently to these new ideas before I relate the Solars new CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 18, 2003)

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The weapon at least could be sheated...*




Maybe you would have to 'run' to activate it? 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Or just consider that the armor is very itchy, and you have to make a Will save every hour to not remove it ASAP. I doubt the armor could immunize its wearer against itself, since it's more powerful than everything.
> 
> That and the fact you'll need to remove at least part of it if you don't want to pee in your armor...*




You need a trap door to avoid embarassment. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Assimilator works a bit like superpowered version of my ogre-mages (I house ruled they eat souls as well as flesh, and gain competence bonuses to their skills equals to half their eaten victim's rank in that skill; beside you need to kill an ogre-mage to free the eaten souls if you want to resurrect a victim). *




Skill cannibals eh!? 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Bane weapons also deal 2d6 points of extra damage.
> 
> So, if the lifebane +5 weapon deal also 5d6 bonus damage, its price as a +10 ability would be roughly OK -- but probably on the weak side, IMO. Rather than doubling, I would multiply by 1.5, and make it a +8 ability.
> 
> Sean K. Reynolds made up lesserbane and greaterbane weapons, by the way. I share his opinions on bane.*




I agree Bane should be +2d6 per +1 but I don't believe energy weapons should be +1d6 per +1.

Bane: +2d6/+1
Aligned: +1d6/+1
Energy: +1d6/+2



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I'll join in the fun and create some silly abilities too.
> 
> Turtle Armor
> 
> Cuirass with this enchantment allow the wearer to retract in it in order to get total cover and concealment from touch attacks and targetting spells like magic missile.*




Coincidentally enough I submitted a "Turtle Shield" to Relics & Rituals II...but it didn't get chosen. In my defence it was a hasty write-up though. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Snail Armor
> This is an improvement of the turtle armor. When the wearer retract, he is effectively planeshifted into a magnificent mansion, as it is well known that "snails carry their home on their back". You may exit the manor and phase back to your armor with a free action.
> 
> When you're in your extradimensional manor, the armor is physically empty, and may be donned by someone else, who may then wink out to the manor as well. You can't exit the manor if someone else is wearing the armor.*




So its like a Rod of Security in a way?



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Tojanida Armor
> Another variation on the shell, this suit of armor allows the wearer to behave like a tojanida. This is highly unsettling (as well as unbalancing if you're not also flying), as your head may disappear and reappear at the place of a leg, etc. You are considered to be immune to critical hits and sneak attacks, as only your heads and limbs are truly here, and they just don't stay in place. You gain a dodge bonus from this effect equal to your Dex bonus. However, you suffer a -4 penalty on all your attacks, unless you take a special proficiency feat. Tojanida Armor Fighting may be considered as an exotic weapon proficiency for purpose of class granting bonus feats.*




I can see this being as much a curse as a boon! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Hermit Crab Armor
> These armors allows you to instantly teleport once per day in any other suit of armor in sight. The wearer of the other suit of armor, if any, is allowed a will save to prevent the effect from happening. If he fails, he's winked out of his armor, and send to your own, while you follow the reverse path. This ability is frequently put on armors that are both clumsy and unefficient.
> 
> Note that, as a magic armor, the hermit crab armor resize itself instantly to the person teleported in, but you should not necessarily expect the armor of your victim to be similarily enchanted.*




Interesting idea.

Hold on a second wheres the "Zaratan Island Armour"?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 18, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, I think you need to look at it again.
> 
> One CR 6 creature is NOT the same as four CR 3 creatures.  Where did you get this?  Please elaborate how you got this. *




I could see a Troll versus four Ogres being an interesting battle.

Can you think of any 4 x CR 3 vs CR 6 that is overtly 'broken'?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How about Elemental Armor that allows you to absorb damage of energy types as hit points? Fire Armor allows you to absorb all fire damage and whatever you would've lost, you gain instead, like if you get hit with a 30 damage fireball, you recover 30 instead.
> 
> What would that be? +18?*




+15 possibly?

I could certainly see Armour that allowed +1 hp restored/+3 damage inflicted (as per an Iron Golem). Rated at +5 in this case.

Interesting idea in fact. Why didn't I think of it!?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 18, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *About the Immortal ability (don't know what was in my head  ) - I figured a Rogue could just steal it off your body (though honestly I don't know how). I look back at my abilities last night and realized they are bad.*




I thought they were all enjoyable...if not practical. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *.......I plead temporary insanity.  *




I know what thats like - I just try not to post my more eccentric ideas. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Some less....stimulating ones later today.  *




Look forward to reading them.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson (Feb 18, 2003)

Krust-meister!

Would you by any chance be willing to give definitions for all your higher levels of divinity?  

Also, where's the word sidereals from?  What does it mean?


----------



## Gez (Feb 18, 2003)

Hello !



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Skill cannibals eh!? *




Yeah. Nice idea, ain't it ? One PC knew that disturbing experience first hand 




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *So its like a Rod of Security in a way?*




Yes. Although a rod of security is overall better (i.e., you don't age, and it's easier to bring friends, and it's a "pocket paradise" rather than a "magnificent mansion", and even if either one would greatly please me, I think the "pocket paradise" is more comfy).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hold on a second wheres the "Zaratan Island Armour"?  *




Oh, silly me  . This turtle armor can only be worn by mountain giants and other colossal giants. They behave like normal turtle armor, except you are also _slowed_, gain a permanent _water breathing_ effect, and your aging rate is divided by 100 (i.e., your remaining life expectancy is multiplied by 100). You also gain the capacity to sleep for a whole season like a bear.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 18, 2003)

Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Krust-meister!*




Hey Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Would you by any chance be willing to give definitions for all your higher levels of divinity?*




You will find them all defined in the Immortals Handbook! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Also, where's the word sidereals from?  What does it mean? *




Sidereal comes from the Latin _sideris_ (_sidus_ = star)

Sidereal means "of the stars" or "involving the stars".

It seemed appropriate for the cosmic class of beings above Immortals - since many of them are start spanning.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 18, 2003)

Posted by Upper_Krust
"I like it. Reminds me of the motorcycles in Tron. 

However I think the effect is more suited to Armour than a weapon."

Well, if it was an armor ability, the fighter would have to run around in a rather silly looking manner if he wished to use it to block a passage with negative energy. With a sword, he can simply wield it as he pleases, forming the field.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 18, 2003)

....these are mostly for convienence.

*Vanishing -* 
This weapon is treated as a LeShay weapon for purposes of drawing and putting away.

*Feather Weight -* 
This weapons weight is reduced by 50% and is considered one catagory smaller for carrying purposes.

....these are not just for convienence.

*Blasting -* 
This may only be put on a melee weapon. Once per day, this weapon may blast an area within sight. This blast has a 25ft diameter, and all within make a Reflex Save DC 35, those that fail take 30d6 damage (pure destruction), those that suceed take 15d6 damage. 
Probably a greater and lesser version dealing 50d6 and 10d6.

*Siphoning -* 
Each time this weapon deals damage, the weilder gains that much hp. Undead are unaffected.

*Leeching -* 
Whenever a being with spell, spell-like abilities, psionics, or psionic-like abilities is hit critically by this weapon they make a Will Save DC 35 or lose all of those for the day.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 18, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Posted by Upper_Krust
> "I like it. Reminds me of the motorcycles in Tron.
> 
> However I think the effect is more suited to Armour than a weapon."
> ...




I guess I was just thinking ahead of myself. I could see fire based armour setting ablaze the ground where you walk like a Wall of Fire; or freezing the ground and chilling the air like a Wall of Ice; or any number of other variants Blade Barrier trails; Prismatic Walls etc.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 18, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *....these are mostly for convienence.
> 
> Vanishing -
> This weapon is treated as a LeShay weapon for purposes of drawing and putting away.*




+1?



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Feather Weight -
> This weapons weight is reduced by 50% and is considered one catagory smaller for carrying purposes.*




not even +1, more likely a material like Mithril.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *....these are not just for convienence.
> 
> Blasting -
> This may only be put on a melee weapon. Once per day, this weapon may blast an area within sight. This blast has a 25ft diameter, and all within make a Reflex Save DC 35, those that fail take 30d6 damage (pure destruction), those that suceed take 15d6 damage.
> Probably a greater and lesser version dealing 50d6 and 10d6.*




This is something that will need to be determined after I have Spell-like Abilities properly sorted.

I think I can determine them okay, but I'm still checking (and its not the method I posted a few days ago).



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Siphoning -
> Each time this weapon deals damage, the weilder gains that much hp. Undead are unaffected.*




I have a "Siphoning" power - it does something different though. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Leeching -
> Whenever a being with spell, spell-like abilities, psionics, or psionic-like abilities is hit critically by this weapon they make a Will Save DC 35 or lose all of those for the day. *




I also have a "Leeching" power - again its somewhat different.


----------



## poilbrun (Feb 19, 2003)

Just a quick question, guys : how do you determine the DC for these abilities?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 20, 2003)

This is actually the first time I have been able to access these boards in two days.

Incidently I managed to get Savage Species earlier today! Yes I am as surprised as you - I still haven't been able to get the Book of Vile Darkness yet - for goodness sake (pun intended)! 

Haven't read it thoroughly yet but I must say the Template chapter is magnificent. Naturally the whole interpretation of ECL in the book is flawed but it was still interesting read and has provided some of the final peices to my own system which should now be perfect (yes I know thats like the third time I have said that) - it will take me at least this weekend to get it all typed up but I think I now have *everything* covered (including all the arguments of what needed to be done that were made over in Andy Collins Forums).

Currently the only tiny element not yet finalised is the method for determining fractional Challenge Ratings (since my previous method no longer works since I decimalised the Hit Dice progression as I showed a few posts ago). But I think I will have that cracked before the end of the weekend.

On a lighthearted note I got to see Star Trek X: Nemesis a few days ago and (though I didn't think it possible) it somehow manages to be worse than Star Trek IX: Insurrection! A dreadful show even though the underlying concept had potential (as with Insurrection). My advice is to avoid if at all possible.

I would recommend (again) the movie "28 days later" - which I think (from perusing ain't it cool) is iminent for North American release (I think?). A fantastic (British) horror movie. Easily the best such movie I have seen in years. Not for the faint hearted though!

Hey poilbrun mate! 

...and no of course I haven't forgotten to remind you that "28 Days Later" is due for release in Belgium on April 11th. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Just a quick question, guys : how do you determine the DC for these abilities? *




I use 10 + spell effect level + special ability bonus.


----------



## Impeesa (Feb 21, 2003)

My players finally hit 20 the other day... pester WotC to hurry up with the SRD updates, eh?  Incidentally, I have a question... one of these characters has a higher strength than he should thanks to the 2E->3E conversion guide for extremely high strength. I'm trying to make him retroactively legal, or at least balanced ECL wise, so I'm wondering... what would you charge for ECL (i.e. under the existing ECL rules) for a flat +10 to strength? I'm leaning towards +2....

--Impeesa--


----------



## poilbrun (Feb 21, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hey poilbrun mate!
> 
> ...and no of course I haven't forgotten to remind you that "28 Days Later" is due for release in Belgium on April 11th. *



Last week end, I checked the movies that will be released this year, and when I saw 28 Days later, I immediately thought about your advice not to miss it! Oddly enough, the 3rd movie from the Lord of the Ring trilogy is not yet scheduled to be released in Belgium!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 21, 2003)

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *My players finally hit 20 the other day... pester WotC to hurry up with the SRD updates, eh?  *




Will do! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Incidentally, I have a question... one of these characters has a higher strength than he should thanks to the 2E->3E conversion guide for extremely high strength. I'm trying to make him retroactively legal, or at least balanced ECL wise, so I'm wondering... what would you charge for ECL (i.e. under the existing ECL rules) for a flat +10 to strength? I'm leaning towards +2.... *




+1 would seem sufficient.

Since thats what it would be using the CR/EL pdf.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 21, 2003)

Hey poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Last week end, I checked the movies that will be released this year, and when I saw 28 Days later, I immediately thought about your advice not to miss it!*




Just remember my warning...its scary. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Oddly enough, the 3rd movie from the Lord of the Ring trilogy is not yet scheduled to be released in Belgium!  *




I am sure it will be released exactly a year after the last one.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 22, 2003)

I saw a preview for it the other day, it looks pretty cool. But I am unsure when it will be released in the US.  

*Eversmiting -* 
A being hit critically by this weapon, suffers, for the rest of their life, 3d12 damage per round. This damage has no qualities of the weapon (silver, holy, magic, etc..) for the purposes of DR.

*Shadow Walking -* 
The wearer of this armor gain the following spell like abilities to use as a free action at will:
_Blur, Greater Teleport, Improved Invisibility, Plane Shift_ 

*Acidic Aura -* 
The wearer of this armor may activate, at will as a standard action, the aura. This aura deals 3d6 acid damage per round to all within 15 ft.

*Burning Aura -* 
The wearer of this armor may activate, at will as a standard action, the aura. This aura deals 3d6 fire damage per round to all within 15 ft.

*Freezing Aura -* 
The wearer of this armor may activate, at will as a standard action, the aura. This aura deals 3d6 cold damage per round to all within 15 ft.

*Shocking Aura -* 
The wearer of this armor may activate, at will as a standard action, the aura. This aura deals 3d6 electric damage per round to all within 15 ft.

*Booming -* 
Each time this weapon strikes anything, all within 3000 ft, excluding the weilder, make a Fort save (DC 38) or take 9d6 sonic damage and are deafened.

And I just make up the DCs.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 22, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Shadow Walking -
> The wearer of this armor gain the following spell like abilities to use as a free action at will:
> Blur, Greater Teleport, Improved Invisibility, Plane Shift
> *



Why doesn't this armor also allow Shadow Walk?


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 22, 2003)

Hmmm, seems there are enough weapon / armor qualities to make a book solely for that purpose....

*Armor of Chronoduplication*
This armor allows the wearer to transport himself forward in time, for a short moment only. For the next 1d4+2 rounds, the wearer dissappears. Yet, after the rounds have expired, two duplicates of the wearer appear at the location where the wearer dissappeared. The wearer has effectively transported himself forward in time to join his future self in the fight. One of the duplicates will dissappear after the same number of rounds have passed, as the time during which he was not present. Since the duplicate is effectively the wearers past self, any damage taken will be transfered to him. Thus, using the special ability makes the wearer able of performing two actions at once, yet make him vulnerable to Area of Effect spells, since he will effectively take double damage if both himself and his Chronoduplicate is affected.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Knight Otu_
> quote:
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by Dark Wolf 97
> ...




I didn't have my PHB with me and was thinking of spells off the top of my head.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 22, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I saw a preview for it the other day, it looks pretty cool. But I am unsure when it will be released in the US. *




Its a good movie. Put your trust, in Krust. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Eversmiting -
> A being hit critically by this weapon, suffers, for the rest of their life, 3d12 damage per round. This damage has no qualities of the weapon (silver, holy, magic, etc..) for the purposes of DR.*




Maybe +200 if there was no way to stop it short of living within anti-magic.

It would eradicate 20 points of Fast Healing or Regeneration with every strike (for those with the ability).



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Shadow Walking -
> The wearer of this armor gain the following spell like abilities to use as a free action at will:
> Blur, Greater Teleport, Improved Invisibility, Plane Shift *




I may change the 'Shadow' ability thats already given in the DMG.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Acidic Aura -
> The wearer of this armor may activate, at will as a standard action, the aura. This aura deals 3d6 acid damage per round to all within 15 ft.
> 
> Burning Aura -
> ...




I have something like this as a Salient Divine Ability.

I try to keep weapon/armour abilities and salient divine abilities as seperate as possible (even though obviously there is some cross pollenation).



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Booming -
> Each time this weapon strikes anything, all within 3000 ft, excluding the weilder, make a Fort save (DC 38) or take 9d6 sonic damage and are deafened.*




You are always better giving people the lowest common denominator for these weapons and then showing them how to scale it.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And I just make up the DCs. *


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 22, 2003)

Hi Clay_more mate! 

Does your avatar smilie change every week?



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hmmm, seems there are enough weapon / armor qualities to make a book solely for that purpose....*




Indeed. We already have three or four times the abilities presented in the Epic Level Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide I'll warrant!? 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Armor of Chronoduplication
> This armor allows the wearer to transport himself forward in time, for a short moment only. For the next 1d4+2 rounds, the wearer dissappears. Yet, after the rounds have expired, two duplicates of the wearer appear at the location where the wearer dissappeared. The wearer has effectively transported himself forward in time to join his future self in the fight. One of the duplicates will dissappear after the same number of rounds have passed, as the time during which he was not present. Since the duplicate is effectively the wearers past self, any damage taken will be transfered to him. Thus, using the special ability makes the wearer able of performing two actions at once, yet make him vulnerable to Area of Effect spells, since he will effectively take double damage if both himself and his Chronoduplicate is affected. *




Very interesting! I wonder did you ever encounter the Hollow Naga I designed in the Creature Collection 2: Dark Menagerie book from Sword & Sorcery Studios? It had an ability not totally unlike the one you mentioned above.

Incidently I have been asked by S&SS to write up three of my submissions for CC3 ("Savage Beastiary"); but don't worry that won't affect anything with regards the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## Gez (Feb 23, 2003)

Bonjour!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Very interesting! I wonder did you ever encounter the Hollow Naga I designed in the Creature Collection 2: Dark Menagerie book from Sword & Sorcery Studios? It had an ability not totally unlike the one you mentioned above.*




It is also very close to the Tempus Twins from that same book. Don't know who writtten it, though. It would have been nice if they followed the same pattern as in the Tome of Horrors.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Incidently I have been asked by S&SS to write up three of my submissions for CC3 ("Savage Beastiary")*





I'm not surprised to hear that ! By the way, I've a command also   !


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 23, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Bonjour!*




Bonjour a vous a! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *It is also very close to the Tempus Twins from that same book. Don't know who writtten it, though. It would have been nice if they followed the same pattern as in the Tome of Horrors.*




There were some really great ideas in that book. I hope this next one can be even better!? 

I







			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *'m not surprised to hear that ! By the way, I've a command also   ! *




Congratulations mate!!! 

I know Nightfall also got in; I wonder did Scott (?) - I'll have to email him.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 23, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Incidently I have been asked by S&SS to write up three of my submissions for CC3 ("Savage Beastiary"); but don't worry that won't affect anything with regards the Immortals Handbook.  *




Only three? I'm disappointed!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 23, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Only three? I'm disappointed!   *




I was a bit disappointed myself but I went back over my submissions and to be honest they weren't all as good as I had intended. That said, there were at least another three or four I simply can't see how they passed over!? 

There were also a handful I regretted submitting because they were more suited to the Immortals Handbook (which currently has too many monsters).

But I hope people enjoy the monsters I concoct and I am sure there will be many interesting monsters in the Savage Beastiary!


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 23, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *That said, there were at least another three or four I simply can't see how they passed over!?
> *




I didn't read the legal text too closely, even though I was a bit interested in submitting... are you allowed to post about the "rejected" creatures, or are they reserving them for possible future use?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 23, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I didn't read the legal text too closely, even though I was a bit interested in submitting... are you allowed to post about the "rejected" creatures, or are they reserving them for possible future use? *




As far as I know you are allowed to talk about rejected submissions.


By the way you will all be happy to know I slotted the final peice of the CR/EL puzzle into place today (How to determine fractions). Which pretty much means thats everythings covered.

Still a couple of interesting results generally due to rounding up or down.

eg. The Gnoll works out at CR 1.5 (2) and the Bugbear works out at CR 2.45 (2).

Likewise the Troll works out equal to the Hill Giant (both 8).

The only result I am not happy with is that the perennial problem that is the skeleton. Which is so front loaded I can't get it below CR 1.7 (2). While the zombie is 0.3 (CR 1/2). Personally I would have them both at 1.

Still I am happy if the most problematic creature is 0.25 out; I think I can live with that. 

Also I am think of detailing Challenge Ratings like this:

Challenge Rating: CR 28 (Moderate); CR 14 (Difficult)

Any comments?


----------



## Impeesa (Feb 23, 2003)

Seems interesting... is that sort of like how, say, under the current rules all dragons (which are underrated CR-wise) would retain their curren ratings but be described as Very Difficult? 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 23, 2003)

Hey Über_Krust



> Does your avatar smilie change every week?




Well, I found someone else using same Smilie (I am vain)



> Very interesting! I wonder did you ever encounter the Hollow Naga I designed in the Creature Collection 2: Dark Menagerie book from Sword & Sorcery Studios? It had an ability not totally unlike the one you mentioned above.




Yes, I did. Didn't know you had written it, cool.


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 24, 2003)

UK:



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> By the way you will all be happy to know I slotted the final peice of the CR/EL puzzle into place today (How to determine fractions). Which pretty much means thats everythings covered.
> 
> Still a couple of interesting results generally due to rounding up or down.
> ...




You finished it you say?  Well formalize it and gimme a copy already!  The rounding errors seem to be a little problematic, but perhaps it's best you always round up, error on the side of caution, ie, round the gnoll up to 2 and bugbear up to 3.  About the skeleton, did you take into account it's amazing weakness to turn undead?  Without a cleric in the party, skeletons are actually pretty mean =). But since most if not all parties (except my current one) have clerics.. Dunno about CR 2 tho, but they are harder than orcs.  As for zombies, they're much easier than skeletons, they have only partial actions and crappy ac.  Medium skeletons and zombies should be about equal at CR 1 as you said, or maybe CR 3/4.

Anyhoo, my game went well saturday, players liked it.  Talk to ya later

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 24, 2003)

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Seems interesting... is that sort of like how, say, under the current rules all dragons (which are underrated CR-wise) would retain their curren ratings but be described as Very Difficult?  *




That was part of the plan. It will also be easier for DMs to hopefully gauge encounters for experienced gamers.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 24, 2003)

Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hey Über_Krust *




Hi Clay_More matey! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, I found someone else using same Smilie (I am vain) *




You should email them and tell them you were using it first! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Yes, I did. Didn't know you had written it, cool. *




Yes. I wrote seven monsters for that book including the Slarecian Dragon; Iron Devil and Mirror Fiend (the ones I am proudest of).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 24, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *UK:*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *You finished it you say?  Well formalize it and gimme a copy already!*




Finished writing it - not finished typing it up yet. 

I am tweaking the format a little as well, I need an additional header to do smaller titles.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *The rounding errors seem to be a little problematic, but perhaps it's best you always round up, error on the side of caution, ie, round the gnoll up to 2 and bugbear up to 3.*




Unfortunately that gets you into the same problems only different; you would have Kobolds the same as Orcs etc.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *About the skeleton, did you take into account it's amazing weakness to turn undead?*




I took everything into account I even Rule-0'ed the Skeletons Charisma to equal the zombies. I am sure that Cha 11 is either a typo (as with the Hill Giants Charisma) or just poor judgement by the designers.

In fact I just checked the MM errata and skeletons are indeed meant to have Cha 1. 

Though they haven't spotted the flaw in the Hill Giant entry. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Without a cleric in the party, skeletons are actually pretty mean =).*




Give them bastard sword; armour and shield. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *But since most if not all parties (except my current one) have clerics.. Dunno about CR 2 tho, but they are harder than orcs.*




Orcs work out at 0.55 (1).



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *As for zombies, they're much easier than skeletons, they have only partial actions and crappy ac.  Medium skeletons and zombies should be about equal at CR 1 as you said, or maybe CR 3/4.*




I would go along with CR 1; but I am happy to let the results stand as they do. The system is only minute fractions out on the most difficult monsters to equate - I can live with that. When I first started designing the CR system I was happy being one point out; now thats down to fractions



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Anyhoo, my game went well saturday, players liked it.  Talk to ya later *




Glad to hear all your hard work paid off! Later dude!


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Feb 24, 2003)

'Lo UK

I too am interested in the updated version when your finished typing it. 

*Vileness -* 
The damage this weapon deals is vile damge.

*Unhallowed -* 
The area 50ft around this weapon is under the effect of an Unhallow spell.

*Accurate-* 
This weapon will always hit, except on a roll of 1.

*Draining -* 
On a critical hit, this weapon drains Constitution from the target. They recieve a Fort save DC 24, if the succeed there are no adverse effects, if the fail they receive 3d6 temporary Con damage that is temporarily transfered to the weilder (increasing Hp temporarily).

Bye for now....


----------



## Anubis (Feb 24, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *UK:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Um, skeletons harder than orcs?  What game are you playing where two attacks at +0 for 1d4 (only 2 more hp, although effectively 8 more hp) is better than one attack at +3 for 1d12+3 damage?

Statistically speaking, against a standard Level 1 AC (which is 16), skeletons will do an average of 1.27 damage per round, whereas an orc will do an average of 9.88 damage per round.  Methinks you should take a second look.  I'm not 100% certain of the *exact* math, but I know I came within 1 point of the correct numbers in both cases.  Even when you factor in the triple hp, the skeleton STILL doesn't even come CLOSE to measuring up to the orc.  That's ASSUMING no cleric or blunt weapons as well, which is HIGHLY unlikely.  When you consider that the "standard party" off which CR is based assumes at least one cleric (most likely with a blunt weapon), it makes little sense to actually give the skeleton such a huge CR bump for a minor ability.

Skeletons NOR Zombies are worthy of a CR 1 tag.  Level 1 parties can easily take on several of both.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 24, 2003)

Greetings & Salutations Upper_Krust

Well, both the Slarecian Dragon, the Iron Devil and the Skin-shedding Hollow Naga are vivid in my mind. I am horribly ill-informed of the matters of the gaming community, hardly any of them GameCon things in Denmark  Which is why im lousy at the who's who game. 

Generally, I liked the Slarecians of the book. One of my players named the Evil Mercanes, but im not sure....

Would a hard-working, god-creating, weapon-ability-interested bloke have time to take a quick and un-interested glance at another blokes unworthy creation?
(Thats what we in Europe call to "kiss ass" or "smooch").

Got a thread somewhere downstairs for my Vampire (in my bottom header thing. Dont blame me, its your fault. You brought up that you had worked on MM!). 

When you mention a Skeletons weaknesses, it is one of those creatures that aren't all-round bad. Theyre weak against clerics, yes. But my group consisting of too many archers had tremendous problems. 

So, when will your CR system be available again? Or is it available now?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 24, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *'Lo UK*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I too am interested in the updated version when your finished typing it.*




I'll keep you all informed.

I still haven't decided if I will be giving this one away before the IH is released (or if at all) to be honest.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Vileness -
> The damage this weapon deals is vile damge.*




I still don't have the Book of Vile Darkness unfortunately but I believe the damage can only be healed on holy ground or somesuch?



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Unhallowed -
> The area 50ft around this weapon is under the effect of an Unhallow spell.*




Are there any good armour/weapon special abilities in the Book of Vile Darkness.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Accurate-
> This weapon will always hit, except on a roll of 1.
> 
> Draining -
> On a critical hit, this weapon drains Constitution from the target. They recieve a Fort save DC 24, if the succeed there are no adverse effects, if the fail they receive 3d6 temporary Con damage that is temporarily transfered to the weilder (increasing Hp temporarily).*




Both already covered! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Bye for now.... *




See you later!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 24, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, skeletons harder than orcs?  What game are you playing where two attacks at +0 for 1d4 (only 2 more hp, although effectively 8 more hp) is better than one attack at +3 for 1d12+3 damage?*




Given the same equipment the skeleton is superior.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Statistically speaking, against a standard Level 1 AC (which is 16), skeletons will do an average of 1.27 damage per round, whereas an orc will do an average of 9.88 damage per round.  Methinks you should take a second look.  I'm not 100% certain of the *exact* math, but I know I came within 1 point of the correct numbers in both cases.  Even when you factor in the triple hp, the skeleton STILL doesn't even come CLOSE to measuring up to the orc.  That's ASSUMING no cleric or blunt weapons as well, which is HIGHLY unlikely.  When you consider that the "standard party" off which CR is based assumes at least one cleric (most likely with a blunt weapon), it makes little sense to actually give the skeleton such a huge CR bump for a minor ability.*




I have already stated that I thought the skeleton was rated fractionally too high. But without cheating the system itself there is no way that a being with its capabilities can be rated lower. It is top heavy in special qualities.

Seemingly after reviewing thousands of monsters the system is a few fractions off perfect accuracy with the skeleton which is only even noticeable because its at in and around CR1.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Skeletons NOR Zombies are worthy of a CR 1 tag.  Level 1 parties can easily take on several of both. *




Remembering of course that a Level 1 party will likely be PCR 2.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 24, 2003)

Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Greetings & Salutations Upper_Krust*




Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, both the Slarecian Dragon, the Iron Devil and the Skin-shedding Hollow Naga are vivid in my mind. I am horribly ill-informed of the matters of the gaming community, hardly any of them GameCon things in Denmark  Which is why im lousy at the who's who game.*




Well the Creature Collection 2 was Open Call so anyone could submit proposals for it.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Generally, I liked the Slarecians of the book. One of my players named the Evil Mercanes, but im not sure....
> 
> Would a hard-working, god-creating, weapon-ability-interested bloke have time to take a quick and un-interested glance at another blokes unworthy creation?
> (Thats what we in Europe call to "kiss ass" or "smooch").*




Sure I'll take a look mate! Not sure how much my feedback will help of course! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Got a thread somewhere downstairs for my Vampire (in my bottom header thing. Dont blame me, its your fault. You brought up that you had worked on MM!).*




I'll know better in future!  



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *When you mention a Skeletons weaknesses, it is one of those creatures that aren't all-round bad. Theyre weak against clerics, yes. But my group consisting of too many archers had tremendous problems.*




Vindicated at last. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *So, when will your CR system be available again? Or is it available now? *




The prototype is available now. If you don't have it email me and I will send you a copy (its a 118k pdf). My email address is agooddesigner@hotmail.com


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 24, 2003)

Well, I sent a mail. Glad that you could find time to take a quickie glance, most people are discouraged when they see a 15-pages long template (for one reason or another). 

And as for the skeletons, you should see how proud my players were with their self-developed tactic of using Expeditious Retreat and Longbows, doesn't work so well when you inflict almost no damage though 

That is what I sometimes find unbalancing about the lower CR monsters, they are more easily out-balanced by special qualities / attacks, especially when these qualities are ones that work better against some classes / weapons.


----------



## Eldorian (Feb 24, 2003)

CR isn't only about melee effectiveness.  Sleep and color spray pretty much make orc problems non existant, just like turning does to skeletons.  And the average first level ac isn't 16...  scalemail and 14 dex is GOOD for first level.  Skeletons are also immune to sneak attack and critical hits, negating that rogue's bonus damage, where the rogue can drop an orc in one hit pretty easily, not so with a skeleton, especially if he lacks a blunt weapon.  I'll admit, orcs can be mean with great axes and studded leather armor, but so can skeletons with great axes and studded leather armor.  Skeletons have much superior AC to orcs given the same gear.  (armed with large shields and studded leather, skeleton ac hits 19, which is tough at first level.) Also initiative modifiers favor skeletons, which means they may get the jump on the party, and going first is important in the fast paced combat of dnd.  So I'll stand by my claim that skeletons are harder than orcs, without clerics, and are about equal to orcs with clerics and a wizard or sorcerer with color spray or sleep.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Gez (Feb 25, 2003)

Hiya, UK




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes. I wrote seven monsters for that book including the Slarecian Dragon; Iron Devil and Mirror Fiend (the ones I am proudest of).  *




I don't remember which are the other three ?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 25, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, I sent a mail.*




I replied not so long ago. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Glad that you could find time to take a quickie glance, most people are discouraged when they see a 15-pages long template (for one reason or another). *




Yes it was something of a shock to the system I must admit. 

I am currently about a third of the way through. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *And as for the skeletons, you should see how proud my players were with their self-developed tactic of using Expeditious Retreat and Longbows, doesn't work so well when you inflict almost no damage though  *








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *That is what I sometimes find unbalancing about the lower CR monsters, they are more easily out-balanced by special qualities / attacks, especially when these qualities are ones that work better against some classes / weapons. *




Exactly. You could make a 1st-level character magic immune and give them a +1250 Exterminating Greatsword and they could still get killed by a single arrow to the chest.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 25, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *CR isn't only about melee effectiveness.  Sleep and color spray pretty much make orc problems non existant, just like turning does to skeletons.  And the average first level ac isn't 16...  scalemail and 14 dex is GOOD for first level.  Skeletons are also immune to sneak attack and critical hits, negating that rogue's bonus damage, where the rogue can drop an orc in one hit pretty easily, not so with a skeleton, especially if he lacks a blunt weapon.  I'll admit, orcs can be mean with great axes and studded leather armor, but so can skeletons with great axes and studded leather armor.  Skeletons have much superior AC to orcs given the same gear.  (armed with large shields and studded leather, skeleton ac hits 19, which is tough at first level.) Also initiative modifiers favor skeletons, which means they may get the jump on the party, and going first is important in the fast paced combat of dnd.  So I'll stand by my claim that skeletons are harder than orcs, without clerics, and are about equal to orcs with clerics and a wizard or sorcerer with color spray or sleep. *




Absolutely. Equipment is definately a pertinent factor here. Overall I think the skeleton just shades it.

Incidently the type up of the CR/EL modifications is going really well. I have also added certain unique epic abilities to the list.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 25, 2003)

Gez said:
			
		

> *Hiya, UK*




Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *I don't remember which are the other three ? *




The Moon Daemon which they changed for the worst. Initially it was meant to have a female upper body growing from the head of a large 'werewolf'.

The Elder Larvae which was meant to be transparent so you could see who had been swallowed (still don't know why they changed that)

The Crown Naga which was totally butchered (my initial monster was CR25; had nine heads and could use spells with each every round).

But for all that I was still pretty happy they were picked.


----------



## Gez (Feb 25, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The Moon Daemon which they changed for the worst. Initially it was meant to have a female upper body growing from the head of a large 'werewolf'.*




Growing from the head ? I'm not sure how to picture that. And no legs ?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The Elder Larvae which was meant to be transparent so you could see who had been swallowed (still don't know why they changed that)*




The creature is still described as being translucent, though. But nothing on seeing the eaten victims. Maybe merely for word count reasons. I'm struggling with that right now, word count.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The Crown Naga which was totally butchered (my initial monster was CR25; had nine heads and could use spells with each every round).*




Did your original could be used as ammunition as well ?


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 25, 2003)

Hmm, they must be the ones he is the least proud of, must it not?


----------



## Anubis (Feb 25, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Given the same equipment the skeleton is superior.
> *




Uh, no.  I can't see ANY point at which a skeleton is superior to an orc.  The orc will almost ALWAYS cause more damage to a party than a skeleton will.  Heck, come Level 2, the skeleton is a non-factor, while the orc can still get a hit or two in for decent damage.  If anything, I'd rate skeletons at 1/2 and orcs at 1.


----------



## Anubis (Feb 25, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *CR isn't only about melee effectiveness.  Sleep and color spray pretty much make orc problems non existant, just like turning does to skeletons.  And the average first level ac isn't 16...  scalemail and 14 dex is GOOD for first level.  Skeletons are also immune to sneak attack and critical hits, negating that rogue's bonus damage, where the rogue can drop an orc in one hit pretty easily, not so with a skeleton, especially if he lacks a blunt weapon.  I'll admit, orcs can be mean with great axes and studded leather armor, but so can skeletons with great axes and studded leather armor.  Skeletons have much superior AC to orcs given the same gear.  (armed with large shields and studded leather, skeleton ac hits 19, which is tough at first level.) Also initiative modifiers favor skeletons, which means they may get the jump on the party, and going first is important in the fast paced combat of dnd.  So I'll stand by my claim that skeletons are harder than orcs, without clerics, and are about equal to orcs with clerics and a wizard or sorcerer with color spray or sleep.
> 
> Eldorian Antar *




AC 16 is actually average.  That assumes an AVERAGE Dexterity, but having scale mail and a large steel shield.  It's not a flat rate by any means, but it is the average.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 25, 2003)

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Growing from the head ? I'm not sure how to picture that. And no legs ?*




Imagine a ten foot tall werewolf with a Succubus like torso growing out of the top of its head.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *The creature is still described as being translucent, though. But nothing on seeing the eaten victims. Maybe merely for word count reasons. I'm struggling with that right now, word count.*




I thought it would have made for a more interesting illustration.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Did your original could be used as ammunition as well ? *




No it was a 30ft behemoth. 

 Naga, Crown
Art Notes: Heads splayed writhing in their own majesty it resembles a great nine headed serpent, each head humanoid yet twisted in hatred.

Huge Aberration
Hit Dice: 27d8+189 (310 hp)
Initiative: +8 (+4 Dex, +4 improved initiative)
Speed:	40 ft. 
AC: 27 (-2 size, +4 Dex, +16 natural )
Attacks: 9 bites +27 melee  
Damage: Bites 2d6+13 and poison 
Face/Reach: 15 ft. by 15 ft. (coiled) / 10 ft.
Special Attacks: Charming gaze, detect thoughts, poison, spit, spells  	
Special Qualities: Poison immunity, regeneration, spell resistance 32
Saves:	Fort +18, Ref +15, Will +25
Abilities: Str 28, Dex 19, Con 25, Int 26, Wis 26, Cha 35
Skills:	Bluff +16, Concentration +16, Knowledge (any one) +14, Listen +23, Sense Motive +14, Spellcraft +14, Spot +23
Feats:	Alertness, Combat Casting, Dodge, Improved Critical (bite), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Multiattack, Spell Focus (any one school)
Climate/Terrain: Temperate and warm land and underground 	
Organization: Solitary or nest (naga crown plus 2-4 devil nagas and 5-8 spirit nagas) 	
Challenge Rating: 25	
Treasure: Triple Standard
Alignment: Usually chaotic evil 
Advancement Range: By character class

  Description
 Naga crowns represent the zenith of naga mutation. Heads splayed writhing in their own majesty. These creatures resemble a great nine headed serpent, each head humanoid yet twisted in hatred. They easily reach 50 feet in length and weigh about 9000 pounds. Scales are coloured at the whim of the monster, though they typically favour green banded with black.
     Magically adept with few peers they dominate the surrounding territory, quickly establishing a niche for them and their brood. Naga crowns enjoy charming opponents by gaze or by spell, and any lair will likely have charmed humanoid or animal slaves until such time a sthe nagas finish playing with such 'toys'. Considered by many, as well as themselves, as the true masters of naga kind it has been speculated that naga crowns are the spawn of the titaness Mormo, mother of serpents. She who has given birth to many such abominations. However, even if this is the case, naga crowns acknowledge no power greater than themselves. So any homage to Mormo is rendered through the spreading of grief and murder rather than actual supplication.  

  Combat
 Fearsome opponents indeed. Capable of combating attacks on several fronts at once, they will swiftly dispose of all but the most redoubtable of challenges. Attackers can quickly find themselves overcome by multiple spells in the space of but a few seconds. Each head acts independantly, yet coordinated with the whole mass, the effects can be deadly. Potentially capable of casting as many as nine spells in a single round, with commensurate physical abilities to match, these creatures consider themselves invincible.
     To sever a head of a naga crown an opponent must hit the monsters neck with a slashing weapon and deal damage equal to the naga crown's original hit point total, divided by its original number of heads in one blow.  

Charming Gaze (Su): As charm person, Will save (DC 34).
Detect Thoughts (Su): A naga crown can continuously detect thoughts as the spell cast by a 17th-level sorceror (DC24). this ability is always active.
Poison (Ex): Bites, Fortitude save (DC 30); initial damage 2d8 temporary Constitution, secondary damage death.
Poison Immunity (Ex): a naga crown is immune to all poisons and toxins.
Regeneration (Ex): A naga crown regenerates severed heads in 2d6 rounds. To prevent a head growing back, at least 5 points of fire or acid damage must be dealt to the stump (AC31) before the new head appears.
Skills: A naga crown receives a +8 racial bonus to Spot and Listen checks due to its multiple heads.  
Spit (Ex): A naga crown can spit its venom up to 30ft. as a standard action. The attack ignores armor and has no range increment. Opponents hit by this attack must attempt saves against the naga crown's poison as above.
Spells: Naga crowns cast spells as 17th-level sorcerors, and can also cast cleric spells from the Chaos and Evil domains as arcane spells (save DC22 + spell level).



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hmm, they must be the ones he is the least proud of, must it not? *




Naturally - the ones they wrongly changed.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 25, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Uh, no.  I can't see ANY point at which a skeleton is superior to an orc. *




Initiative
Armour Class
Hit Points
Weapon Resistance
Various Immunities

...but apart from that.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 25, 2003)

> The Crown Naga which was totally butchered (my initial monster was CR25; had nine heads and could use spells with each every round).




Im still wondering though, did they change the story as well? Since the story collaborates the two-headedness of the Crown Naga, it must have been changed as well. You should post the original Crown Naga here (If you are allowed to) to rectify, I wouldn't mind seeing how the original was.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 25, 2003)

Wow, cool. I was writing my post and you actually responded before I got to finish it... impressive....


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 25, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Im still wondering though, did they change the story as well? Since the story collaborates the two-headedness of the Crown Naga, it must have been changed as well.*




Well you see I submitted a two headed naga as well called the Devil Naga. They used aspects of that on their revision of the Crown Naga.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *You should post the original Crown Naga here (If you are allowed to) to rectify, I wouldn't mind seeing how the original was. *




I just did a few minutes ago!


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 25, 2003)

Wow, it actually explains a problem I had when reading CCII. I wondered why they called it a Crown Naga... there was little "royal" about it, even though now I see why. 
They must be horrible to use as opponents by a DM though, have to decide nine actions each round. But, I could easily think of many good attack / spell combos that would work wonders when you can use nine actions in a round.. The Naga could probably have all its defensive spells up in a single round and then begin inflicting mayhem. With its ability to use some cleric spells, it would be a nicely "buffed" creature, taking into account its combat capabilities as well. There was a general lack of high CR creatures in both of the CC books, im wondering why the original Crown Naga wasn't allowed in.


----------



## Gez (Feb 26, 2003)

What about renaming it Imperator Naga and putting it in the IH ? 

It's different enough from its CC2 transcription to be OK, I think.


(And the moon daemon would have looked very weird, I can understand their reasonning to make it look more "normal" -- although I don't say I approve, the 'loths are supposed to be weird).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 26, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Wow, it actually explains a problem I had when reading CCII. I wondered why they called it a Crown Naga... there was little "royal" about it, even though now I see why.*








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *They must be horrible to use as opponents by a DM though, have to decide nine actions each round. But, I could easily think of many good attack / spell combos that would work wonders when you can use nine actions in a round.*




They do use up their spell quota quite quickly though.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *The Naga could probably have all its defensive spells up in a single round and then begin inflicting mayhem. With its ability to use some cleric spells, it would be a nicely "buffed" creature, taking into account its combat capabilities as well.*




I had a quick glance over the Naga Crown above and it seems like: 

CR 40 (moderate) 20 (difficult)



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *There was a general lack of high CR creatures in both of the CC books, im wondering why the original Crown Naga wasn't allowed in. *




I suspect it simply did not fit in with their plans for the setting. Sometimes powerful mosters can disturb the ecology of a place. Aside from the Slarecian Dragons (which are very rare and live underground anyway); the most powerful monsters of the Scarred Lands are unique types like Athentia the Great Sphinx; the Mithril Golem and the Reaver.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 26, 2003)

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *What about renaming it Imperator Naga and putting it in the IH ? *




A number of reasons. Firstly; I already have too many monsters in the Immortals Handbook. Secondly; the 'Imperator Naga' would be probably the weakest monster in that book. Also I have already posted it above so it has lost some of its 'je ne sais pas' (sp?).



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *It's different enough from its CC2 transcription to be OK, I think.*




Indeed.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *(And the moon daemon would have looked very weird, I can understand their reasonning to make it look more "normal" -- although I don't say I approve, the 'loths are supposed to be weird). *




It was meant to be the Hadean version of the Erinyes/Succubus. A temptress that looks like a beautiful woman but (as a servant of Belsameth the Moon Goddess) changes (either voluntarily or sometimes unvolunterily under a full moon) to the aforementioned wolf-beast.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 26, 2003)

I only have the CC books from the Scarred Lands world, but they made me think that it had to be a low to medium power campaign. Kind of the opposite of what youre working on now, eh?
Most of the story components of the Scarred Lands campaign seems good though, the whole "torn in a divine war" theme makes for a good background and it makes it easy to find solid monster explanations. I also noticed how unusually many Evil monsters there are in the books, which is probably another campaign decision...

So far, the CR-calculating info I got seems sound. I cannot see anything with it that hasn't already been mentioned. Only problem is regarding template... Vampire: +9 Cr. Doesn't help alot when you made your own 
Anyways, hows the review going of my unworthy material?


----------



## Anubis (Feb 27, 2003)

Hey, UK, could you go check out the new demon lord I wrote up?

It's here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42262

What I really need to know is if I got the CR right.  Until you have released the final version of your rules, I have decided to go by the originals with a few modifications here and there.  They work fine at lower levels, and although they break down at higher levels, I would still love for input as to what this thing's CR should be by the original system.  (In other words, since CR is supposed to be when the creature is a standard challenge for a party of that level, when should the CR of the thing be?)

I currently have it listed at 39, but that may be incorrect.  (I have considered bumping it up to 43, but would like input first.)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 27, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I only have the CC books from the Scarred Lands world, but they made me think that it had to be a low to medium power campaign.*




I have the Wise and the Wicked (Great NPC softcover book) which really pulls out the stops on some tough NPCs (they even had epic characters before the Epic Level Handbook was released). 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Kind of the opposite of what youre working on now, eh?*




Well even the Epic Level Rules are lower powered compared to elements I propose. In some ways I feel that the ELH is sort of entry level to epic gaming whereas my rules expand to infinity*.

*and beyond (for those fans of Buzz Lightyear) 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Most of the story components of the Scarred Lands campaign seems good though, the whole "torn in a divine war" theme makes for a good background and it makes it easy to find solid monster explanations. I also noticed how unusually many Evil monsters there are in the books, which is probably another campaign decision...*




I think the Scarred Lands is a great setting with some great products. I think part of the attraction is that it is so bleak (in terms of the predominance of evil) that the heroes will really shine.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *So far, the CR-calculating info I got seems sound. I cannot see anything with it that hasn't already been mentioned.*




I think everyone is going to be so impressed with how detailed the final version of the CR/EL system is.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Only problem is regarding template... Vampire: +9 Cr. Doesn't help alot when you made your own *




I am sure that is set to change. I will be finishing the templates and types/subtypes shortly...



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, hows the review going of my unworthy material? *




...when I get the Templates finished today I will post up the breakdown of the official vampire template. Then we can go through your changes. I have read over your entire body of work; curiously you have the same approach as Savage Species (not sure if you have that book yet?); though they seem to be able to condense everything a bit better.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 27, 2003)

Hey there Krust. 
So, Buzz Lightyear will be appearing in IH? Cool, original I must say... (What is he, a paladin with boots of flying?).

As for the Scarred Lands, it is true that the goodness of the hero is always measured by the evil of his foes. 
Do you, btw, have any idea how long the finished CR/EL system will be? I read the one I got sent and it was already 7 pages, and if templates and types/subtypes are going to be further detailed, it looks as if though it will have a good, big part of the finished book. Will you then be making the CR/EL system available to the flock of faithfuls that come here? 

I dont have the Savage Species, I got other books on my to-buy list (and not bundles of cash lying around), but I might squeeze it in below Song & Silence. 
Alas, one of the biggest predicaments was making the template detailed and at the same time easily understood. I know there is a problem with having Energy Drain, for example, described fifteen times. But, at least every last one can be used "directly", without having to referr to the above templates to calculate gifts, feats, skills, abilites etc. Constructing the template in the same manner as a class wouldn't be bad though, admitted.

Have you playtested any of the material in IH yet? I hope it offers some better playing advice than ELH (Make them fight PARAGON dragons instead of dragons and chage EPIC rogues instead of rogues!). 

Anyways, ill keep my danish, ranting mouth closed for now


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 27, 2003)

Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hey there Krust.*




Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *So, Buzz Lightyear will be appearing in IH? Cool, original I must say... (What is he, a paladin with boots of flying?).*








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *As for the Scarred Lands, it is true that the goodness of the hero is always measured by the evil of his foes.*




Indeed.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Do you, btw, have any idea how long the finished CR/EL system will be?*




Its shaping up to about 12 pages (I may have to extend that slightly). At least 12 pages though, certainly no more than 14.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I read the one I got sent and it was already 7 pages, and if templates and types/subtypes are going to be further detailed, it looks as if though it will have a good, big part of the finished book. Will you then be making the CR/EL system available to the flock of faithfuls that come here?*




Probably. I am curious what WotC would think of it though so I may send it to them? By all accounts they are still not sure how to do CRs:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rs/20030225a



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I dont have the Savage Species, I got other books on my to-buy list (and not bundles of cash lying around), but I might squeeze it in below Song & Silence.*




Both books are about equal.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Alas, one of the biggest predicaments was making the template detailed and at the same time easily understood. I know there is a problem with having Energy Drain, for example, described fifteen times. But, at least every last one can be used "directly", without having to referr to the above templates to calculate gifts, feats, skills, abilites etc. Constructing the template in the same manner as a class wouldn't be bad though, admitted.*




You should check out how they do the Minotaur Preview on the net:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20030202ex



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Have you playtested any of the material in IH yet?*




The basics yes, but not some of the more outlandish stuff. I suppose the pdf release will be an extended playtest of sorts - but I am confident that balance certainly won't be a problem...I'm quite good at stuff like that. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I hope it offers some better playing advice than ELH (Make them fight PARAGON dragons instead of dragons and chage EPIC rogues instead of rogues!).*




Make them fight IMMORTAL dragons instead of dragons and change to IMMORTAL rogues instead of rogues. 

Only joking! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, ill keep my danish, ranting mouth closed for now  *




You are always welcome mate!


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 27, 2003)

Good evening once again

It actually looks like the Minotaur Preview gives some good advice on constructing a "growing" template, even if the template follows Age/Generation growth instead of experience points growth. 

I hope you still remember my email adress for when you release the playtesting PDF. I think its a good idea putting your projects on display, like you do here on Enworld. When someone who writes D&D gets "ingrown", the results often have the "ingrown" feel about them. Please look at excibit A: ELH. 

I didn't know that WoTC didn't already have a CR-calculation system. I hear that some people are using one that appeared in an issue of Dragon, which should be okay, but somewhat lacking. Unfortunately, I dont have a subscription. Explanation of this can be found in the paragraph containing the words "Dont have bundles of money lying around".

Are there going to be many Templates in the Immortals Handbook? You shouldn't be so secretive about them


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 28, 2003)

Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Good evening once again*




Good morning! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *It actually looks like the Minotaur Preview gives some good advice on constructing a "growing" template, even if the template follows Age/Generation growth instead of experience points growth.*




True, but I think the gaming experience more or less amounts to the same thing.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I hope you still remember my email adress for when you release the playtesting PDF. I think its a good idea putting your projects on display, like you do here on Enworld. When someone who writes D&D gets "ingrown", the results often have the "ingrown" feel about them. Please look at excibit A: ELH.*




I agree wholeheartedly. 

However at this juncture I am curious to hear WotCs opinion on the matter. So I will wait to hear what they say before deciding to release this version just yet. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I didn't know that WoTC didn't already have a CR-calculation system. I hear that some people are using one that appeared in an issue of Dragon, which should be okay, but somewhat lacking.*




I have the system in front of me.

"Divide Average Hit Points by 4.5 to calculate base Hit Dice then add 1 or 2 for each special attack or useful special quality the creature has...then divide by 3 and round down.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Unfortunately, I dont have a subscription. Explanation of this can be found in the paragraph containing the words "Dont have bundles of money lying around".*




You and me both. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Are there going to be many Templates in the Immortals Handbook? You shouldn't be so secretive about them  *




Immortal Status and Portfolios are all handled as templates so on those alone there are over 60.

If you were refering specifically to Monstrous Templates then yes there are a handful of those too.

...and I like being secretive about them.


----------



## Clay_More (Feb 28, 2003)

Greetings again UK



> "Divide Average Hit Points by 4.5 to calculate base Hit Dice then add 1 or 2 for each special attack or useful special quality the creature has...then divide by 3 and round down.




Hmm, sounds like a system I saw for calculating Dragon Breath weapon. "Add confusing number to other confusing number and divide by irrational number. Then, add a few non-important numbers and divide by Monte Cooks shirt-size"

Anyways, will you be doing any Scarred Lands deities within the book as well? Or will it all be general-campaign content, so to speak? 
It looks good that it will be open in the upwards-end, since I have always hated max-restrictions (For example D&D 2.Ed... Max lvl 36). 

Anyways, wouldnt wanna disturb your project. By all means, go back to your writing...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Feb 28, 2003)

Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Greetings again UK*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hmm, sounds like a system I saw for calculating Dragon Breath weapon. "Add confusing number to other confusing number and divide by irrational number. Then, add a few non-important numbers and divide by Monte Cooks shirt-size"*








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, will you be doing any Scarred Lands deities within the book as well? Or will it all be general-campaign content, so to speak?*




I wouldn't be allowed to publish Scarred Lands deities. All my work will be generic in that respect.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *It looks good that it will be open in the upwards-end, since I have always hated max-restrictions (For example D&D 2.Ed... Max lvl 36).*




The funniest ever was the 2nd Ed. High Level Campaign book which halted characters at 30th-level. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, wouldnt wanna disturb your project. By all means, go back to your writing... *




Thats okay mate, stop by anytime.


----------



## Knight Otu (Feb 28, 2003)

Hi, Upper_Krust!

I've recently stumbled over the tale of Uthgardloki again, due to a thread on the WotC boards, and I wondered what kind of being he would be according to your system?


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 1, 2003)

One thing that would be really nice: In the item creation rules, they don't describe what, exactly, you're spending money on.  I mean, clearly you're spending it on material components and raw materials.  But when you're spending billions and billions of GP on the raw materials...  What exactly are you spending the money on?  If you offered some guidelines and some examples on what the value of given components, that would be spiffy.  After all, at a certain level, you CANNOT buy the raw materials for an item - Simply too rare, or too dangerous!


----------



## Impeesa (Mar 1, 2003)

One more.. can't resist...  Where would you put the bonus for this?

Crusader's - a crusader's weapon increases its enhancement bonus by +1 whenever it scores a successful hit in combat. This bonus lasts until the wielder attempts an attack but misses, or goes an entire round without attempting an attack.

--Impeesa--


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 1, 2003)

Hi all! 

I finished the Templates and Subtypes last night before I went to see the Daredevil movie (which I enjoyed, though as I suspected they made a mess of the Kingpin character).

I'll post the vampire one later today.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, Upper_Krust!*




Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I've recently stumbled over the tale of Uthgardloki again, due to a thread on the WotC boards, and I wondered what kind of being he would be according to your system? *




There are conflicting myths as to the exact nature of Utgard-Loki.

I remember reading one such description when I was younger that he had two heads, and that has always stuck in my mind. So in that case he would be a fully advanced Ettin (30HD) with at least 20 levels in illusionist and quasi-deity status immortality.


----------



## Knight Otu (Mar 1, 2003)

Thanks! 

Never read a story of him having two heads, but given what he does with Thor and Loki, you can never be too sure.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 1, 2003)

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *One thing that would be really nice: In the item creation rules, they don't describe what, exactly, you're spending money on.  I mean, clearly you're spending it on material components and raw materials.  But when you're spending billions and billions of GP on the raw materials...  What exactly are you spending the money on?  If you offered some guidelines and some examples on what the value of given components, that would be spiffy.  After all, at a certain level, you CANNOT buy the raw materials for an item - Simply too rare, or too dangerous! *




I'll see what I can come up with, it shouldn't be too hard to offer partial suggestions for DMs:

"The Frost Nexus weapon requires the tongue of a Xixecal tempered in the blightfire of a Winterwight."

I have some new materials in the book as well.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 1, 2003)

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *One more.. can't resist...  Where would you put the bonus for this?
> 
> Crusader's - a crusader's weapon increases its enhancement bonus by +1 whenever it scores a successful hit in combat. This bonus lasts until the wielder attempts an attack but misses, or goes an entire round without attempting an attack.*




Believe it or not I actually have a very similar power called "Bitterness" which adds a cumulative +1 per attack, provided you keep attacking the same opponent. Once you change opponents it resets to +1 and starts again.

Bitterness is rated at +5

Crusader looks similar.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 1, 2003)

oho oho... vampire later today... woohoo...

Cant wait.... cant wait...


----------



## Anubis (Mar 1, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Impeesa mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually, UK, if I read his Crusader power correctly, it's a cumulative +1 ENHANCEMENT bonus, meaning the more he attacks, the more hit AND damage goes up, and the easier it is to bypass damage reduction.

For instance, if you have a +1 Crusader weapon, you'll do no damage to a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon AT FIRST, but after 14 hits, you'll start doing real damage.  On top of that, you can switch opponents.

Imagine a shrewd character going after a bunch of kobolds and scoring like 100 successful hits . . . Or the old blind kobold in a can style routine . . . See where that goes real fast?  This is balanced by the fact that a 1 is an auto-miss, but imagine a Greater Deity wielding this sort of weapon . . . See the problem now?  This ability is worth at least a +10, although since it's effectiveness varies with the user, it's hard to judge.

I would say this weapon is impossible to rate without one more change to it.  Perhaps a maximum enhancement modifier is in order, or a time limit to its use.


----------



## Impeesa (Mar 1, 2003)

Well, there is sort of a time limit... the bonus resets to zero as soon as you go a round without attacking... and you have to hit with those attacks to keep the bonus, a miss resets it too.  I always liked the idea, IIRC it was in the earliest version of Diablo as one of the random weapon abilities but was dropped in later patches due to balance issues. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 1, 2003)

*Vampire Breakdown*

Hi all! 

Firstly, about the "Crusader" Power, remember (as Impeesa mentioned) there is a time limit.

Vampire:

Natural Armour +6: +0.6
Domination: +0.5
Energy Drain (2 Levels): +2
Blood Drain: +1.75
Children of the Night: +0.2
Create Spawn: +0.4
Damage Reduction 15/+1: +0.75
Turn Resistance +4: +0.2
Cold Resistance 20: +0.2
Electricity Resistance 20: +0.2
Spider Climb: +0.2
Alternate Form: +0.2
Fast Healing 5: +0.5
Ability Score increases: +1.8
Skills bonuses: +1.4
Bonus Feats: +1

Undead (Intelligent): +1*

*Includes all undead strengths and weaknesses.

+12.9 so far

Can be repelled, limited access to areas: -1
Sunlight Vulnerability: -2.5
Water Vulnerability: -0.5
Staking Vulnerability: -0.5

Final Total: CR +8.4


----------



## Anubis (Mar 2, 2003)

*Re: Vampire Breakdown*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Skills bonuses: +1.4
> *




You make it SO easy to point out big mistakes.  Heh.  Those skill bonuses are *not even close* to being worth an effective level and a half.  It would take an insane number of bonuses to have that great an effect on a creature's power.  To equate those skill bonuses with +14 natural armor or +14 in ability scores (both also worth +1.4) is INSANE.

Skill bonuses are worth MAYBE 0.01 per point, IF THAT.  Perhaps 0.1 per +20 (all rounded down) would be an even better indication.  Maybe even less, to be honest.  It depends on the skills.  Any which way, skills have no great effect until epic levels, and even then are just cursory bonuses at best.  The only exception is perhaps Tumble, which is the only true utility feat that has a direct effect on anything.

I think you'd be best served rating those bonuses at a total of 0.2 (+8 to seven skills, +56 total) using the 0.1 per +20.  That would make the template worth a total of +7.2 to CR.

(For another way to figure out that your current calculation is totally incorrect, simply put those same bonuses on a Level 1 character with 10 in every stat.  Your current system rathes such a character at CR 2.4, or just CR 2.  Would you honestly say that character is more powerful or even equal to a character who instead has the standard ability score array of 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, which is CR 2.2, or also CR 2?  I think the answer is QUITE obvious.)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Vampire Breakdown*

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You make it SO easy to point out big mistakes.  Heh.
> 
> Those skill bonuses are *not even close* to being worth an effective level and a half.  It would take an insane number of bonuses to have that great an effect on a creature's power.  To equate those skill bonuses with +14 natural armor or +14 in ability scores (both also worth +1.4) is INSANE.
> 
> Skill bonuses are worth MAYBE 0.01 per point, IF THAT.  Perhaps 0.1 per +20 (all rounded down) would be an even better indication.  Maybe even less, to be honest.  It depends on the skills.  Any which way, skills have no great effect until epic levels, and even then are just cursory bonuses at best.  The only exception is perhaps Tumble, which is the only true utility feat that has a direct effect on anything.*




I must admit I deliberated over how to factor skill bonuses for some time. My reasoning for using the above was simple:

Each Feat is worth +0.2 CR. A feat can add +4 to a skill (something regarded as universally low, which I increased to +8). Therefore every 8 bonus skill points is akin to an extra feat (+0.2). The vampire has 56 bonus skill points which therefore worked out at CR +1.4

Or do you think such Feats should allow even more than +8 skill points? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think you'd be best served rating those bonuses at a total of 0.2 (+8 to seven skills, +56 total) using the 0.1 per +20.  That would make the template worth a total of +7.2 to CR.*




So you would allow a feat to bestow +56 to skills? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *(For another way to figure out that your current calculation is totally incorrect, simply put those same bonuses on a Level 1 character with 10 in every stat.  Your current system rathes such a character at CR 2.4, or just CR 2.  Would you honestly say that character is more powerful or even equal to a character who instead has the standard ability score array of 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, which is CR 2.2, or also CR 2?  I think the answer is QUITE obvious.) *




Putting this or that ability on a 1st-level character is always going to be a terrible way of trying to gauge a CR. A more effective method is balancing the particular ability with its peers.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 2, 2003)

Heya Again

Hmm, I dont think that skill points should be underrated as well. Anyone tried playing a Wizard with low Concentration? Your combat abilities are significantly decreased. How about trying to counterspell with a very low Spellcraft score? 
Another case, you try being a rogue sneaking up on someone to get that Sneak Attack thats your only choice of defeating your opponent, if the opponent has +20 listen and spot. Tumble is another combat-usable skill, yes, but not the only one. Off course, you can always argue if it's worth it, compared to such benefits as natural armor & fast healing. 

Btw, Krust, got a chance to look at "moi" template?


----------



## Anubis (Mar 2, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I must admit I deliberated over how to factor skill bonuses for some time. My reasoning for using the above was simple:
> 
> Each Feat is worth +0.2 CR. A feat can add +4 to a skill (something regarded as universally low, which I increased to +8). Therefore every 8 bonus skill points is akin to an extra feat (+0.2). The vampire has 56 bonus skill points which therefore worked out at CR +1.4
> ...




The thing is, the feats are not equal in power.  As to feats, I would judge them on a case-by-base basis.  Think about it.  Some feats, like Improved Initiative and Lightning Reflexes, are good for anybody.  Others, like Power Attack and Combat Casting, are only useful in the right hands.  Some others, like Endurance and Skill Focus, are only good as prerequisites or as RP feats, having no actual utility use.

You have been very detailed with every other part of your system, so there is no reason not to do the same with bonus feats, as they are as varied as spell-like abilities.  If anything, do what you yourself said and compare.  Great Constitution, an EPIC FEAT, gives you +1 Constitution, which is only worth +0.1 to CR.  Therefore, it's obvious that not all feats are anywhere near equal.  I will leave the divisions to you for now, but if I see something "off", I will indeed call you on it. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Putting this or that ability on a 1st-level character is always going to be a terrible way of trying to gauge a CR. A more effective method is balancing the particular ability with its peers.
> *




Okay.  How many extra skills are worth +14 to ability scores? 




			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *
> Hmm, I dont think that skill points should be underrated as well. Anyone tried playing a Wizard with low Concentration? Your combat abilities are significantly decreased. How about trying to counterspell with a very low Spellcraft score?
> *




Concentration is ONLY useful to spellcasters, although it is indeed useful.  Consider how many levels it's worth, though.  Heck, come Level 7 or Level 8, Concentration checks almost never fail anyway during casting on the defensive!  As for Spellcraft, as a DM of over three years just for this game, it is my experience that counterspelling is not a common thing, so that's a hard thing to judge.  I have seen NO counterspelling in my time playing this game.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *
> Another case, you try being a rogue sneaking up on someone to get that Sneak Attack thats your only choice of defeating your opponent, if the opponent has +20 listen and spot.
> *




Unnecessary.  You don't have to sneak up on your opponent, just flank him or catch him flat-footed.  Not an issue.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *
> Tumble is another combat-usable skill, yes, but not the only one. Off course, you can always argue if it's worth it, compared to such benefits as natural armor & fast healing.
> *




Tumble is the ONLY universally useful skill for all classes during combat.

Basically, I'm not underestimating these things.  I simply don't think they're worth anywhere close to a whole level until you have hundreds of bonuses in skills.  Want more?  Consider that once you get a, say, +20 to a single skill, you're already gonna succeed at anything and everything you'll do with that skill.  Probably sooner usually, especially for vampires.

Basically, compare the usefulness of different things.  How many skills are worth ability score points?  Better yet, ask players, how many skill bonuses would they trade an ability score point for?  I would bet you would get a VERY high number, IF they are willing to trade at all.  The only reason for taking things like Skill Focus, if EVER taken (as is VERY rare), is more for RP purposes than for in-game purposes.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 2, 2003)

Howdy Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Btw, Krust, got a chance to look at "moi" template?*




I'll get to it after I reply to... 

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The thing is, the feats are not equal in power.*




Neither are the levels, but as with feats they are all supposedly balanced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As to feats, I would judge them on a case-by-base basis.*




I can't think of anything more tedious. Even when you get done rating all 100 PHB feats and 200 ELH feats individually what is the difference going to be between 0.1 and 0.3 I imagine - hardly worthwhile.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Think about it.  Some feats, like Improved Initiative and Lightning Reflexes, are good for anybody.  Others, like Power Attack and Combat Casting, are only useful in the right hands.  Some others, like Endurance and Skill Focus, are only good as prerequisites or as RP feats, having no actual utility use.*




Okay so some feats are better in certain hands. Some magic items are better in others too, but do they then cost less, no. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You have been very detailed with every other part of your system, so there is no reason not to do the same with bonus feats, as they are as varied as spell-like abilities. *




I am not going through the 300 feats individually, its not worth it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If anything, do what you yourself said and compare.  Great Constitution, an EPIC FEAT, gives you +1 Constitution, which is only worth +0.1 to CR. *




If you had waited for the final version of the IH before 'jumping the gun' you would know that I have changed a handful of feats from both the PHB and ELH - including the Great [Ability Score] Feats - which now add +2. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Therefore, it's obvious that not all feats are anywhere near equal.  I will leave the divisions to you for now, but if I see something "off", I will indeed call you on it.  *




I expect nothing less mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Okay.  How many extra skills are worth +14 to ability scores?  *




56


----------



## Anubis (Mar 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 56
> *




That's insane to say the least.  Just compare them.  How useful are they when compared to each other?  NOT EVEN CLOSE.  I would say that 14 ability score points is worth AT LEAST 280 skill bonuses.  Thnks of it like this: say you have +1 to pretty much every skill.  That's what, 30 some odd skills?  (Don't feel like counting.)  Can you honestly say that is as useful as ability score points?

Get real.  

Sorry, there's no way I would equate those skill bonuses to things that actually have somewhat of an effect on the game itself.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Mar 3, 2003)

*Skills? Feats? What the heck!*

Upper_Krust.

What happened? Did I miss something? Since when are feats and skills factored into the CR equation? Both are integral to character class and level, and therefore already factored into your system. Take the fighter for example; they are all feats. Do you mean to give them CR modifiers for each of their bonus feats in addition to their character level? Looks like a clear case of double-dipping to me.


----------



## poilbrun (Mar 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *56 *



The main problem with this is that 14 ability points also mean a 7 ability bonus, which applies to skills. This bonus has an impact on skills. Let's imagine a wizard who get 14 more points to his INT score. That's a 7 bonus to alchemy, craft, knowledge arcana, scry, spellcraft, and maybe other knowledge skills. Even without any other knowledge skills, that's already 35 skill points, and I did not even count the skills that are not on his spell list but in which he may have ranks, or those that can be used untrained. Of course, all abilities are not equal in this matter, but then the other bonus they give are not equal neither.

As such, I believe that 14 ability scores are worth more than 56 skill points. Maybe it would be sensible to reduce the impact of skill points on CR.

Cheers!


----------



## poilbrun (Mar 3, 2003)

*Re: Skills? Feats? What the heck!*



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.
> 
> What happened? Did I miss something? Since when are feats and skills factored into the CR equation? Both are integral to character class and level, and therefore already factored into your system. Take the fighter for example; they are all feats. Do you mean to give them CR modifiers for each of their bonus feats in addition to their character level? Looks like a clear case of double-dipping to me. *



As I see it, feats and skill points are to be taken into account mainly for templates, or for "extra"

Let's imagine a template that gives no bonus except two feats and 20 bonus skill points. It would give no modifier for bonus hit dice, no special attack, so that would mean no CR modifier. However, it actually gives you a bonus, so there should be CR modifier. That's why you need modifiers for SP and feats.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's insane to say the least.  Just compare them.  How useful are they when compared to each other?  NOT EVEN CLOSE.  I would say that 14 ability score points is worth AT LEAST 280 skill bonuses.  Thnks of it like this: say you have +1 to pretty much every skill.  That's what, 30 some odd skills?  (Don't feel like counting.)  Can you honestly say that is as useful as ability score points?*




14 ability points (at best) provide 7 bonus points to (on average) 7 different skills:

Strength 3 skills
Dexterity 9 skills
Constitution 1 skill
Intelligence 11 skills (counting knowledge as one choice)
Wisdom 8 skills
Charisma 9 skills

Total 41 (lets say 42); divided by 6 = 7. On average each ability score affects seven different skills

Therefore seven bonus points to seven different skills is less than the +56 bonus I advocate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Get real.  *








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Sorry, there's no way I would equate those skill bonuses to things that actually have somewhat of an effect on the game itself. *




Irrelevant. The real question is how many skill points would you allow a feat to bestow!?

Personally I think +8 (possibly +10 but that could be stretching things?)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

*Re: Skills? Feats? What the heck!*



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *What happened? Did I miss something?*




Yes actually. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Since when are feats and skills factored into the CR equation?*




When they are bonus feats and skills not appropriated from Hit Dice or Class Levels. As with the vampire template.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Both are integral to character class and level, and therefore already factored into your system.*




Exactly. But what happens (as with certain monsters) when you add extra feats and skills that are not included in the Hit Dice and Class Level make-up.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Take the fighter for example; they are all feats. Do you mean to give them CR modifiers for each of their bonus feats in addition to their character level? Looks like a clear case of double-dipping to me. *




True. Which is why, by now, you have realised thats not how it works.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

Hi poil brun mate! 

Hope the job is still going well for you!? 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *The main problem with this is that 14 ability points also mean a 7 ability bonus, which applies to skills. This bonus has an impact on skills. Let's imagine a wizard who get 14 more points to his INT score. That's a 7 bonus to alchemy, craft, knowledge arcana, scry, spellcraft, and maybe other knowledge skills. Even without any other knowledge skills, that's already 35 skill points, and I did not even count the skills that are not on his spell list but in which he may have ranks, or those that can be used untrained. Of course, all abilities are not equal in this matter, but then the other bonus they give are not equal neither.
> 
> As such, I believe that 14 ability scores are worth more than 56 skill points. Maybe it would be sensible to reduce the impact of skill points on CR.
> 
> Cheers!  *




It is a tricky one, the real question is how many skill points can you add with a feat.

I really see the upper limit being 10 at best (akin to the epic skill focus feat)

That would mean 5 skill points would equal 1 ability point. 10 skill points would equal one ability point bonus.

It means that the vampires 56 bonus skill points would be worth CR +1.1 (rather than 1.4)


----------



## poilbrun (Mar 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi poil brun mate!
> 
> Hope the job is still going well for you!? *



Well, the job in itself is OK, the fact of entering in a routine a bit less to my taste!  



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *It is a tricky one, the real question is how many skill points can you add with a feat.
> 
> I really see the upper limit being 10 at best (akin to the epic skill focus feat)
> 
> ...



The fact is that you should be able to compare any modifier with any other modifier. Skill points should not be balanced with feats. They should be balanced with feats, ability score, special qualities, special attacks... There is clearly a problem if you arrive to a point where modifier A can be compared with modifier B and where modifier B can be compared with modifier C but you cannot succesfully compare modifier A and modifier C. I hope it is as clear as written as it is in my head


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Well, the job in itself is OK, the fact of entering in a routine a bit less to my taste!  *




Sometimes you just have to grin and bear it. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *The fact is that you should be able to compare any modifier with any other modifier. Skill points should not be balanced with feats. They should be balanced with feats, ability score, special qualities, special attacks... There is clearly a problem if you arrive to a point where modifier A can be compared with modifier B and where modifier B can be compared with modifier C but you cannot succesfully compare modifier A and modifier C. I hope it is as clear as written as it is in my head  *




But thats just it, I think we can compare and contrast by using feats which being approximately CR +0.2 are a low common denominator.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

*ENWorld game at Gencon*

Hi all! 

Anyone interested in playing in the ENWorld game at Gencon UK should take a look at this thread:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=740075#post740075

I'll be at Gencon UK. I will also have the first section of the Immortals Handbook with me at the show (for definite) even if the SRD has not yet been updated at that time. 

There may be a limited number of 'playtest' *cough* copies available...


----------



## Anubis (Mar 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi poil brun mate!
> 
> Hope the job is still going well for you!?
> ...




No, that is not how it's done.  You do not equate skill points to the absolute weakest feats.  You have to go with the average power of feats.  Skill Focus is nearly useless most of the time, and NEVER has ANY great effect on the game.

You simply CAN NOT compare skills and feats, because if you try, you will quickly realize how useless skills are compared to feats.  MOST skills (all but like three of them in fact) are RP skills only and have no ACTUAL bearing on the game mechanics.  As such, they should hardly be factored.  I'm sorry, but 8 skill points are not equal to a feat.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

If you wanna know how useful the skills are, make two vampires, one by your system and one with my changes, otherwise EXACTLY THE SAME.  Then make them fight each other.  They should be a whole CR apart, maybe a whole EL.  As such, if skills truly had an effect, you would notice a power difference.  I wager, however, that you will see no power difference.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *No, that is not how it's done.  You do not equate skill points to the absolute weakest feats.  You have to go with the average power of feats. *




Exactly, and the average Feat bestows +0.2 to CR.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Skill Focus is nearly useless most of the time, and NEVER has ANY great effect on the game.*




Any creature works to its strengths. Obviously there is no point giving bonuses to contradictory factors. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You simply CAN NOT compare skills and feats, *




On the contrary, I can and I have.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *because if you try, you will quickly realize how useless skills are compared to feats.  MOST skills (all but like three of them in fact) are RP skills only and have no ACTUAL bearing on the game mechanics.  As such, they should hardly be factored. *




You are thinking one-dimensionally here.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry, but 8 skill points are not equal to a feat.*




Possibly 10 points as I already mentioned. I don't see it being higher than that though.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're comparing apples and oranges.*




Actually, from the start I have endeavoured to compare feats to feats.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you wanna know how useful the skills are, make two vampires, one by your system and one with my changes, otherwise EXACTLY THE SAME.  Then make them fight each other.  They should be a whole CR apart, maybe a whole EL.  As such, if skills truly had an effect, you would notice a power difference.  I wager, however, that you will see no power difference. *




This is a flaw in your thinking. Skills are more of a roleplaying characteristic than an overt combat characteristic, but that doesn't mean they are any less useful.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> This is a flaw in your thinking. Skills are more of a roleplaying characteristic than an overt combat characteristic, but that doesn't mean they are any less useful.
> *




The flaw in your thinking is overrating skills.  I would say a single feat is worth perhaps 40 skills points AT LEAST, if not more.

Unless you can offer some bit of game-related proof with playtesting that supports your theory, I'm afraid you haven't a leg to stand on this time.

You were right on many things, but I'm afraid this time I have to hold my ground and say +20 in skill bonuses is worth +0.1 maximum to CR, counting only WHOLE increments of +20 in skill bonuses.  Playtesting simply does not support your theory in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 3, 2003)

*A challenge*

I have a better idea, UK.  You wanna test your theory?  I CHALLENGE YOU.  We will test your system.

You make a, say, Level 21 character, and I will do the same.  We will both use the standard array plus normal bonuses for levels, making standard characters.  The exception: you will get, as per YOUR standards, say . . . +400 to skills, as per your choosing (CR +10).  I, on the other hand, will get an "equal number of feats based on CR value", or in this case, 50 bonus feats of my choosing (also CR +10).  Then we will have a one on one battle.  According to your numbers, we should have a 50/50 chance both ways.  I contest that I will EASILY defeat you.  Characters will be of standard core races and classes, and the books allowed will be the PH, the DMG, the MM, and the ELH, and no "inherent bonus" books will be allowed.  For simplicity purposes, let's set wealth to exactly 1,000,000 gp for both of us.  Both characters should thus equate to around CR 33.

How about it?  If you're so confident, bring it on.  I will smite this silly skill modifer thing right off the face of EN World.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The flaw in your thinking is overrating skills.  I would say a single feat is worth perhaps 40 skills points AT LEAST, if not more.*




That seems somewhat ludicrous. 

The game system is d20 remember. Adding even +20 to a skill from a feat would be giving someone a +100% success rate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Unless you can offer some bit of game-related proof with playtesting that supports your theory, I'm afraid you haven't a leg to stand on this time.*




LOL! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You were right on many things, but I'm afraid this time I have to hold my ground and say +20 in skill bonuses is worth +0.1 maximum to CR, counting only WHOLE increments of +20 in skill bonuses. *




Totally impractical.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Playtesting simply does not support your theory in any way, shape, or form. *




Simply because you are only playtesting combat itself, not roleplaying, which is wherein skills are pertinent.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Simply because you are only playtesting combat itself, not roleplaying, which is wherein skills are pertinent.
> *




You must have forgotten that CR, the issue at hand here, is only pertinent to combat itself to begin with!

If it's an RP modifier, it doesn't belong on the CHALLENGE Rating.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

*Re: A challenge*

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have a better idea, UK.  You wanna test your theory?  I CHALLENGE YOU.  We will test your system.
> 
> You make a, say, Level 21 character, and I will do the same.  We will both use the standard array plus normal bonuses for levels, making standard characters.  The exception: you will get, as per YOUR standards, say . . . +400 to skills, as per your choosing (CR +10).  I, on the other hand, will get an "equal number of feats based on CR value", or in this case, 50 bonus feats of my choosing (also CR +10).  Then we will have a one on one battle.  According to your numbers, we should have a 50/50 chance both ways.  I contest that I will EASILY defeat you.  Characters will be of standard core races and classes, and the books allowed will be the PH, the DMG, the MM, and the ELH, and no "inherent bonus" books will be allowed.  For simplicity purposes, let's set wealth to exactly 1,000,000 gp for both of us.  Both characters should thus equate to around CR 33.
> 
> How about it?  If you're so confident, bring it on.  I will smite this silly skill modifer thing right off the face of EN World. *




Hilariously you are pitting non-combative skills up against combative feats.

What happens if I use my +400 to Handle Animal to train an advanced Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon ( very easily it must be said)? Or my +400 to Diplomacy and get a whole epic city working for me of their own free will. Not to mention a 21st-level Wizard with +400 to Spellcraft.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 3, 2003)

I would still say that skills are very important. Many ARE RP oriented, but still. Many knowledge skills give "indirect" help in combat. Examples...

1: Group fails its Knowledge (The Planes) and don't know that their fireballs & flaming swords won't hurt the Demon/Devil theyre facing... Theyre f****d
2: Wizard fail his Concentration check when casting the Teleport that would have gotten the group away safely. Theyre f****d
3: Group is fighting in unusual circumstances, such as while climbing or underwater, where Climb & Swim are paramount. If they have neither skill...... Theyre f****d
4: A knight has one thousand feats that enables him to do maximum, extra damage when charging. But, someone scares his horse and he lacks the Ride skill to stay on.... His F****d

Off course, in open arena combat, two humans facing of, they have little chance using their skills. But many skills have tremendous impact on combat anyhow. Enemy camp, Move Silently & Hide + Coup de Grace?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 3, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *You must have forgotten that CR, the issue at hand here, is only pertinent to combat itself to begin with!
> 
> If it's an RP modifier, it doesn't belong on the CHALLENGE Rating. *




Think upon skills as a latent situational modifier.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 3, 2003)

If had a Rogue, with +200 Hide & +200 Move Silenty, how would you prevent me from killing your 50-feat Warrior while he was sleeping?


----------



## Anubis (Mar 3, 2003)

You all bring up many different situations, but . . . You fail to bring out things that could actually be a normal occurance.  All such circumstances are rare indeed.  Most combat is open combat, not stealth.  Such things are not worth levels except in EXTREME amounts.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 4, 2003)

I got a similar thing for ya' right here . . . Imagine if you have the ability, as a human, to instantly kill a creature by touch, no save, regardless of power and other things, and the creature was gone from existence.  Pretty powerful, ya?  What if you could only do it every ten years?  Better yet, what if you could only use it twice in your life, like every 50 years?

That's about how useful the skill bonuses are.  In other words, not worth noting.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 4, 2003)

Well, it all comes down to how you roleplay combat. In my system, I often pit my players against rather powerful foes, compared to their level. I have fewer combats, but often more well-prepared & thought-through combats. 
If they know in advance where the enemy is, they will sneak around his lair / home / castle. They will use Gather Information to find out about the layouts of the terrain, find little bits of information about their target and try to see what henchmen & allies he has sorrounding his home. During this time, they use plenty of hide, spot, search, move silently and knowledge checks. Sometimes Scry checks are employed as well.
One of my players, last time where they had to combat a sorcerer who lived in a rather remote place, used summoned monsters that he sent in. He then identified the spells the sorcerer used, noting what they were. He used his Knowledge (Undead) & (Planes) to identify the various guardians. The Rogue had carefully scouted out the traps around the tower and made notes on them on a map he had. 

Now, tell me....

Does it have no influence AT ALL that my players attacked with Spell Immunity on, specifically tuned into the spells of the sorcerer, that they knew the location of all his traps, both magical and mundane beforehand, that they knew which creatures he had as guards and what their weaknesses were (which off course enables them to memorise spells that would harm them more efficiently and buy items against those specific monsters) and that they surprised their enemy during one of his few planned trips outside his home?
I hardly think you would say that it matters not. If they had rushed in, they would surely have perished, he was otherwise too high for them to beat.


----------



## Gez (Mar 4, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You must have forgotten that CR, the issue at hand here, is only pertinent to combat itself to begin with!
> 
> If it's an RP modifier, it doesn't belong on the CHALLENGE Rating. *




Bluff, Sense Motive (Feint)
Tumble
Hide, Move Silently (surprising opponent flat-footed)
Listen, Spot (Avoiding getting surprised)
Perform (Bardic music abilities)
Ride (AC for mount)
Concentration (casting on the defensive, avoiding losing a spell)
Spellcraft (Identifying a spell for purpose of counterspelling)
Knowledge Arcana, Nature or Religion: Number of Epic Spell Slot

There are plenty skills useful in combat, even from a strict fighting challenge approach. Granted, Knowledge: Hyperstring Theory or Craft: Pottery will not affect combat, but that don't mean none of them has influence on the fray.

And then again, the _Agressive Pseudodimensional Translation_ spell may require a K. Hyperstring Theory check in order to successfully phase out of the universe a target; while building clay golems is cheaper if you don't have to hire a potter. 



Speaking about CR, Craig (hello!), could you send me that document ? It may helps me finding a correct CR for a certain creature I'm working on...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 4, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You all bring up many different situations, but . . . You fail to bring out things that could actually be a normal occurance.*




Thats simply because there is no such thing as a normal occurance.

Skills are latent situational modifiers. Even if the rogue doesn't use Hide and Move Silently in an encounter he still has that potential. Just like a creature with a number of spell-like abilities may not use them all in an encounter; but its not what you do that judges a Challenge Rating its what you *can* do. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *All such circumstances are rare indeed.  Most combat is open combat, not stealth.  Such things are not worth levels except in EXTREME amounts. *




Roleplaying factors are less obtrusive yes, but still relevant to the whole.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I got a similar thing for ya' right here . . . Imagine if you have the ability, as a human, to instantly kill a creature by touch, no save, regardless of power and other things, and the creature was gone from existence. Pretty powerful, ya? *




Well I don't like the no save bit, and its obviously a supernatural effect.

If it only worked from one limb/appendage I would say CR +2



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *What if you could only do it every ten years? Better yet, what if you could only use it twice in your life, like every 50 years?*




1/Year = CR +0.04
1/Millenium = CR +0.008 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's about how useful the skill bonuses are. In other words, not worth noting.*




Incorrect analogy.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 4, 2003)

Bonjour mon ami! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *And then again, the Agressive Pseudodimensional Translation spell may require a K. Hyperstring Theory check in order to successfully phase out of the universe a target; while building clay golems is cheaper if you don't have to hire a potter.  *








			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *Speaking about CR, Craig (hello!), could you send me that document ? It may helps me finding a correct CR for a certain creature I'm working on... *




Its not finished yet, I'll keep you all informed don't worry.


----------



## Aloïsius (Mar 4, 2003)

What would be the CR of Lord Kelvin, once adequately stated in your immortal system ?


----------



## Aloïsius (Mar 4, 2003)

Hello, the post above is from Gez. I don't write english so fluently.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 4, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *What would be the CR of Lord Kelvin, once adequately stated in your immortal system ?
> 
> *




According to the evidence presented it would appear he is a Proto-deity. His Challenge Rating would be in the neighbourhood of 500 or so.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 4, 2003)

My point is NOT that skills have ZERO effect, my point is that the effect is far smaller than you all seem to rate it.  That is why I advocate +0.1 per +20 in skill bonuses.  I still factor the skills in, just not near as much.  You factor skills at two and a half times the rate I do.

The thing is, I understand that this varies from campaign to campaign.  In my campaign, the skills Tumble, Iajutsu Focus, Search, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (fusion), and Knowledge (ritual casting) are the only skills that have a real effect on the game, and two of those are difficult skills to learn to begin with.  YMMV.

I was under the impression, however, that UK's system was supposed to be *universally applicable*.  Yet it would not apply to my campaign one bit.  If I was in a minority, that would be one thing.  I venture, however, that there are as many DMs out there who run campaigns similar to mine as there are those who run campaigns where skills are meaningful.  In that case, what's the fix?


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Mar 4, 2003)

'Lo yet again!

I feel that one of the most important uses for skills is CHARACTER FLAVOR. Can you imagine a Rogue who can't sneak, a Bard who can't sing? When it comes down to it I like to think of D&D as an endless novel, not just meaningless numbers. And besides, skills do have major effects on the game, as much or more than feats. 

In Example: If none of your characters had the search skill could they have gotten as far as they have? Or would they have even half their wealth? Most skills have uses in most of the games I run. I've never had a Paladin who could not ride a horse. Or a Wizard who couldn't concentrate.



> _Originally posted by Anubis_
> *You're comparing apples and oranges.*




Oranges are WAY better!  



> _Originally posted by Upper Krust_
> *There may be a limited number of 'playtest' *cough* copies available...*




*sigh* I unfortunatly will not be there.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 4, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My point is NOT that skills have ZERO effect, my point is that the effect is far smaller than you all seem to rate it.  That is why I advocate +0.1 per +20 in skill bonuses.  I still factor the skills in, just not near as much.  You factor skills at two and a half times the rate I do.*




I am entertaining the notion that it could be 5 skill points per +0.1 CR (Skill Focus would therefore bestow +10)

But as you rate them a feat like Skill Focus will add +40 to skill and I just can't fathom such a change being prudent.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The thing is, I understand that this varies from campaign to campaign.  In my campaign, the skills Tumble, Iajutsu Focus, Search, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (fusion), and Knowledge (ritual casting) are the only skills that have a real effect on the game, and two of those are difficult skills to learn to begin with.  YMMV.*




Exactly so you wouldn't want to be giving players +40 to those skills from a single feat now would you.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I was under the impression, however, that UK's system was supposed to be *universally applicable*.*




I'd certainly like to think so.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yet it would not apply to my campaign one bit.*




I ever enjoy your overreacting mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If I was in a minority, that would be one thing.*




Well so far every single person (except yourself) who has posted on the subject of skills in this thread has championed their effectiveness! So you are in a minority in that respect.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I venture, however, that there are as many DMs out there who run campaigns similar to mine as there are those who run campaigns where skills are meaningful.  In that case, what's the fix? *




Okay, well heres a wild and crazy idea just off the top of my head:

Just don't use factor #11. (Bonus) Skills in the CR/EL system!

I mean the system is totally modular after all.


----------



## Aloïsius (Mar 4, 2003)

Hello UK!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> According to the evidence presented it would appear he is a Proto-deity. His Challenge Rating would be in the neighbourhood of 500 or so. *




500 ! I think I will join the church of Lord Kelvin ! 

I didn't remember* anything about proto-deity, are they primordial deity (the elder gods of the elder gods) or forces of the univers incarnated (entropy, law, good...) ?

* I fear I stayed away from this thread more longer than necessary, but now that the SRD will be completed (soon), I may have found a new hope


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 4, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *'Lo yet again!*




Hi Dark Wolf mate!  



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> **sigh* I unfortunatly will not be there. *




Thats the Abyss for you. 


Incidently the CR/EL revision is progressing well, a few tiny niggles with Breath/Gaze/Ray/Touch attacks that need sorting, and a lot of the MM/ELH CRs still need redoing but other than that its all looking good.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 4, 2003)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *Hello UK!*




Bonsoir mon ami! 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *500 ! I think I will join the church of Lord Kelvin ! *




I can imagine some really great beard related abilities Kelvin could have. 



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> *I didn't remember* anything about proto-deity, are they primordial deity (the elder gods of the elder gods) or forces of the univers incarnated (entropy, law, good...) ?*




They are the First Ones: Entropy and Reality; Thought (Chaos) and Time (Law); Matter and Spirit.



			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> ** I fear I stayed away from this thread more longer than necessary, but now that the SRD will be completed (soon), I may have found a new hope  *


----------



## Anubis (Mar 4, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I am entertaining the notion that it could be 5 skill points per +0.1 CR (Skill Focus would therefore bestow +10)
> 
> But as you rate them a feat like Skill Focus will add +40 to skill and I just can't fathom such a change being prudent.
> ...




You're not getting the point . . .

I do not advocate ANY changes to the Skill Focus feat.  Not all the feats are equal, after all.  Don't believe me?  I have one word for you: "Endurance".  That is the poster child for meaningless in this game, yet it is a feat.  Indeed *I* have made it useful by making it the prerequisite for all my energy feats, but those are not core and certainly not used by everybody, unless of course you stick them in your book.  The fact is, most of the feats at CR +0.2 do not equate with what they do.

Examples:

Weapon Focus gives +1 to hit with one weapon.  If a character trait was simply "+1 to hit with dagger", don't even tell me that would be worth CR +0.2 when rated not as a feat.  Continuing that example, +2 Strength is worth the same as a feat at CR +0.2, but yet does MUCH more than add +1 to hit with a single weapon.  Let's take it a step further.  In your system, the Epic Feat Great Strength gives Strength +2, which gies +1 to hit with ALL melee weapons, +1 to damage with ALL melee weapons along with bows, and increased carrying capacity.  Why even take Weapon Focus if you can just keep taking Great Strength?  The answer is simple . . . NOT ALL FEATS ARE EQUAL.  They aren't even all worth the same as the same abilities bestowed as abilities instead of feats!

Weapon Specialization gives +2 to damage with a single weapon.  Yet it gives CR +0.2 just the same as Great Strength.  Great Strength would only give +1 to damage, but would give it to ALL weapons.  See the tilt here?

Let's ignore the Epic Feats now for a moment.

Track.  Very rarely used.

Maximize Spell.  Used A LOT.  Which does more?  Maximize Spell of course!

How about Point Blank Shot?  You get +1 to ranged attacks within 30 feet.  This is worth less than Weapon Focus even!

See where I'm going with this?  Many of the feats do not bestow abilities that are worth CR +0.2 in and of themselves.  Hell, maybe that's your problem.  Maybe you're overrating feats.  After all, you have stated that all feats are worth CR +0.2, but Epic Feats are obviously much more powerful.  Have you ever considered lowering feat value to CR +0.1 perhaps?

Regardless, my point is, the abilities' worths and the feat values and the skill bonus values will NEVER equate because there are too many variables!

Hell, how about this:

Compare "Alchemy +8, Appraise +8, Climb +8, Decipher Script +8, Heal +8, Innuendo +8, Read Lips +8" to "Balance +8, Concentration +8, Iaijutsu Focus +8, Jump +8, Knowledge (fusion) +8, Knowledge (ritual casting) +8, Tumble +8".  It's obvious which set of bonuses is more useful.  The first is, at best, worth CR +0.05, but the second is easily worth CR +0.5 due to the usefulness.  The idea is to strike a balance, because the skills ARE NOT EQUAL.  Factor in EVERYTHING you get with a level.  These things simply are not worth that much.

Like I said, maybe you just rate feats too high.  Maybe you rate feats too low.  Who knows?  I do know that everything has a different value, though.  You gotta strike a balance.

Perhaps:

0.1 per feat
0.2 per Epic feat
0.1 per 20 skill bonuses

Think about it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Okay, well heres a wild and crazy idea just off the top of my head:
> 
> Just don't use factor #11. (Bonus) Skills in the CR/EL system!
> ...




The problem is I wanna use your revised CR listings as-is without reworking everything.  Or will those bonuses be for templates only?  I KNOW I'm getting your book even IF I don't use this system of yours, because I DO wanna see your work on the gods.  I just wanna be able to use everything, and I'm willing to help you if you're willing to listen.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 5, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're not getting the point . . .*




I seem to be getting the shaft. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I do not advocate ANY changes to the Skill Focus feat.*




Well thats a pity because they are clearly broken.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not all the feats are equal, after all.  Don't believe me?  I have one word for you: "Endurance".  That is the poster child for meaningless in this game, yet it is a feat.  Indeed *I* have made it useful by making it the prerequisite for all my energy feats, but those are not core and certainly not used by everybody, unless of course you stick them in your book.*




It should be a +10 bonus.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The fact is, most of the feats at CR +0.2 do not equate with what they do.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> Weapon Focus gives +1 to hit with one weapon. *




I increased this to +2



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If a character trait was simply "+1 to hit with dagger", don't even tell me that would be worth CR +0.2 when rated not as a feat.  Continuing that example, +2 Strength is worth the same as a feat at CR +0.2, but yet does MUCH more than add +1 to hit with a single weapon.  Let's take it a step further.  In your system, the Epic Feat Great Strength gives Strength +2, which gies +1 to hit with ALL melee weapons, +1 to damage with ALL melee weapons along with bows, and increased carrying capacity.  Why even take Weapon Focus if you can just keep taking Great Strength?  The answer is simple . . . NOT ALL FEATS ARE EQUAL.  They aren't even all worth the same as the same abilities bestowed as abilities instead of feats!*




See above.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Weapon Specialization gives +2 to damage with a single weapon.  Yet it gives CR +0.2 just the same as Great Strength.  Great Strength would only give +1 to damage, but would give it to ALL weapons.  See the tilt here?*




Yes. +2 is greater than +1. Thats the price you pay for specialisation. Added to that Great Strength is an epic feat and as such can only be taken at epic levels.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Let's ignore the Epic Feats now for a moment.*




Okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Track.  Very rarely used.
> 
> Maximize Spell.  Used A LOT.  Which does more?  Maximize Spell of course!
> 
> ...




Point Blank Shot gives +1 to attack and damage. I think the 30 ft. limitation probably balances with the uber feat that is Rapid Shot.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *After all, you have stated that all feats are worth CR +0.2,*




On average, yes.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *but Epic Feats are obviously much more powerful.*




Not really. Especially when you factor the prerequisites. They are simply logical progressions (for the most).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Have you ever considered lowering feat value to CR +0.1 perhaps?*




Its not a consideration.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Regardless, my point is, the abilities' worths and the feat values and the skill bonus values will NEVER equate because there are too many variables!*




Not really, I have only changed about a half dozen regular feats and a half dozen epic feats (counting the great [ability score] feats as one choice) and they all seem to fall into place well enough.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hell, how about this:
> 
> Compare "Alchemy +8, Appraise +8, Climb +8, Decipher Script +8, Heal +8, Innuendo +8, Read Lips +8" to "Balance +8, Concentration +8, Iaijutsu Focus +8, Jump +8, Knowledge (fusion) +8, Knowledge (ritual casting) +8, Tumble +8".  It's obvious which set of bonuses is more useful.  The first is, at best, worth CR +0.05, but the second is easily worth CR +0.5 due to the usefulness.  The idea is to strike a balance, because the skills ARE NOT EQUAL.  Factor in EVERYTHING you get with a level.  These things simply are not worth that much.*




They are not wholly equal but they are roughly equal; as with class levels.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Like I said, maybe you just rate feats too high.  Maybe you rate feats too low.  Who knows?*




I do. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I do know that everything has a different value, though.  You gotta strike a balance.
> 
> Perhaps:
> 
> ...




Seemingly I have thought about very little else of late.

0.2 per Feat
0.2 per Epic Feat
0.2 per 10 bonus skill points



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The problem is I wanna use your revised CR listings as-is without reworking everything.*




I hardly see it as reworking everything. Yet again you have latched such a minor nitpick and blown it out of proportion.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Or will those bonuses be for templates only?*




They are for the handful of monsters who have extra skill points for whatever reason (typically racial). For all the minor difference thats ever going to make to a CR.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I KNOW I'm getting your book even IF I don't use this system of yours, because I DO wanna see your work on the gods.*




Well I appreciate the love mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I just wanna be able to use everything,*




You can please some of the people all of the time; and all of the people some of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time...

...unless you can smell what the Krust is cookin'! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and I'm willing to help you if you're willing to listen. *




I have listened, pondered upon and responded to every comment you have ever made towards me or my system. I don't see how I can be any fairer than that mate? I appreciate everyones comments and help; whether I agree with them or not - if I don't agree with them I always post my reasoning.


----------



## Impeesa (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: ENWorld game at Gencon*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> Anyone interested in playing in the ENWorld game at Gencon UK should take a look at this thread:
> 
> ...




Arg! Curse me and my western Canada residence - and starving student budget.  Although the skiing is great here, I'll give it that. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## poilbrun (Mar 5, 2003)

I still think that some of the changes are not necessary, and could unbalance the game at low level. Skill focus +10? That means that a skill that can maximum be at +9 at level 1 (4 ranks, 5 for ability bonus if 18 + 2 for race) can be boosted to +19? Weapon focus +2? That means a level 1 fighter is on par with his weapon of choice when compared to a fighter 3 without weapon focus (as far as hitting with the weapon is concerned only, of course)? I even think that +2 to an ability score for 1 feat is too much. Normally, you can gain 2 points in your ability score every 8 levels. With 1 feat every three levels, that means more or less +5 every 9 levels, if you put everything in the same ability score (I know there are some very useful epic feats that a character might take instead of this one, but let's say he focuses). At +2 to one ability score, that would clearly mean that the +1 every 4 levels is just a cosmetic change! But then, since I do not agree with those changes, I'll just not apply them, easy.

As far as skill point go, I still believe UK gives them too much power, but Anubis does not give them enough. I have yet to see a monster, or a template, that has bonus skill points in truly useless skills. Since this is the only case in which the modifier to CR for skills applies (remember that we do not modify a rogue CR because he has a lot of skill points), I believe that the easy way would be to up a little the value of skills from what UK proposed. 56 skill points were equal 14 ability score points, which is 1 point = 4 skill points. Lets make it 1 point = 5 or 6 points.

As for Gen Con UK, I won't be able to make it this year.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: ENWorld game at Gencon*

Hi Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Arg! Curse me and my western Canada residence - and starving student budget.  Although the skiing is great here, I'll give it that.  *




Well maybe next year I will be able to attend Gencon in the US and we will get the opportunity to say hello in person.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 5, 2003)

Hi poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I still think that some of the changes are not necessary, and could unbalance the game at low level. Skill focus +10? That means that a skill that can maximum be at +9 at level 1 (4 ranks, 5 for ability bonus if 18 + 2 for race) can be boosted to +19?*




A +10 bonus gives someone a +50% chance of succeeding at a skill. Given that it would only be one skill I think that is just about fair.

Even a +4 bonus is widely regarded as insignificant. Personally I am torn between the +8 and the +10.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Weapon focus +2? That means a level 1 fighter is on par with his weapon of choice when compared to a fighter 3 without weapon focus (as far as hitting with the weapon is concerned only, of course)? *




True, but what about a 3rd-level character with Weapon Focus etc.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I even think that +2 to an ability score for 1 feat is too much. Normally, you can gain 2 points in your ability score every 8 levels. With 1 feat every three levels, that means more or less +5 every 9 levels, if you put everything in the same ability score (I know there are some very useful epic feats that a character might take instead of this one, but let's say he focuses). *




If someone focuses on one ability it is always at the expense of others (as you rightly attested).



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *At +2 to one ability score, that would clearly mean that the +1 every 4 levels is just a cosmetic change! But then, since I do not agree with those changes, I'll just not apply them, easy.*




These are epic levels we are talking about lets remember.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *As far as skill point go, I still believe UK gives them too much power, but Anubis does not give them enough. I have yet to see a monster, or a template, that has bonus skill points in truly useless skills. Since this is the only case in which the modifier to CR for skills applies (remember that we do not modify a rogue CR because he has a lot of skill points), I believe that the easy way would be to up a little the value of skills from what UK proposed. 56 skill points were equal 14 ability score points, which is 1 point = 4 skill points. Lets make it 1 point = 5 or 6 points.*




I am happy to concede 1 ability point = 5 skill points as this maintains continuity with the epic version of the Skill Focus feat.



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *As for Gen Con UK, I won't be able to make it this year.  *




I'm sorry to hear that mate. 

Most of our brief time at last years event was spent gaming so we never really got a chance to 'hang out'. I was also hoping to say 'bonjour' to Isabelle - give her my love instead.

Anyway, I guess we will get to meet again at the Euro Gencon in 2004, held in Holland - no excuses for missing that event (and that goes for anyone on the continent! Y'hear!  ) since its practically within walking distance for you!


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 5, 2003)

*No Way!  Say No to +10 Skill Focus*

UK, if you make Skill Focus be a +10 bonus, it'll make it completely impossible to estimate the average roll a party could make.  An Open Lock check will either be completely impossible or quite easy depending on whether or not the party rogue has Skill Focus.  Skill Focus will no longer be an optional thing for skill based classes - It'll be mandatory!  That's not cool.  Leave it at +3, where it's a significant but not overwhelming bonus.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: No Way!  Say No to +10 Skill Focus*

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *UK, if you make Skill Focus be a +10 bonus, it'll make it completely impossible to estimate the average roll a party could make.*




Unfounded. 

Actually I have given this a lot of thought and the current Skill Focus feat seems totally irrelevant. Its an almost pointless feat.

Consider the following. Individual skills are not used as often as things like attack rolls and saving throws. As such a skill roll (a bonus of +2; 10% on a d20) is more given to chance than an attack roll; which because it is used more often averages out better.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *An Open Lock check will either be completely impossible or quite easy depending on whether or not the party rogue has Skill Focus.*




Again, unfounded.

A Rogue would be 40% more likely to open a lock under the auspices of my interpretation of Skill Focus.

Someone who takes Skill Focus should be considered having a degree in that subject. As such they should not be merely 10% (+2) better than the same character without such focus but rather that focus should mean something significant! You should excel at that particular skill.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Skill Focus will no longer be an optional thing for skill based classes - It'll be mandatory!*




Personally I think a specialist would take Skill Focus as mandatory. Just as every Fighter will take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *That's not cool.  Leave it at +3, where it's a significant but not overwhelming bonus. *




Actually Skill Focus is currently +2 by the rules; although even +3 is insignificant and underwhelming.


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 6, 2003)

Hey UK

About this skill focus thingy, I agree that plus 2 is insignificant.  That said, I believe that the epic feat should be +10, and perhaps plus 4 for non epic.  As for weapon focus, I dislike having the feat more powerful than it is.  As it stands, It's hard to remain competitive at low levels without it, I know, my barbarian has remained weapon focus free for 12 levels and has to rage in order to achieve the same bonus to hit of the fighter of the group.  I believe weapon focus as a requirement weapon speciallization justifiies it.

Anywho, catch ya later

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 6, 2003)

Thats the exact reason that I dont use Weapon Focus / Specialisation in my campaign. I generally try to avoid all of the "pure bonus" feats. I pretty much re-write all feats and make lists for the different cultures. So, each country or region has a list of feats, many of which are unique to that place. When someone becomes a Monk, his monestary defines which feats he can choose (makes the monk much cooler. Being a Monk of the Serpent Moon sounds far better than simply being a Monk).

Also, Wizards depend on their place of study / academy / mentor. Clerics depend on their deity. Rogues depend on their nationality & background (I make individual lists for Rogues). Bards are the most liberated, they can choose "national" feats after having spent a year in a certain location. Sorcerers depend on their Path (my house-ruled sorcerer, dont ask).


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Mar 6, 2003)

*Skill Focus is no diploma...*

I can see your reasoning behind the insignificance of a +2 or even a +3 skill bonus, but +10 goes too far. I'm not one to have knee jerk reactions to wildly new ideas, but this bonus is hugely overpowered for 1 feat.

A rogue must wait until 10th level before gaining the Skill Mastery special ability, which is essentially what your +10 skill bonus feat accomplishes. Making such a feat available at 1st level is not only unbalanced, but it severely neuters the Skill Mastery special ability of rogues.

That said, what I can rationalize a +5 skill bonus; +5 because it mimics favored enemy, which effectively grants 5 bonuses of +1. Think of the Skill Focus feat as representing intense devotion to one skill, but for the diploma to be earned, that same character will have to take a Greater Skill Focus feat (which would raise the existing bonus to +10).

That seems infinitely more reasonable.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 6, 2003)

UK, I think that regardless of my opinions of the CR value of skill bonuses (I still don't think 5 skill points is worth 1 ability point . . . If my DM offered be a feat per 5 skill points, I'd be loading up!), I do believe you are wholly defeated on the Skill Focus topic.

Forget the other stuff.  Concentration alone breaks your version of Skill Focus.  With Skill Focus in concentration, a spellcaster will ALWAYS AUTOMATICALLY SUCCEED when casting on the defensive, starting at Level 1!  That's ridiculous!  Yeah, I know high level characters can do it, but they're *high level characters*.

Skill Focus is not "a degree in the skill".  It's more like having a few extra practice hours at the skill.  MOST feats are okay as-is, including most epic feats.  Hell, even Devastating Critical turns out to be balanced.  Oh, and Skill Focus isn't NEAR as meaningless as Endurance or Run, so that excuse don't hold water.  Skill Focus should be +2, equivilant to a circumstance bonus.  That is what it is BALANCED at.

As for CR value, UK proposes 0.2 per 10 points I propose 0.2 per 20 points.  In this case, perhaps 15 is the correct number, halfway between his and my numbers.

Anyway, that about says it all.


----------



## poilbrun (Mar 6, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Skill Focus is not "a degree in the skill".  It's more like having a few extra practice hours at the skill.  MOST feats are okay as-is, including most epic feats.  Hell, even Devastating Critical turns out to be balanced.  Oh, and Skill Focus isn't NEAR as meaningless as Endurance or Run, so that excuse don't hold water.  Skill Focus should be +2, equivilant to a circumstance bonus.  That is what it is BALANCED at.*



I mainly agree to everything you say in your post, except that part. I really believe Skill Focus should be +3 and not +2. The main reason is a balance factor compared to the many feats in the several WotC books that give +2 to two skills. Furthermore, in games developed after D&D, skill focus was changed to +3.

As for the value of skill points bonuses to CR, I'd say that 10 is OK. I agree that 10 skill bonus to Craft might not have an impact, but 10 skill bonus to a skill more useful in combat (tumble, knowledge arcana when casting epic spells,...) are certainly worth 0.2 CR


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 6, 2003)

*The Skill problem*

Hi all! 

I'll just lump all relevant discussions into one for the sake of brevity.

The problem as I see it, is that if a feat (on average) is worth CR +0.2; then the amount of skill points we assign to Skill Focus therefore constitutes a CR +0.2 bonus.

So you can't say that _x_ amount of skill points = CR +0.2 but that Skill Focus should be something entirely different.

Currently I am not convinced either way. While I'll admit a jump to +8 or +10 does seem like a bit of a shock to the system they do appear feasible if you break it down.

Obviously the matter needs further investigation, as such consider the CR/EL update on hold.

Also if Epic Feats are (in and of themselves) more powerful than regular feats why do many (Epic Spell Focus; Epic Spell Penetration etc.) simply continue the same progression?


----------



## Anubis (Mar 6, 2003)

I can concede +3 for Skill Focus easily enough.

UK, your problem is that you're trying to equate everything!  Face facts, not everything is worth the same.  A feat and ability scores can't be compared, nor can feats and skills.  First off, to say that if a feat is worth 0.2 and ability scores are worth 0.1, then a feat giving ability scores should give 2 ability score points is flawed.  All the skills bonuses and feat bonuses are BONUSES, not part of normal progression.  Therefore, they must be rated entirely differently.  Second, since all feats have different usefulness, you simpyl CAN'T assign one value to them all and go with it.  To do so is a flaw in and of itself.

The biggest problem with your system, as it stands, is that it takes TOO MANY factors into consideration.  The whole system, being based around variable, simply can't be equated.  That is why I gave up on finding a hardcore system with which to calculate CR.

I daresay I can more accurately key CR to a creature from a first-hand look than you can with your system.  It's because of the variables.


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 6, 2003)

Skill focus is a tricky subject.  The advantage of the feat is being able to exceed your normal max for the level in your skill of choice.  10% is great if you're a bard with perform, or a rogue with search or disable divise or UMD, or even a caster with concentration (generally, skill focus concentration is better than combat casting.)  The main problem is that not all skills are equal for all characters.  Perhaps in 3.5e they will do something like in d20 starwars, where skill use in, say, intimidate, would have saving throw values assosiated with it, and be able to have actual game effect, rather than only DM interpretation.  Not that I think the star wars system was terribly well thought out, mind, but it was a good idea.  If it were made that all skills are equal in use, and that they were useful enough that a +2 or +3 feat was good to take, and then toned down the racial bonus to skills from templates, it might all work out.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 6, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I can concede +3 for Skill Focus easily enough.*




Isn't it hypocritical to suggest that on the one hand the Skill Focus feat should bestow +3 to skill; yet advocate that CR +0.2 is worth 40 skill points?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, your problem is that you're trying to equate everything!*




Exactly! Thats the whole point.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Face facts, not everything is worth the same.*




Obviously. But everything can be rated using the same method.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A feat and ability scores can't be compared, nor can feats and skills.*




Everything can be compared. Naturally you want to remove as much subjectivity as possible.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, to say that if a feat is worth 0.2 and ability scores are worth 0.1, then a feat giving ability scores should give 2 ability score points is flawed.*




Based on what? I would have thought it was logical.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *All the skills bonuses and feat bonuses are BONUSES, not part of normal progression.*




This doesn't make sense. What about ability score BONUSES or weapon enchantment BONUSES or insight BONUSES etc.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Therefore, they must be rated entirely differently.  Second, since all feats have different usefulness, you simpyl CAN'T assign one value to them all and go with it.  To do so is a flaw in and of itself.*




I have said from the start that I am happy to assign an AVERAGE figure for feats, just as class levels are averaged; just as spells are averaged.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The biggest problem with your system, as it stands, is that it takes TOO MANY factors into consideration.*




Isn't that an indictment of 3rd Ed. as a whole though!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The whole system, being based around variable, simply can't be equated.*




What variable?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That is why I gave up on finding a hardcore system with which to calculate CR.*




I am in the position where I have to develop one though. Failure is not an option. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I daresay I can more accurately key CR to a creature from a first-hand look than you can with your system.  It's because of the variables. *




Can't imagine you will be interested in my system then.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 6, 2003)

Unless you can satisfy all conditions, then no.  Your CR/EL may be useless to me indeed.  My "look at to determine" way has served me well thus far.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 6, 2003)

Good evening again Upper_Krust... 
Seems you always come on same time as me 

Anyways, the problem with the skills all comes down to one central problem about CR that makes it an advisory system more than anything. The ways a DM uses the different monsters are very different. The skills are just an example of this, some DM's might use skills as a big factor of monsters where others hardly ever roll a skill check. 
Should a DM give his players less experience if he forgot to use the Spell-Like abilities of an Ogre-Magi? Should he give less experience if they slayed a Dragon before it got to use its Breath Weapon, which is an essential part of the CR? Should a DM give less experience if his players encountered a couple of rogues out in an open space where they couldn't use all their special abilities and skills?
The skills are what you make them, IMO. If you play a style of game where the skills have little influence, that "could" easily be house-ruled out of the CR equation. If you play a game where skills are heavily used, with hiding ambushes, sneaky kobolds, epic spellcasters etc. then it might by house-ruled into the CR equation as well. Otherwise, the CR-calculating system would soon get too huge, if there should be individual tables for the DM's style of play. Off course, everything is only IMO


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 7, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Unless you can satisfy all conditions, then no. *




I think I can, but of course you are always free to disagree. 

Slim though it is, what little evidence there is actually supports a bonus of +10 for the Skill Focus feat:

1. The Epic Skill Focus feat bestows +10. Typically (though not always) such feats are merely logical extensions (As with the Spell Focus and Spell Penetration feat chains).

2. A Ring of Climbing bestows a +10 skill bonus (2000 GP). The price of which is actually less than (half) a +1 weapon! 

Lets look at some comparable items:

+1 Weapon: 4000 GP
+2 Ability Score Item: 4000 GP
Bracers of Armour +2: 4000 GP
+2 Cloak of Resistance: 4000 GP*

*If anything Cloaks of Resistance are priced too low. The above should represent a bonus to a single saving throw type; rather than all three.

Also an Amulet of Natural Armour is probably twice as costly as it should be. Since for some reason its the same price as a Ring of Protection yet unlike the latter it won't protect against touch attacks etc.

So even if we DOUBLE the price of the Ring of Climbing a +10 skill bonus is equal to:

+1 to hit & +1 to damage (and by extension either +2 to hit OR +2 to damage)
+2 to an Ability Score
+2 to Natural Armour
+2 to one saving throw (amended Cloak of Resistance)



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your CR/EL may be useless to me indeed.  My "look at to determine" way has served me well thus far. *




Thats certainly your prerogative mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Good evening again Upper_Krust...
> Seems you always come on same time as me  *




I presume you mean late in this instance? 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, the problem with the skills all comes down to one central problem about CR that makes it an advisory system more than anything. The ways a DM uses the different monsters are very different. The skills are just an example of this, some DM's might use skills as a big factor of monsters where others hardly ever roll a skill check.*




True, but lets look at how that will affect CR. For example a Balor works out at CR 35 (moderate) and 18 (difficult) by my current method.

A Balor has a +8 (racial) bonus to Listen and Spot Checks. Under my current theory that give him +0.3 to CR. 

Does factoring that +0.3 seem unreasonable to anyone? 

Perhaps that bonus might help it avoid a sneak attack now and again.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Should a DM give his players less experience if he forgot to use the Spell-Like abilities of an Ogre-Magi? Should he give less experience if they slayed a Dragon before it got to use its Breath Weapon, which is an essential part of the CR? Should a DM give less experience if his players encountered a couple of rogues out in an open space where they couldn't use all their special abilities and skills?*




I don't think so.

Anyway, Situational Modifiers easily adjudicate for any such discrepancies. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *The skills are what you make them, IMO. If you play a style of game where the skills have little influence, that "could" easily be house-ruled out of the CR equation.
> 
> If you play a game where skills are heavily used, with hiding ambushes, sneaky kobolds, epic spellcasters etc. then it might by house-ruled into the CR equation as well. Otherwise, the CR-calculating system would soon get too huge, if there should be individual tables for the DM's style of play. Off course, everything is only IMO  *




As I see it, its better to factor it in anyway. The differences are negligable at best (as I showed above with the Balor above).


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Lets look at some comparable items:
> 
> +1 Weapon: 4000 GP
> *




Dude, um...  +1 weapons are 2000 gp.  Where you been?


----------



## Anubis (Mar 7, 2003)

The problem I have is not with the balor, but with the Vampire template or anything else with loads of bonuses to skills.  I contest that the vampire's skills are NOT worth enough to bump it up a WHOLE CR like you claim.  Plain and simple.

As to your example, you're once again trying to compare things that can't be compared.  Or did it not occur to you that being able to have a normal +10 to a skill is FAR better than having a magic item that does the same?  Skills can't be dispelled, destroyed, or gotten rid of.  Magic items can.  Plus cheap does NOT equal weak.  The Ring of Sustenance is quite possibly one of the most powerful rings in the game, yet it costs only 2500.

Anyway, why am I the only person who seems to understand that Listen, spot, Hide, and Move Silently have NO effect on sneak attacks?  You have to catch your opponent flat-footed or flank the opponent to use sneak attack.  If you go before the enemy in initiative, then you catch that opponent flat-footed.  If not, you can't catch them flat-footed at all, regardless of those skills.  Once the character goes in battle, you can't catch them by surprise either, meaning the skills do nothing in the middle of a battle under all normal circumstaces.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 7, 2003)

Hey Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Dude, um...  +1 weapons are 2000 gp.  Where you been? *




DOH! 

I was toying with the idea of doubling the Skill related item bonus and I seem to have got lost somewhere in the furore. 

Thanks for not letting me stray from the path dude.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 7, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The problem I have is not with the balor, but with the Vampire template or anything else with loads of bonuses to skills.*




Lich and Demilich are about the only other major offenders.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I contest that the vampire's skills are NOT worth enough to bump it up a WHOLE CR like you claim.  Plain and simple.*




Why is it okay with the Balor but not the Vampire? Your argument sounds hypocritical.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As to your example, you're once again trying to compare things that can't be compared.*




Don't be silly. Of course these things can be compared, how do you think feats and spells are determined!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Or did it not occur to you that being able to have a normal +10 to a skill is FAR better than having a magic item that does the same?*




Absolutely, but it was still half the cost of most comparable feat rated items! 

I wasn't comparing feats to items; I was comparing items to items which were the same 'pound for pound'. Obviously the relationships converted to feats would be similar if not identical.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, why am I the only person who seems to understand that Listen, spot, Hide, and Move Silently have NO effect on sneak attacks?  You have to catch your opponent flat-footed or flank the opponent to use sneak attack.  If you go before the enemy in initiative, then you catch that opponent flat-footed.  If not, you can't catch them flat-footed at all, regardless of those skills.  Once the character goes in battle, you can't catch them by surprise either, meaning the skills do nothing in the middle of a battle under all normal circumstaces. *




But what about if the Rogue is trying a sneak attack before battle commences!


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Mar 7, 2003)

*Sneak Attack pointer....*

Let's not forget, you can also perform a Sneak Attack by flanking an opponent.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> +2 Cloak of Resistance: 4000 GP*
> 
> *If anything Cloaks of Resistance are priced too low. The above should represent a bonus to a single saving throw type; rather than all three.
> ...




Um, you're changing the CLoak of Resistance?

Have you ever heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

Your work is sounding less and less appealing the more needless stuff I hear about being in it.  The Cloak of Resistance is PERFECT as-is.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 7, 2003)

As for your comparisons of magic items, your comparisons hold NO water.  You keep forgetting, for some odd reason, that the various feats are NOT equal in power!

A +10 to a skill costs how much it does because that's it's cost, not because there was any relation with any feats.  Heck, some items that give feats cost FAR more than the mere 2000.  That fact alone kills your argument entirely.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 7, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, you're changing the Cloak of Resistance?*




I'm considering it. I think it could be undervalued.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Have you ever heard the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?*




Obviously I wouldn't change something unless I thought it needed it. Something I am investigating at the moment.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your work is sounding less and less appealing the more needless stuff I hear about being in it.*




Okay, todays quota of scaremongering fulfilled. Check.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The Cloak of Resistance is PERFECT as-is. *




I'm not so sure.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for your comparisons of magic items, your comparisons hold NO water. You keep forgetting, for some odd reason, that the various feats are NOT equal in power!*




But they are relatively equal. A point you keep dismissing even though I have mentioned it time and again.

Just as Class Levels are not entirely balanced - but they are close enough so as not to be problematic.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *A +10 to a skill costs how much it does because that's it's cost, not because there was any relation with any feats.*




Utter nonsense. Obviously WotC have attempted to balance all the feats so that none are clearly superior or inferior they don't just pick the various bonuses at random.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Heck, some items that give feats cost FAR more than the mere 2000.*




Which ones specifically?

There is no actual mechanic in the DMG for adding feats to items.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That fact alone kills your argument entirely. *




Whats more likely is that any evidence produced will support my theory.


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 7, 2003)

Cloak of resistance ain't broke?  Listen here mate.  Saves work on a scale approximatly half that of AC.  IE, spell combat is scaled to half that of weapon combat.  So you're saying that an item that gives a universal bonus to spell defence, the cloak of resistance, the same price as the equivalent protection for weapon combat, ie, magical armor enhancement, is a good idea?

If you don't immediately follow that saves should be approximatly half ac.. look at this.  Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers get new spell levels every other character level.  The save DC on a spell (think Attack bonus with an average roll of 10) is 10 + spell level + stat.  Now, the bonus to hit weapn a weapon, for a warrior type, is Level + stat.  Level is twice spell level, ergo, the "attack bonus" of a spell is scaled approximatly half that of a physical attack.  This discrepency is even more disgusting when you consider that physical attack bonus is very simple to increase, with enhancement bonuses to weapons.  Also, the spell caster often must use spells lower level than his max spell level, which pushes the DC down some more.  Is there an enhancement bonus for spell attack bonus?  (note to self.  FINISH ALTERNATE ITEM RULES.. new idea, add in alternate types of bonus to saves, other than enhancement, to mimic AC)

Now for defence.  We'll assume a monk, which gets the best saves.  The monk's defence against spells is equal to 1/2 level +2 +stat.  A npc fighter's AC (out of DMG, he has the best AC), on the otherhand, is approximatly ("roll" your AC to compare it to saves) level +3~4 + stat(2 stats for monk).  So obviously his physical defence is scaled to be ~ twice the monk's magical defence.

So, obviously, since there is a single weapon attack bonus magical bonus, and enough armor bonuses to keep up, and there is not a magical bonus for spell "attack bonus", but there is one for spell defence, the spell defence one should cost significantly more than the armor bonuses (at least twice, if not more, since there is no spell attack bonus item).

Now, I'm not saying that cloak of resistance is "broken" in that the mechanic destroys the game.  I am saying that the mechanic favors defenders.  And that the magic item is vastly superior to other defensive items of similiar cost.  After all, a ring of protection, which is one of the 4 main AC magic items, costs twice as much as a cloak of resistance.  Would you rather have a cloak or a ring?  In the games I play in, we fight things that make us save or bad things happen.  I assume, given the number of spell caster classes and the amount of supernatural and spell like abilites on the monsters in DnD, that other players have had similiar experiences.  Since AC costs twice as much to increase as saves, and the saves are easier to get above the enemy spell caster's DCs, then the cloak would be a better buy.  If the world were fair, there would be a way to use magic items to enhance your spell DCs, and 4 ways to enhance your saves, just like with weapons and AC, except that the magic attack and defence times would cost twice as much.

Another problem with DnD combat (one that I realised from computer RPGS) is that magic spells scale funky.  They increase in power MUCH faster than physical attacks.  And save or die mechanics are simply annoying, and require resurrections to be in the game to balance it out, which I find a tad annoying.

Anywho, I'ma gonna go do something else than rant about dnd balence and how I could make it better.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## -Eä- (Mar 7, 2003)

Greetings!

It has been a while since I posted here the last time, but I have been busy for a long time now... I have, however, been following the thread, and while I haven't replied, I have given  some issues some thought.


As for skills: In the campaign in which I am playing, skills are perhaps more important than combat. Given: combat is universal, so it should be rated higher than skills, but indeed skills are vital.

Know that: All challenges have a challenge rating. Not only opponents that you face, but also difficult situations. For instance, last time I played, I joined a tournament in a gnome city. This tournament involved extensive use of the balance skill (as have many of my activities of late). This was far more challenging than facing a group of 3 orcs (for my second level character) and should be rated as such.

To me it seems that many of you underrate skills, and I am happy with the current rating of skills.


However, I do not agree with the skill bonus of skill focus: I think +10 is too much: The skill bonus from skill focus is an unnamed one, and is therefore more valuable than a racial one (remember, racial bonuses don't stack). Other bonuses that are unnamed have a higher cost than those that have a name.
Also: Skill Focus is a prerequisite for entering many prestige classes. This may not seem as a balancing factor to many of you, as also "good feats" may be prerequisites, but in my opinion, it is a valid argument for it not grow "out of proportion."
As you develop your character, you may gain different racial bonuses, from magic, special circumstances, divine intervention and so on, but only the highest one counts. I guess this is minor, but it should e accounted for.

I suggest changing Skill Focus to a +5 bonus. This way it is treated as an unnamed bonus and is 2.5 times better than the original Skill Focus feat, which at least makes it worth it for some characters.


I hope this made some sense, but I wouldn't bet on it (-;


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Mar 8, 2003)

Goodday everybody!

It makes perfect sense. And I agree with an unnamed +5 as the bonus, and perhaps upgrading the epic to +13 or +14.

As for the Cloak of R., it may be underrated, as much of what Eldorian said makes sense. Of course I don't try to find flaws in the books, like it seems some of you do ('course I'm not writing a book). 

Later


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Mar 8, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Obviously WotC have attempted to balance all the feats so that none are clearly superior or inferior they don't just pick the various bonuses at random.*



Not to unduly support Wizards of the Coast, but they have been quoted as saying "not all feats were created equal". They were even talking about Skill Focus at the time (when asked to justify the +2 bonus against a feat like Alertness). Many people were already imbuing Skill Focus with a +3 bonus, and then additional supplements jumped on the bandwagon.

My point is this ... while all feats are relatively equal in power, some feats are going to break the bell curve of power, and that is seeming by design. Giving a non-epic character +10 on a skill bonus at 1st level is the equivalent of giving them an automatic Take 10 ability (the ability to perform a skill even under stressful circumstances). It's simply too great a bonus.

If you are going to imbue the feat with a bonus greater than +3, then make the bonus +5 at most, make a Greater Skill Focus feat +10 (in total), and keep the epic skill focus feat at +10 (self-contained).

Curious, if you do increase the Skill Focus bonus to +5, then how do you plan on changing feats like Alterness?


----------



## Anubis (Mar 8, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Cloak of resistance ain't broke?  Listen here mate.  Saves work on a scale approximatly half that of AC.  IE, spell combat is scaled to half that of weapon combat.  So you're saying that an item that gives a universal bonus to spell defence, the cloak of resistance, the same price as the equivalent protection for weapon combat, ie, magical armor enhancement, is a good idea?
> 
> If you don't immediately follow that saves should be approximatly half ac.. look at this.  Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers get new spell levels every other character level.  The save DC on a spell (think Attack bonus with an average roll of 10) is 10 + spell level + stat.  Now, the bonus to hit weapn a weapon, for a warrior type, is Level + stat.  Level is twice spell level, ergo, the "attack bonus" of a spell is scaled approximatly half that of a physical attack.  This discrepency is even more disgusting when you consider that physical attack bonus is very simple to increase, with enhancement bonuses to weapons.  Also, the spell caster often must use spells lower level than his max spell level, which pushes the DC down some more.  Is there an enhancement bonus for spell attack bonus?  (note to self.  FINISH ALTERNATE ITEM RULES.. new idea, add in alternate types of bonus to saves, other than enhancement, to mimic AC)
> 
> ...




And THAT fulfills the wild rambling tangent that picks and chooses some facts while leaving out others for the day.

You must realize that the magic system is NOT meant to wholly be like the physical combat system.  In fact, from the looks of it, it's BACKWARDS.  For physical combat, your defense is 10 plus numbers and your attack is a base plus numbers.  For magical combat, your ATTACK starts at 10 and adds a number while your DEFENSE is a base plus a number.

Is that tilted toward defenders, though?  The answer: YES.  Guess what?  That's how it was designed!  You see, another fact you convenienty left out is that spells have MUCH more damage potential than normal attacks do.  There is a reason, after all, why an epic wizard could almost always defeat an epic fighter of the same level in a duel.  Spells are stronger!  As such, it SHOULD lean toward the defender, as the greater the chance of instant death, the easier the save should be.  Not only that, but saves are used more often and need to be increased quicker.  Are saves more valuable?  Yes.  Are they more NECESSARY?  YES.  THAT is why the Cloak of Resistance is as cheap as it is!

I mean, even with the most powerful Cloak of Resistance you might have at a given level, you STILL need to roll around 9-12 to successfully save against one oif your weak saves.  That number goes up the higher level you are, which is why the Cloak of Resistance scales faster!

You see, the Cloak of Resistance is balanced off WEAK saves, not strong saves.  The game assumes you'll USUALLY succeed at making your strong saves anyway, so that's a non-issue.  Fact still remains that even if you're Level 20 and have a Cloak of Resistance +5, you're STILL gonna have to roll pretty high to make saves!  Trust me, the Cloak of Resistance is always one of the first magical items in the game, and although it makes a difference, it has NEVER been broken.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 8, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Not to unduly support Wizards of the Coast, but they have been quoted as saying "not all feats were created equal". They were even talking about Skill Focus at the time (when asked to justify the +2 bonus against a feat like Alertness). Many people were already imbuing Skill Focus with a +3 bonus, and then additional supplements jumped on the bandwagon.
> 
> My point is this ... while all feats are relatively equal in power, some feats are going to break the bell curve of power, and that is seeming by design. Giving a non-epic character +10 on a skill bonus at 1st level is the equivalent of giving them an automatic Take 10 ability (the ability to perform a skill even under stressful circumstances). It's simply too great a bonus.
> 
> ...




Heck, I could possibly even live with the +5 over the +3.

To be honest, if you make it +5, there is no need to change Slertness or any other such feats.  Think about it this way: +5 comes to those who specialize in ONE thing, but if you want bonuses in two, you give up one and divide the rest in half, leaving you with +4.  Consider it the cost for getting two bonuses instead of one.  Sounds fair enough perhaps.

I think I'll wait and see the revisions to the core rules before making a final ruling on the subject.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 8, 2003)

Hi Eldorian mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Cloak of resistance ain't broke?  Listen here mate.  Saves work on a scale approximatly half that of AC.*




Well I never said it was broke, I suspect it is too cheap though.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *IE, spell combat is scaled to half that of weapon combat.  So you're saying that an item that gives a universal bonus to spell defence, the cloak of resistance, the same price as the equivalent protection for weapon combat, ie, magical armor enhancement, is a good idea?*




I'm just not happy with the relative balance between Saving Throw enhancing feats and items.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *If you don't immediately follow that saves should be approximatly half ac.. look at this.  Wizards, Clerics, Druids and Sorcerers get new spell levels every other character level.  The save DC on a spell (think Attack bonus with an average roll of 10) is 10 + spell level + stat.  Now, the bonus to hit weapn a weapon, for a warrior type, is Level + stat.  Level is twice spell level, ergo, the "attack bonus" of a spell is scaled approximatly half that of a physical attack.  This discrepency is even more disgusting when you consider that physical attack bonus is very simple to increase, with enhancement bonuses to weapons.  Also, the spell caster often must use spells lower level than his max spell level, which pushes the DC down some more.*




Even if we assume you are right then the various Saving Throw enhancing feats should be +3 rather than +2. Or there should be a feat to increase all Saving Throws by +1.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Is there an enhancement bonus for spell attack bonus?*




I'm not sure, but we can assume a parallel with ability score bonuses at least.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *(note to self.  FINISH ALTERNATE ITEM RULES.. new idea, add in alternate types of bonus to saves, other than enhancement, to mimic AC)*








			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Now for defence.  We'll assume a monk, which gets the best saves.  The monk's defence against spells is equal to 1/2 level +2 +stat.  A npc fighter's AC (out of DMG, he has the best AC), on the otherhand, is approximatly ("roll" your AC to compare it to saves) level +3~4 + stat(2 stats for monk).  So obviously his physical defence is scaled to be ~ twice the monk's magical defence.
> 
> So, obviously, since there is a single weapon attack bonus magical bonus, and enough armor bonuses to keep up, and there is not a magical bonus for spell "attack bonus", but there is one for spell defence, the spell defence one should cost significantly more than the armor bonuses (at least twice, if not more, since there is no spell attack bonus item).*




My idea would be to seperate the cloak into 3: Fortitude; Reflex and Will.

Therefore a Cloak of Fortitude Resistance +5 would be 25,000 GP.

Adding +5 to Reflex would cost +50,000 GP.
Adding +5 to Will would cost +50,000 GP.

So a Cloak of Total Resistance +5 would cost 125,000 GP



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Now, I'm not saying that cloak of resistance is "broken" in that the mechanic destroys the game.*




I don't think its 'broken' simply too cheap.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I am saying that the mechanic favors defenders.  And that the magic item is vastly superior to other defensive items of similiar cost.  After all, a ring of protection, which is one of the 4 main AC magic items, costs twice as much as a cloak of resistance.  Would you rather have a cloak or a ring?  In the games I play in, we fight things that make us save or bad things happen.  I assume, given the number of spell caster classes and the amount of supernatural and spell like abilites on the monsters in DnD, that other players have had similiar experiences.  Since AC costs twice as much to increase as saves, and the saves are easier to get above the enemy spell caster's DCs, then the cloak would be a better buy.  If the world were fair, there would be a way to use magic items to enhance your spell DCs, and 4 ways to enhance your saves, just like with weapons and AC, except that the magic attack and defence times would cost twice as much.*




Well you can increase DCs by ability score enhancement.

Incidently I have just been checking Ioun Stones and they rate the Alertness feat the same price as a +2 ability score enhancement (8000 GP). Which is a little strange considering Gauntlets of Ogre Power cost 4000 GP. Though presumably because Ioun Stones don't use up any item slots (though double the cost seems a bit too much for that luxury perhaps).

So from the above we can extrapolate that a magic item that adds a feat is presumably valued at 4000 GP.

Same as (all 4000 GP):

Bracers of Armor +2
Cloak of Resistance +2 (to all saves)
Gloves of Arrow Snaring
Pearl of Power (2nd)
Periapt of proof against poison +4 (to Fort vs. poison)
[Ability Score] enhancement +2
+2 Armour

Less expensive items include (all 2000 GP):

Boots of Elvenkind (+10 skill bonus)
Cloak of Elvenkind (+10 skill bonus)
Ring of Climbing (+10 skill bonus)
Vest of Escape (+10 skill bonus)
+1 Weapon 

So from the above evidence we can ascertain that under the official rules a feat could conceivably even add +14 to a skill! 

Though I would maintain that the skill bonus cost should be doubled meaning a +10 skill bonus item would also cost 4000 GP.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Another problem with DnD combat (one that I realised from computer RPGS) is that magic spells scale funky.  They increase in power MUCH faster than physical attacks.  And save or die mechanics are simply annoying, and require resurrections to be in the game to balance it out, which I find a tad annoying.*




Yes I'll have to sort that out for 4th Edition. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Anywho, I'ma gonna go do something else than rant about dnd balence and how I could make it better. *




Later mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 8, 2003)

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings!*




Hi Eä mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *It has been a while since I posted here the last time, but I have been busy for a long time now...*




Hey, no need to explain mate. Just nice to see you again. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I have, however, been following the thread, and while I haven't replied, I have given  some issues some thought.*




Sure, fire away.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *As for skills: In the campaign in which I am playing, skills are perhaps more important than combat. Given: combat is universal, so it should be rated higher than skills, but indeed skills are vital.*




Agreed.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Know that: All challenges have a challenge rating. Not only opponents that you face, but also difficult situations. For instance, last time I played, I joined a tournament in a gnome city. This tournament involved extensive use of the balance skill (as have many of my activities of late). This was far more challenging than facing a group of 3 orcs (for my second level character) and should be rated as such.*




Indeed.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *To me it seems that many of you underrate skills, and I am happy with the current rating of skills.*




Do you mean that 5 bonus skill points = CR +0.1?



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *However, I do not agree with the skill bonus of skill focus: I think +10 is too much:*




I admit its a terrible shock, but all the evidence supports that theory. I know that on the surface it seems ridiculous, but I actually think its valid, though I am still not convinced myself its for the best.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *The skill bonus from skill focus is an unnamed one, and is therefore more valuable than a racial one (remember, racial bonuses don't stack). Other bonuses that are unnamed have a higher cost than those that have a name.
> Also: Skill Focus is a prerequisite for entering many prestige classes. This may not seem as a balancing factor to many of you, as also "good feats" may be prerequisites, but in my opinion, it is a valid argument for it not grow "out of proportion."
> As you develop your character, you may gain different racial bonuses, from magic, special circumstances, divine intervention and so on, but only the highest one counts. I guess this is minor, but it should e accounted for.
> 
> I suggest changing Skill Focus to a +5 bonus. This way it is treated as an unnamed bonus and is 2.5 times better than the original Skill Focus feat, which at least makes it worth it for some characters.*




Thats certainly one option. Though for the purposes of determining the rating I would wholly ignore the current +2 bonus.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I hope this made some sense, but I wouldn't bet on it (-; *


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 8, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Goodday everybody!*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *It makes perfect sense. And I agree with an unnamed +5 as the bonus, and perhaps upgrading the epic to +13 or +14.*




Personally I would prefer to keep the various feats equal, even epic feats. 

There is no reason why epic feats should be intrinsically more powerful.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *As for the Cloak of R., it may be underrated, as much of what Eldorian said makes sense. Of course I don't try to find flaws in the books, like it seems some of you do ('course I'm not writing a book). *




You could argue even WotC don't always look to find flaws. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Later *




Take care mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 8, 2003)

Hi mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Not to unduly support Wizards of the Coast, but they have been quoted as saying "not all feats were created equal". *




Naturally they added that caveat after the work was published.

I bet may feats will be tweaked (for balance) in the Revised Core Rulebooks.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *They were even talking about Skill Focus at the time (when asked to justify the +2 bonus against a feat like Alertness). Many people were already imbuing Skill Focus with a +3 bonus, and then additional supplements jumped on the bandwagon.*




I think that one is obviously so weak that its apparent even after minimum familiarity with the system.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *My point is this ... while all feats are relatively equal in power, some feats are going to break the bell curve of power, and that is seeming by design.*




I am happy to concede that point, but it is the overall balance I am concerned with, not individual balance.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Giving a non-epic character +10 on a skill bonus at 1st level is the equivalent of giving them an automatic Take 10 ability (the ability to perform a skill even under stressful circumstances). It's simply too great a bonus.*




Not necessarily. Remember that the automatic Take 10 ability works on at least 4+ skills whereas Skill Focus only works on 1.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *If you are going to imbue the feat with a bonus greater than +3, then make the bonus +5 at most, make a Greater Skill Focus feat +10 (in total), and keep the epic skill focus feat at +10 (self-contained).*




Currently I haven't seen any evidence that suggests I should take things below +10. I know its a hefty increase; especially at 1st-level but it seems to make sense.

However, that said I still haven't convinced myself its for the best, primarily because it is such a huge leap rather than any logical reasoning though.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Curious, if you do increase the Skill Focus bonus to +5, then how do you plan on changing feats like Alterness? *




Well it would be nice to keep Skill Focus as an even number.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 8, 2003)

I think a +5 bonus would be about right.  It would definately make Skill Focus a highly tempting feat...  I remain convinced that +10 is far too much.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 8, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There is a reason, after all, why an epic wizard could almost always defeat an epic fighter of the same level in a duel.  Spells are stronger!*




Isn't this in actual fact an argument that the various classes are imbalanced rather than an indictment of a saving throw enhancing item!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You see, the Cloak of Resistance is balanced off WEAK saves, not strong saves.  The game assumes you'll USUALLY succeed at making your strong saves anyway, so that's a non-issue.  Fact still remains that even if you're Level 20 and have a Cloak of Resistance +5, you're STILL gonna have to roll pretty high to make saves!  Trust me, the Cloak of Resistance is always one of the first magical items in the game, and although it makes a difference, it has NEVER been broken. *




Some interesting points there mate, however the flipside to this coin is as follows.

Even if we assume the Cloak of Resistance is perfectly balanced with regards its peers, the feats which provide saving throw bonuses therefore become completely undervalued with regards their peers.

We know approximately that a feat should equate to a 4000 GP item.

Therefore a feat like Great Fortitude which adds +2 to a single save type is about one third as effective as a Cloak of Resistance +2.

One or the other isn't ideally balanced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Heck, I could possibly even live with the +5 over the +3.*




I would like to think so given the evidence.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *To be honest, if you make it +5, there is no need to change Slertness or any other such feats. Think about it this way: +5 comes to those who specialize in ONE thing, but if you want bonuses in two, you give up one and divide the rest in half, leaving you with +4. Consider it the cost for getting two bonuses instead of one. Sounds fair enough perhaps.*




Personally I want to change as little as possible. It seems logical that Alertness should be perhaps slightly higher in total since they make the two choices for you. But there should be very little (if anything) in it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I think I'll wait and see the revisions to the core rules before making a final ruling on the subject.*




Thanks mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 8, 2003)

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *I think a +5 bonus would be about right.  It would definately make Skill Focus a highly tempting feat...  I remain convinced that +10 is far too much. *




It does seems universally regarded as 'too high'. Even though the evidence supports it.

Though the flipside to making the feat bonus +5 is that for extra skill points to monsters you would add +1 CR per 25 skill points.

Meaning the Vampire would gain +2.2 CR from its 56 bonus skill points. Which in itself seems too much.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 8, 2003)

Upper Krust, your problem is that you're viewing six +6 bonuses and a single +36 bonus as somehow equivalent.  This isn't the case...  Specialization is important in dungeons and dragons, and large bonuses applied to a SINGLE score is more important than a minor across-the-board bonus.  The Vampire's skill bonuses aren't as important as you think they are...

Simply put, you're going about this the wrong way.  Simply totalling the bonuses is not the way to go - It's more complex than that.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 8, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Upper Krust, your problem is that you're viewing six +6 bonuses and a single +36 bonus as somehow equivalent.  This isn't the case...*




I would agree it probably isn't the case to the individual because it puts the focus (no pun intended) on that single ability.

But generically it is exactly the case. Especially given the formulaic relationship between Challenge Rating and Encounter Level as I attest.

Remember the effect of CR on EL lessens the higher we increase CR.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Specialization is important in dungeons and dragons, and large bonuses applied to a SINGLE score is more important than a minor across-the-board bonus.*




Specialisation always represents a sacrifice in other areas, typically a weakness.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *The Vampire's skill bonuses aren't as important as you think they are...*




Lets have a look at the example in the monster manual but using my CR/EL rules:

A 5th-level NPC Fighter Vampire would be CR 12. Meaning its a moderate challenge for a party of PCR 12 (approx. 10th-level) characters and a difficult challenge for a party of PCR 6 (approx. 5th-level) characters.

If we don't factor the skill bonuses (as I suggest) the NPC becomes CR 11. A moderate challenge for a party of PCR 11 (approx. 9th-level) and a difficult challenge for a party of PCR 6th (approx. 5th-level).

Not really so much of a big difference is it!? Remembering of course that the Vampire is the biggest proponent of skill bonuses in the Monster Manual.

So really you are arguing for something that makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. Yet something that is often poignant on an individual basis.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Simply put, you're going about this the wrong way.  Simply totalling the bonuses is not the way to go - It's more complex than that. *




Its only more complex than that if you want it to be.


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 9, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> And THAT fulfills the wild rambling tangent that picks and chooses some facts while leaving out others for the day.




I'll please ask you kindly not to insult my reasoning.  Question it all you like, but insults will be responded to in kind.



> You must realize that the magic system is NOT meant to wholly be like the physical combat system.  In fact, from the looks of it, it's BACKWARDS.  For physical combat, your defense is 10 plus numbers and your attack is a base plus numbers.  For magical combat, your ATTACK starts at 10 and adds a number while your DEFENSE is a base plus a number.




That is a flawed arguement.  The "backwardsness" you mention is because the game is supposed to revolve around the PCs.  If a dragon breaths fire on you, the dragon doesn't roll to see if he kills you, you roll to see if you survive.  Also, I'd have to say the system is a layover from earlier editions.



> Is that tilted toward defenders, though?  The answer: YES.  Guess what?  That's how it was designed!  You see, another fact you convenienty left out is that spells have MUCH more damage potential than normal attacks do.  There is a reason, after all, why an epic wizard could almost always defeat an epic fighter of the same level in a duel.  Spells are stronger!  As such, it SHOULD lean toward the defender, as the greater the chance of instant death, the easier the save should be.  Not only that, but saves are used more often and need to be increased quicker.  Are saves more valuable?  Yes.  Are they more NECESSARY?  YES.  THAT is why the Cloak of Resistance is as cheap as it is!




First off, the part about the epic wizard defeating the epic fighter.. have you seen how saves scale in epic levels, and compared that to the way spell DCs scale?  Anything over level 40 favors fighters(base saves 11, 11, 17, compared to base spell DCs 19), unless the wizard somehow manages to incapacitate him with spells that don't allow saves.  As for spells being much stronger than physical attacks, well of course.  Casters get a limited number of spells per day, right?  But again, a full attack from a high level warrior deals enough damage to a single opponet to put most spells to shame.  And I advocate the removal of instant death spells, if you would have read my post.  They force the game to require either resurections or frequent character creation.  In your next statement, where you agree with me that saves are more useful (than AC I assume), you state this implies that the gear which would raise said more important stat should be cheaper.  This I find stupid.  If an ability is better (more valuable you say), then the ability should cost more to get (cause it has more value, you said).  Isn't that obvious?



> I mean, even with the most powerful Cloak of Resistance you might have at a given level, you STILL need to roll around 9-12 to successfully save against one oif your weak saves.  That number goes up the higher level you are, which is why the Cloak of Resistance scales faster!




Scales faster?  Do you mean to say that is why the cloak is cheaper?  I mean, it would scale faster if you could get multiple types of bonus to the save, but the items cost more.  Like AC.  As for your 9-12, could you give an example?  Using the NPCs out of the DMG, I see that, against a 9th level spell cast by a level 20 sorcerer or wizard,(DC 27) the fighter needs 9+ for Fort, a 17+ for Will and Reflex.  The paladin needs a 6+ for Fort, a 12+ for relfex, and 9+ for will.  They both wear +3 cloaks of resistance.  If they had +5, it would the saves would still look pretty hopeless for the fighter.  Now if the fighter had put more attention into his saves, and purchased several items that gave stacking bonuses to his saves...  



> You see, the Cloak of Resistance is balanced off WEAK saves, not strong saves.  The game assumes you'll USUALLY succeed at making your strong saves anyway, so that's a non-issue.  Fact still remains that even if you're Level 20 and have a Cloak of Resistance +5, you're STILL gonna have to roll pretty high to make saves!  Trust me, the Cloak of Resistance is always one of the first magical items in the game, and although it makes a difference, it has NEVER been broken.




Seems to me the game assumes you'll usually fail at your weak saves, and have only a decent chance to succeed at your strong ones, if you're a fighter.  I chose the paladin as my other example because he is the warrior with the strongest saves(out of the DMG), although he still would have troubles saving.  

Now that thats all said, I have some more proposed changes.  The problem with saving throws is that the defender has multiple ability dependance, and has one cheap item to use, while the attacker has a single ability to boost, but no items.  This is not a favorable situation.  Outside of saving throws, Con is useful to everybody, but almost never a primary stat, Dex is useful to most everyone, and Wisdom is useful to a select few.  However, the stat that boosts casting ability is always the primary stat of a caster.  There are several ways to fix this.  The one Wizards attempted was to put in the increadably cheap cloak of resistance and to require every character to wear one to remain effective.  This fails, however.  First off, the item becomes more necessary than any other item in the game, and no one item should required to stay alive.  Secondly, the single item doesn't actually succeed in protecting it's purchasers, since its the only item they can get to give a bonus to thier saves.

Some solutions to this would be to require multiple ability dependance in the offence (like psions).  But this in turn simply leads to over specialization to raise your spell DCs.  Or, one could eliminate the multiple ability dependance on saves, but that would take away from the elegance of the system (I, for one, like the concept of fighters being able to resist poison and dissease easier than a wizard, but the wizard able to resist mind control, and that it is the fighter's great constitution that protects him, and the wizard's indominable will.)  

In truth, the best solution, I believe, is to switch all saves to the same save track, basically the "good" track minus 2 (your ability scores would still give you flavor as to what you're good at resisting), add in multiple items that raise saving throws (costing twice that as AC items), and add a single item to raise spell DCs with an enhancement bonus (costing twice that of weapons).  Perhaps give all casters 2 abilities for thier casting, such as, in the case of wizards, Wisdom for spells per day, and Intelligence for spell DCs.

Oh and UK, there is a feat for +1 all saves, it's something like Luck of Heroes, out of various books, including the FR I think.

Anyways, I'm outie

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 9, 2003)

Hi all! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *And THAT fulfills the wild rambling tangent that picks and chooses some facts while leaving out others for the day.*






			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I'll please ask you kindly not to insult my reasoning.  Question it all you like, but insults will be responded to in kind.*




Okay guys, just be cool. We are all friends here. I may have inadvertantly sparked this exchange with comments towards my mate Anubis; but you all know me by now and I am happy to give (and get) some incisive comments as long as its in moderation, and as long as its known that we are all friends at the end of the day regardless of whats said.

However, each of you may not 'know' the others quite so well, so just keep things cordial. Okay.

I don't want to have to lay the immortal smackdown on any candy asses here in my own thread. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *In truth, the best solution, I believe, is to switch all saves to the same save track, basically the "good" track minus 2 (your ability scores would still give you flavor as to what you're good at resisting), add in multiple items that raise saving throws (costing twice that as AC items), and add a single item to raise spell DCs with an enhancement bonus (costing twice that of weapons).  Perhaps give all casters 2 abilities for thier casting, such as, in the case of wizards, Wisdom for spells per day, and Intelligence for spell DCs.*




Maybe all save progression should be the same (as you suggest) but that each class should benefit more from certain feats? ie. Wizards would benefit more from Indomitable Will etc.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Oh and UK, there is a feat for +1 all saves, it's something like Luck of Heroes, out of various books, including the FR I think.*




Indeed.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Anyways, I'm outie *




Later dude!


----------



## Anubis (Mar 10, 2003)

UK, Anabstercorian hit the nail right on the head.  These things aren't meant to be equal.  Nothing can be perfectly balanced in a game with so many variables.  There are feats in and of themselves that do not balance.  I point you again to Endurance and Run, the two most useless feats of all.  Yet there are others such as Devastating Critical and Epic Prowess that are obviously better than many other feats.

Instead of trying to balance the feats to make them all worth the same CR, UK, you should just worry about the system itself and leave the feats to WotC.  Until we see the revisions to the core rules, we won't know a thing.  You should wait for them just as I am.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 10, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, Anabstercorian hit the nail right on the head.  These things aren't meant to be equal.*




Well I respect Anabstercorians opinion (as I do everyones); but I don't agree with him.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Nothing can be perfectly balanced in a game with so many variables.*




Perfect balance is not my goal though. Relative balance is.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There are feats in and of themselves that do not balance.  I point you again to Endurance and Run, the two most useless feats of all.  Yet there are others such as Devastating Critical and Epic Prowess that are obviously better than many other feats.*




I already said Endurance should be +10.

I agree Run is virtually useless. You could also say that the various armour proficiency feats should be a single feat.

How is Epic Prowess better than many other feats?

Devastating Critical has EIGHT prerequisites (counting epic levels).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Instead of trying to balance the feats to make them all worth the same CR, UK, you should just worry about the system itself and leave the feats to WotC.*




The system is finished (though the pdf is not).

I give WotC rules an error of margin. When they cross that boundary and it affects my book, then I step in.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Until we see the revisions to the core rules, we won't know a thing.  You should wait for them just as I am. *




Appreciate the logic mate!


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 10, 2003)

I think you guys are exaggerating on the Skills issue. There are far more important questions regarding the IH than the skills in the CR calculation system. For example, are there going to be any pictures of underdressed females wielding big swords?


----------



## Anubis (Mar 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> My idea would be to seperate the cloak into 3: Fortitude; Reflex and Will.
> 
> Therefore a Cloak of Fortitude Resistance +5 would be 25,000 GP.
> ...




This is INSANE.  You're taking one of the most important items for all characters and basically multiplying the cost by five.  That's ridiculous and I'll have no part of it.

Sorry, but it's hopeless to debate with you about it.  You obviously are unwilling to listen to reason and trust the balance, so why bother?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 11, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This is INSANE.*




...in the membrane?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're taking one of the most important items for all characters and basically multiplying the cost by five.*




Actually I was proposing that the Cloak of Resistance *could be* undervalued, and suggesting a *possible* revision. Though looking at it I never wanted it to go above 75,000 GP (x3) naturally.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's ridiculous and I'll have no part of it.*




Wait a second, who is this? It can't be Anubis, everyone knows he always agrees with me! You must be an imposter!? 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but it's hopeless to debate with you about it. *




Have you tried to debate with me? I must have missed it. So far your position consists of you telling me (and I quote): "This is INSANE".

I am more than happy to discuss and debate any point of my work with anyone. Generally though a debate consists of both sides relating any evidence or objective supposition to help their argument.

Added to which the above (to quote myself): "idea" was simply that. An idea. A way to throw the discussion open to people.

My position is that _either_ the Cloak of Resistance is undervalued, _or_ the Feats which provide a Saving Throw bonus are slightly too weak.

Remember all that stuff I posted a few days ago (heres a recap):



			
				me a few days ago said:
			
		

> *Incidently I have just been checking Ioun Stones and they rate the Alertness feat the same price as a +2 ability score enhancement (8000 GP). Which is a little strange considering Gauntlets of Ogre Power cost 4000 GP. Though presumably because Ioun Stones don't use up any item slots (though double the cost seems a bit too much for that luxury perhaps).
> 
> So from the above we can extrapolate that a magic item that adds a feat is presumably valued at 4000 GP.
> 
> ...




That was part of the evidence I used to support just such a theory. 

But hey! Feel free to ignore any of that pesky evidence stuff. Oh wait, you already have, my mistake.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You obviously are unwilling to listen to reason*




A side effect of the INSANITY no doubt.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and trust the balance,*




So you trust that the Solar's Challenge Rating of 19 is balanced then do you?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *so why bother? *




To bother or not to bother: that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles...and by opposing, end them.

Aye, thats the rub.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 11, 2003)

I was speaking of the balance of the Cloak of Resistance.  As for debating, I have posted ample evidence that supports what I said.  Ya' know, the whole thing about spells and attacks being backward, and how spells are more powerful and how characters need the Cloak of Resistance as standard.

Someone else said it should cost more because it's so valuable, but I say it should cost what it does because it's NECESSARY to have these things.  Every little bit counts.

I have said time and again thatit is impossible to equate feats and magic items, but that is something else you dismissed.  Yet intelligent weapons can bestow feats, and they ALL cost A LOT more than 4000!  The Ring of Evasion (I know, it's not a feat, but it IS a feat equivilant) costs 25000.  There are others in some of the non-core books as well.  Ring of Fast Healing is another example, but I believe that to be HORRENDOUSLY overpowered.  I would still keep the price at 3000 or more, however, and not down to where you propose.  Amulet of Natural Armor and the Armor Skin feat are another example, and how about the Headband of Ferocity compared to the Remain Conscious feat?  Like I said, I've given AMPLE proof.

You are trying to "fix" everything, even stuff that needs no fixing!  I long for the days when you were mostly concerned with a damn good system for deities and not preoccupied with stuff that is already good.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 11, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I was speaking of the balance of the Cloak of Resistance.*




If its balanced (and it may be) then the feats are unbalanced; and vice versa.

Personally I am leaning towards the item being too cheap.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for debating, I have posted ample evidence that supports what I said.  Ya' know, the whole thing about spells and attacks being backward, and how spells are more powerful and how characters need the Cloak of Resistance as standard.*




I seem to recall replying to the salient points therein.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Someone else said it should cost more because it's so valuable, but I say it should cost what it does because it's NECESSARY to have these things.  Every little bit counts.*




I don't see how something could be less expensive because its a necessity. In any logical society that stipulation would, if anything, drive the price up.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have said time and again that it is impossible to equate feats and magic items, but that is something else you dismissed.*




I didn't dismiss it. It may be your opinion that feats and magic items cannot be equated but logic and the mounting evidence tell us otherwise.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yet intelligent weapons can bestow feats, and they ALL cost A LOT more than 4000!*




No they don't.

Lets examine the FACTS.

The bonus cost for a semi-empathic intelligent weapon with one Primary Ability (of which some feats are contained therein) is 10,000 GP. A weapon with two primary abilities costs +15,000 GP.

The difference between the two is 5000 GP.

Meaning that one feat is valued at slightly less than a 5000 GP item because the price difference also takes into account a change from semi-empathy to empathy and also a small increase in the average ability scores possessed by the item.

So quite clearly a figure of 4000 GP is virtually spot on.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The Ring of Evasion (I know, it's not a feat, but it IS a feat equivilant) costs 25000.*




I think the key part of the above sentence is "its not a feat."



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There are others in some of the non-core books as well.*




I'm all ears.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ring of Fast Healing is another example, but I believe that to be HORRENDOUSLY overpowered.*




Do you mean the Ring of Rapid Healing in the ELH?

The problem with Fast Healing (and Regeneration) as I showed in the CR/EL document is that they mean more for the PCs than NPCs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I would still keep the price at 3000 or more, however, and not down to where you propose.*




The price for what?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Amulet of Natural Armor and the Armor Skin feat are another example,*




Yes, I still don't understand why the Amulet of Natural Armour is the same price as a Ring of Protection. It doesn't make sense, unless I am missing something.

Obviously the Amulet should be less expensive. Possibly half.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and how about the Headband of Ferocity compared to the Remain Conscious feat? *




Where is this item from again? I only have the core and epic books with me right now.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Like I said, I've given AMPLE proof.*




Ample proof to validate my theories. Thanks. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You are trying to "fix" everything, even stuff that needs no fixing!*




Once again, I think you are blowing things way out of proportion. I have changed about a half dozen regular feats; the same number of epic feats and a similar number of magic items. I don't see myself as trying to fix everything just tighten up the balance issues.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I long for the days when you were mostly concerned with a damn good system for deities and not preoccupied with stuff that is already good. *




I appreciate the concern mate, but the 'damn good system for deities' has been simmering for almost a year now.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 11, 2003)

See, that's why I'm sick of this debate, because the only thing you do is dismiss what I say.  My proof goes against you in every way possible!

It is IMPOSSIBLE to equate feats and magic items, and I have shown that over and over again, and I think you are the ONLY person playing this game that thinks otherwise.  Trying to equate the two is a lesson in futility indeed.

I have shown the proof, and you have shown NONE.  The only thing you say is "since the feat does this, this item should cost this" when you should NOT equate the two to begin with!  Items and items, feats are feats, they are not meant to be compared, contrasted, or balanced against each other, but rather within their own groupings.

All armor boosting items save for armor and shields goes by the 2000 increment, whereas saves go by the 1000 increment.  There you go, plain and simple.  That is perfectly balanced as-is.  If it weren't, you would see as much complaining about that as you do about Heal and Harm.  Yet that is not the case!  If it was unbalanced, underpriced, or whatever, it'd be obvious through playtesting.  Playtesting, however gives ZERO support to your theories thus far.

All the logic in the world will not save you if it doesn't follow through IN THE GAME.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Mar 12, 2003)

A ratio:

1 feat = X
1 item with in built feat = .75 * X

Of course, then you have to figure what X is.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Impeesa (Mar 12, 2003)

So by Krusty's logic... my car cost me $200... it's an old POS, but it runs. It did, however, come with a nice set of winter tires. Those alone probably cost a little over $200. Therefore, when we deduct the price of what we can equate to real values, we can find the value of the car itself to be... roughly -$100. Well, it's not the greatest car in the world, but I'd hardly have to pay someone to take it... Conclusion: Can't compare apples and monkeys. Some things just can't be equated, and sometimes the laws of logical implication just don't apply.  And believe me, I have the utmost of faith in your approach - I'm studying computer science and physics, taking what you know and working from there is the most basic principle - but sometimes it is immediately obvious from the results that that was the wrong way to go about it. Then again, it's been said that one should never let actual data get in the way of an elegant theory...  

--Impeesa--


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 12, 2003)

Just in case all you guys wanted some extra ammo for the Flaming, this thread has plenty of Flaming ideas & advice

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=39932&perpage=40&pagenumber=1


Anyways, howdy again Upper_Krust. Havent said much here for a while, was waiting to see if things were getting over by themselves 

Anyways, I was actually wondering about the weapon / armor magical qualities. Is there specific market price + that will be the minimum for them (like, no armor / weapon qualities that are lower than +6 or something). 
Did you find alot of usable qualities amongst the many posted here? I think I saw a couple myself I could use, off course with alterations, but still.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *See, that's why I'm sick of this debate,*




I was just starting to enjoy myself! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *because the only thing you do is dismiss what I say.*




I replied to every single shred of evidence you submitted! I couldn't possibly be more accomodating!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My proof goes against you in every way possible!*




You were WRONG about the cost of feats in Intelligent Items. I proved that.

You admitted that Evasion was not a feat.

I explained why Fast Healing (and Regeneration) cost more.

I explained why the Amulet of Natural Armour was incorrectly priced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It is IMPOSSIBLE to equate feats and magic items, and I have shown that over and over again,*




You have shown nothing of the sort.

It is ludicrous to suggest they cannot be contrasted and compared when on so many occasions their effects cross pollenate, and by looking at that evidence we can detect a pattern.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and I think you are the ONLY person playing this game that thinks otherwise.*




Appeal to the authority of the masses. It doesn't matter whether one person thinks it or a million people think it. All that matters is the facts, and in this case the evidence all favours my theory.

If it didn't, or someone proves it wrong (and by that I don't just mean say its wrong) then I will be the first to stand up and be counted. Its not about whos right or whos wrong, its about the truth.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Trying to equate the two is a lesson in futility indeed.*




I haven't just tried, I have succeeded. The only thing thats futile is resistance. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have shown the proof, and you have shown NONE.*




Are you sure you're following the right thread!? 

Every bit of evidence to date supports my theory! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The only thing you say is "since the feat does this, this item should cost this" when you should NOT equate the two to begin with!  Items and items, feats are feats, they are not meant to be compared, contrasted, or balanced against each other, but rather within their own groupings.*




Nonsense. Perhaps if only a single feat or item did the same thing then we couldn't contrast them to determine an overall figure, but all the evidence (multiple feats and items) points towards a single feat placed in a magic item costing (approximately) 4000 GP. Possibly slightly more or less, but remember we are looking for relative numbers here not an exact figure.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *All armor boosting items save for armor and shields goes by the 2000 increment, whereas saves go by the 1000 increment.  There you go, plain and simple.  That is perfectly balanced as-is.*




The Amulet of Natural Armour should cost the same as Armour and Shield bonuses. Only a Deflection (Ring of Protection) AC bonus should be doubled (because it works against Touch spells etc.)



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If it weren't, you would see as much complaining about that as you do about Heal and Harm.  Yet that is not the case!  If it was unbalanced, underpriced, or whatever, it'd be obvious through playtesting.  Playtesting, however gives ZERO support to your theories thus far.*




You don't need playtesting when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *All the logic in the world will not save you if it doesn't follow through IN THE GAME. *




Forgive me, but I really don't see how modifying the price of a Cloak of Resistance (or vice versa slighly altering a few feats) is going to throw the game'out of whack'.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *A ratio:
> 
> 1 feat = X
> 1 item with in built feat = .75 * X
> ...




Well if we assume a feat should cost (approx.) 4000 GP. Then each time you create an item with a feat you should add +4000 GP.

The caveat for feat strings exists though.

Should a feat require another as a prerequisite then each time you add a feat to that string you should tackle it as follows.

Feat # x Feat # x 4000 GP

eg. (Cleave) 1 (feat) x 1 (feat) x 4000 GP = 4000 GP item 
(Cleave & Great Cleave) 2 (feats) x 2 (feats) x 4000 GP = 16,000 GP item
(Cleave & Great Cleave & Supreme Cleave) 3 (feats) x 3 (feats) x 4000 GP = 36,000 GP item
4 feat string costs 64,000 GP
5 feat string costs 100,000 GP


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

Hey Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *So by Krusty's logic... my car cost me $200... it's an old POS, but it runs. It did, however, come with a nice set of winter tires. Those alone probably cost a little over $200. Therefore, when we deduct the price of what we can equate to real values, we can find the value of the car itself to be... roughly -$100. Well, it's not the greatest car in the world, but I'd hardly have to pay someone to take it... Conclusion: Can't compare apples and monkeys.*




Firstly I am assuming the car was bought second hand, which of course makes your argument null and void. I could sell you my house for $100, but that doesn't mean its *worth* $100 does it!?

Likewise you could purchase a +5 Vorpal Sword for 100 GP; but that doesn't mean its worth 100 GP.

Theres a difference between what you *can* actually pay for something and its generic value (which is dictated by the overarching economy).



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Some things just can't be equated, and sometimes the laws of logical implication just don't apply.  *




They can be equated if they have a common denominator. Such as:

a) A Market Price.
b) A Challenge Rating modifier.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *And believe me, I have the utmost of faith in your approach -*




I appreciate the love dude! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *I'm studying computer science and physics, taking what you know and working from there is the most basic principle - but sometimes it is immediately obvious from the results that that was the wrong way to go about it. Then again, it's been said that one should never let actual data get in the way of an elegant theory...  *


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Just in case all you guys wanted some extra ammo for the Flaming, this thread has plenty of Flaming ideas & advice
> 
> http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=39932&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 *




Funny stuff! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, howdy again Upper_Krust. Havent said much here for a while, was waiting to see if things were getting over by themselves  *








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, I was actually wondering about the weapon / armor magical qualities. Is there specific market price + that will be the minimum for them (like, no armor / weapon qualities that are lower than +6 or something). *




No.

I considered something like that, but there were a handful of relevant powers that start below +6 and scale upwards. There were also a few abilities that I initially thought were epic but upon testing found more to suit non-epic status.

Of course that said I still have something like five times the amount of epic weapon powers that are in the ELH. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Did you find alot of usable qualities amongst the many posted here? I think I saw a couple myself I could use, off course with alterations, but still. *




I am sure I found one or two. A lot of the time I already had a similar ability detailed. A few however, were simply bigger numbers tacked on, which is not something I was really looking for. Essentially I go for a single idea and then detail it at its lowest common denominator.

I have all the weapon powers detailed but I am still toying with a few armour ideas.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 12, 2003)

*Hee hee.*

Yep, and I wrote one of them!  Er, I think.

At any rate, while I'm not sure I agree with all of your results, Upper_Krust, the methodology you've used to produce them seems sound enough that I'm definately interested in seeing how they work out - The Immortals Handbook is firmly on my purchase list.

Speaking of which, are there Greater Speed enhancements, offering an additional 2 or more attacks to the wielder?


----------



## Anubis (Mar 12, 2003)

UK, that's the thing.  I HAVE proven you wrong and you have yet to admit it.  I have given ample proof that these things can't be equated, and everybody here save for you has seen that!  By your reasoning, a Ring of Devastating Critical would cost a mere 4000 gp, which is ludicrous!

I say again, you CAN'T put a price on ANY feats!


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 12, 2003)

I, for one, disagree with you anubis.  First off, i've seen nothing that is 'proof' of anything you claim.  As for the ring of devistating critical, I'm sure the more prereqs a feat has, the more valuable it is, and that such a system will be incorperated.  Personally I think epic and non epic feats should be on a slightly different scale.  Perhaps a system similiar to caster level, except this will be character level, that is the level required to get the feat, and spell level, in this case how many feat prereqs it has, and these two quantities make the magic item's cost that duplicates the feat.  As for your outragious claim that all feats shouldn't be equal and that there shouldn't be a system for putting feats into magic items, i think the facts go the other way, mate.  One of the goals of 3e was to balance the system, because balanced systems are more fun to play.  Anyway, its mostly pointless to argue with you.  You'll simply claim this is a wild tangent that adresses none of the facts, and then claim that you have unrefutable proof about anything you want to prove.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (Mar 12, 2003)

Well when people like you and UK claim that something is broken, and I compare it to something to prove that it isn't, and you retaliate by saying that the other thing compared it to is also broken because it doesn't support your little theories, THAT IS PROOF.  All you do is attempt some domino effect that simply puts the whole thing out of whack!

Yes, I'm talking about the Amulet of Natural Armor.  I compared armor values and saving throws and used that as an example, and then the retort is that the Amulet of Natural Armor is overpriced.

Basically, you're trying to fix a system that is not broken.  This game was NEVER intended to have perfect equity with all things.  The feats themselves prove that, as they are equal to each other.  Again, I point you to Run and Endurance, two utterly useless feats.  Then there are feats that are extremely useful that are better than other feats as well.  YOU CAN'Y EQUATE THEM.

Furthermore, if you are unconvinced that you can't, that's beside the point.  THERE IS NO NEED.  That is the final truth of the matter.  Unless you can offer ANY proof that there IS a NEED, then there is none.  Things should be done on a case-by-case basis, not a total overrun.

And Eldorian, even if you do agree with UK, that is still only two people against the rest of us who know better than to fret abotu the silly little things.  Cloak of Resistance, Amulet of Natural Armor, they're ALL FINE AS-IS, and unless you can prove otherwise, you have NO case!

In order to prove anything, you must stop with the formulas and PLAYTEST.  That is the ONLY way to offer REAL proof, because just 'cause it looks good on paper doesn't mean it works the same in the game.  Unless playtesting proves these things you are fixing as broken, then they obviously aren't.  Innocent until proven guilty.  The burden of proof is on you, and you have presented NONE.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 12, 2003)

Hey, you shouldnt hold back on which abilities you might end up using. I wont personally need any mention if you use any of mine, I merely want something to brag to my players about 

Its a very good idea to expand on the current, existing weapon abilities. In my opinion, those found in DMG / ELH are not enough. Most people end up with Keen / Ghost Touch weapons with a big plus. 
The more abilities, the bigger the posibility that a player might find one that he finds suitable for him, so suitable that he's willing to give up some clean plusses to get it.

Are the abilities all going to be "single" abilities, or are some of them "advancable". By advancable, I mean if they will have different variations that cost different plusses (I saw some ideas for this in this thread). I use some of those in my campaign and have even made a rule regarding them. You can go and get an ability "upgraded" for a price equal to modified weapon price - base weapon price. (That means, a weapon which costs 2000 gp. has an ability that costs a +1 market price. That ability has a greater version which costs as +2. A weapon with this would cost 4000 gp, so I allow the player to upgrade it for 2000 gp). This is only possible with the connected abilities and not merely plusses and such. 

I even had one of my players acquire a magical item that gained "levels" with him, as a familiar would. It could gain various minor powers each time it advanced. He could save the advancements and buy greater powers etc. 

Anyways, again, the Danish one is rambling on...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

*Re: Hee hee.*

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Yep, and I wrote one of them!  Er, I think.*




Offhand I am not sure; I'll have to add all the thread regulars to the 'Special Thanks' in the credits. So far I have added any of the ones who have emailed me. 

If anyone hasn't emailed me let me know your name sometime in the next month. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *At any rate, while I'm not sure I agree with all of your results, Upper_Krust, the methodology you've used to produce them seems sound enough that I'm definately interested in seeing how they work out - *




Well thats all I can ask.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *The Immortals Handbook is firmly on my purchase list.*




I appreciate the love mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Speaking of which, are there Greater Speed enhancements, offering an additional 2 or more attacks to the wielder? *




Personally I would just let the bonus stack. I mean the cost for a +8 (two attacks) ot +12 (three attacks) is prohibitive. Concentrating on extra attacks will be at the expense of more exotic abilities.

Oh and I have a special weapon ability that takes speed to its logical conclusion.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, that's the thing.  I HAVE proven you wrong and you have yet to admit it.*




You haven't proven anything! 

Give me ONE example!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have given ample proof that these things can't be equated, and everybody here save for you has seen that! *




One example!? Feel free to quote me anywhere.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By your reasoning, a Ring of Devastating Critical would cost a mere 4000 gp, which is ludicrous!*




Have you been paying attention to a word I have typed!?

Did you not see the post I made about Feat strings and prerequisites earlier today!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I say again, you CAN'T put a price on ANY feats! *




Yes you can, and all the evidence supports my theory.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 12, 2003)

By the way, which company was bringing out IH? I never, ever figured that much out...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yes, I'm talking about the Amulet of Natural Armor.  I compared armor values and saving throws and used that as an example, and then the retort is that the Amulet of Natural Armor is overpriced.*




EXPLAIN why the Amulet of Natural Armor costs the same as a Ring of Protection!? It shouldn't. Therefore one or the other is flawed, and since Armour itself is 'Bonus squared x 1000', its more likely that one facet (Natural Armour) is wrong, rather than two (Armour and Deflection). Both Natural Armour and Armour should cost the same.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, you're trying to fix a system that is not broken.  This game was NEVER intended to have perfect equity with all things.*




We are not trying for perfect equity but rather relative parity.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The feats themselves prove that, as they are equal to each other.  Again, I point you to Run and Endurance, two utterly useless feats.  Then there are feats that are extremely useful that are better than other feats as well.  YOU CAN'Y EQUATE THEM.*




We can equate them. Even if there are some less useful feats such as Run and the various Armour Proficiency Feats (which should be a single feat) and possibly some slightly more powerful feats like Rapid Shot, what we are looking for is relative balance.

We know they should all fit within rough parameters; with the caveat that feat strings allow those parameters to increase.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Furthermore, if you are unconvinced that you can't, that's beside the point.  THERE IS NO NEED.  That is the final truth of the matter.  Unless you can offer ANY proof that there IS a NEED, then there is none.  Things should be done on a case-by-case basis, not a total overrun.*




There is a need. This thread revolves around the Immortals Handbook remember!? The whole CR/EL system was designed out of necessity for that work. Not just because the CR/EL rules are useless at 20+.

Gods can create other beings; but if you don't have a functioning CR assembly mechanic the whole thing won't be balanced.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *And Eldorian, even if you do agree with UK, that is still only two people against the rest of us who know better than to fret abotu the silly little things.*




Appeal to the masses...again. I told you it doesn't matter how many billions think you are right - its the facts that count in this matter.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Cloak of Resistance, Amulet of Natural Armor, they're ALL FINE AS-IS, and unless you can prove otherwise, you have NO case!*




I have proved it! Over and over again.

The Amulet of Natural Armour should cost the same as an Armour bonus; not a deflection bonus.

The Cloak of Resistance is either underpriced or the feats which bestow save bonuses are too weak.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *In order to prove anything, you must stop with the formulas and PLAYTEST.  That is the ONLY way to offer REAL proof, because just 'cause it looks good on paper doesn't mean it works the same in the game.  Unless playtesting proves these things you are fixing as broken, then they obviously aren't.  Innocent until proven guilty.  The burden of proof is on you, and you have presented NONE. *




Don't talk nonsense. How can you playtest the proper cost of a Cloak of Resistance for goodness sake!?

We know the measure of a typical feat. We know the approximate cost of a feat (or an effect duplicating a feat) in a magic item. 

All the evidence therein tells us that either the Cloak of Resistance is underpriced or Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will are all slightly weak.

It also tells us that the Skill Focus feat is seriously undervalued.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 12, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hey, you shouldnt hold back on which abilities you might end up using. I wont personally need any mention if you use any of mine, I merely want something to brag to my players about *




Even so I always give credit where its due. 

Point of honour and all that. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Its a very good idea to expand on the current, existing weapon abilities. In my opinion, those found in DMG / ELH are not enough. Most people end up with Keen / Ghost Touch weapons with a big plus.
> 
> The more abilities, the bigger the posibility that a player might find one that he finds suitable for him, so suitable that he's willing to give up some clean plusses to get it.*




Absolutely. I hope people will get a big kick out of them. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Are the abilities all going to be "single" abilities, or are some of them "advancable". By advancable, I mean if they will have different variations that cost different plusses (I saw some ideas for this in this thread).*




There are at least a dozen weapon abilities that are scalable. I present the lowest common denominator and then how to scale them.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I use some of those in my campaign and have even made a rule regarding them. You can go and get an ability "upgraded" for a price equal to modified weapon price - base weapon price. (That means, a weapon which costs 2000 gp. has an ability that costs a +1 market price. That ability has a greater version which costs as +2. A weapon with this would cost 4000 gp, so I allow the player to upgrade it for 2000 gp). This is only possible with the connected abilities and not merely plusses and such.*




Seems plausible. In fact thats exactly the way I would do it. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I even had one of my players acquire a magical item that gained "levels" with him, as a familiar would. It could gain various minor powers each time it advanced. He could save the advancements and buy greater powers etc.*




I have something like that in the IH. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Anyways, again, the Danish one is rambling on... *




Appreciate the interest mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *By the way, which company was bringing out IH? I never, ever figured that much out...*




Thats because I won't be revealing the publisher until after the ELH and D&Dg enter the SRD.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 13, 2003)

> There are at least a dozen weapon abilities that are scalable. I present the lowest common denominator and then how to scale them.




Thats what I hoped, my group wont even cross level 10 for another couple of months, dont think they need any +10 equivelant weapons just yet 

How will undead deities function by the way? Concept seems strange to me, since deities normally hold the power to destroy undeads (or command them).


----------



## Anubis (Mar 13, 2003)

Like I said, you do whatever you want.  I'll have none of it.  It's useless arguing with a brick wall.  I have played these rules since they were released and I KNOW which ones are messed up and which ones are not.  I KNOW what can be equated and what can not through simple playtesting.  I KNOW when I hear someone trying to fix something that is not broken.

You have provided no proof for ANY of your theories, yet you say you have.  I have shown ample proof as to what I have said, yet you dismiss everything with a grain of salt.

I grow weary of this.  It has become obvious that you have lost sight of what was truly important, which was making a SIMPLE YET BALANCE system for determining CR/ECL/EL.  Now you have diverted on tangents spanning every factor of the game.  Argh . . .

Anyway, I'm outta here.  I'll still get the Immortal's Handbook for the deity information, but I imagine this stuff will be useless to me because I feel that the current system works just fine.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 13, 2003)

*Alright, that's quite enough fo that.*

I've been watching this argument for a while, and while both of you have had many clever and legitimate points arguing your case, I'm forced to make a comment.  Both of you seem to think that you're each ignoring the others arguments - This is not the case from the best of my perception.  You're both examining each others arguments, spotting significant holes in them, and dismissing them because of reasoned counter-arguments.  Neither of you is off-handedly dismissing anything, and as flamy as this has gotten, I admire that.


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 13, 2003)

I probably shouldn't even bother, but exactly where in any of your posts do you think you have inrefutable proof that the cloak of resistance is balanced with other magic items?  Please quote them for me.  I made a post that discussed the scaling issues between spells and physical combat, which I believe covered my end quite nicely.

Anyways.. Probalby not worth my time, you'll just come back with more CAPS on how YOU have PROOF.


Eldorian


----------



## Impeesa (Mar 13, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Gods can create other beings; but if you don't have a functioning CR assembly mechanic the whole thing won't be balanced.
> *




Wow, epiphany there... I suppose it never really occurred to me why you were making such a big deal out of that, I thought you just wanted to offer an alternative for the GM to keep an immortal game running smoothly. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The Cloak of Resistance is either underpriced or the feats which bestow save bonuses are too weak.
> *




How? If we assume, say, Luck of Heroes (+1 to all saves) costs 5000 (on the higher end for feats), an item granting it 5 times should cost roughly... wow, 25000 gp.  If you double the cost of subsequent 'effects', it still wouldn't top 45000. Divide by bonus squared to find standard multiplier.... you get 1800. Round up to 2000, and it's now on the same scale as natural/deflection armor bonuses, or weapon enhancement bonuses. I can see that, but I really don't think it needs to go any higher. At the absolute most, a multiplier of x2500 might be acceptable, but that would be the same cost as the universally-useful Luck bonus. Remember, you can equate feats, magic, skills, and abilities all day long.... but it doesn't make sense if your magic items don't equate with each other any more. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Anubis (Mar 13, 2003)

Eldorian, I counted your essay on magic and physical combat.  That is where the proof is.  The post where I explained that saves must go up faster to keep with the scale of magic DCs and all.  Ya' know, like how ability scores cost Score^2*1000, so too do saves.  Makes perfect sense.

For more, I think Impeesa put it betterthan I ever could have by comparing the cost to the other various bonus types.  Like he said, although I still think it's impossible, for the very reason he gave why you shouldn't in the first place, equating the other stuff is useless if you lose the equity within that grouping.

Basically, this is pedantic.  Eldorian, I could ask the same of you.  Where is the proof?  Basically, throughout all my campaigns, I have NEVER ONCE had a balance issue with the Cloak of Resistance.  Not once.  If that ain't proof that it doesn't need fixing . . .


----------



## Anubis (Mar 13, 2003)

BTW, UK, you may wanna interject on the force weapon enhancement discussion.  I may disagree with your CR and magic CURRENT magic item stuff, but for new stuff, you seem to have a good enough grasp of things.

By the way, with the +1250 weapon that makes an entire race die if one is touched, does that mean if you kill one deity that they all die?  Or is it if you kill a creature that is the same race as a deity, that deity dies?


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 13, 2003)

How can you have a balance issue, while playtesting, with a low costing, passive effect magic item?  I don't advocate increasing the price HUGELY, like UK might.  I simply think the item should cost approximatly twice that of armor enhancement, since, by my arguement, magic combat is at a scale 1/2 of physical combat.  A cost something like

+1 2000
+2 8000
+3 18000
+4 32000
+5 50000

Which is the same as the price of an amulet of nat armor.
Or perhaps 4000 for +1. 

As for the amulet being as expensive as the ring of deflection, although the item creation rules don't mention, did you ever wonder why Forge Ring gets a feat all by itself?  Perhaps because rings are meant to be more powerful than wonderous items.  In my homebrew magic creation rules I'm tring to formalize, the ring will eighter be combined with amulets and bracers (one option) or rings will use standard item costs, whereas slotted wonderous items will cost an additional 25%, with ring being prehaps combined with amulet anyways.

For your arguement that because saves are needed, they should be cheaper.  Well.. the more valueable something is, the more it costs right?  Least that's how it's always worked as far as I can tell, for balance issues.  

I mean, look at the costs on any item that gives spell resistance.  Spell resistance is a slightly better defence against spells than saves, if you have enough of it, but the items that give it cost outragious amounts of money.  The mantle of spell resistance, which grants SR 21, costs 90,000 gp.  Since most DMs stipulate that you can spend _at most_ half your money on one item (many say even less), one would need to be level 15 to buy this mantel.  SR 21 protects against level 15 spell casters about 25% of the time, assuming no spell penetration.  A cloak of resistance also adds about 25% protection.  And SR doesn't protect against Supernatural or Extraordinary abilites such as breath weapons, gaze attacks, trap saves, poison, psionics, etc.  which the cloak of resistance does help against.  There are few spells that offer no save but offer SR, but all supernatural abilites do not offer SR.  I've encountered FAR more supernatural attacks than spells without saves.  While I'll admit that the mantle of spell resistance is overpriced, I believe that it should cost about the same as a cloak of reistance +5, which I advocate to be 50,000 gp.

As for it being impossible to equal feats to items, why should it be?  Both are aspects of character power, they can both be estimated as a character gains in level (because we have a nice chart stipulating the amount of money a character of a given level should have).  Therefore, logically, one could equate thier values.

Anyways.  I thank you kindly for stopping the excessive use of all caps, which I interpret as shouting.  Now we can have a reasonable discussion.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (Mar 13, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> How can you have a balance issue, while playtesting, with a low costing, passive effect magic item?
> *




By comparing character that have it with those who don't.  Cloak of Resistance is a very important and necessary item.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> For your arguement that because saves are needed, they should be cheaper.  Well.. the more valueable something is, the more it costs right?  Least that's how it's always worked as far as I can tell, for balance issues.
> *




That's real-life economics.  In a game, you have to consider balance itslef.  If something is so important that damn near everybody has to have it, it needs to cost less to make it more likely that people who need it will get it.

To be honest, however, that is totally beside the point.  Just using your old argument about the rate of magical combat compared to physical, I can easily demonstrate my point.  You see, for physical combat, defense copsts half that of offense.  Weapons are on the 2000 scale and armor is on the 1000 scale.  Just the same, magical combat is the same way, except the saves increase slightly differently.  Saves increase based on spell level (gained every two levels for most) and ability scores (which go on the 1000 scale but you need twice as much in order to get equal effect), and therefore can be averaged out as if on the 2000 scale.  Again, saves, the defense, should be on the 1000 scale.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> I mean, look at the costs on any item that gives spell resistance.  Spell resistance is a slightly better defence against spells than saves, if you have enough of it, but the items that give it cost outragious amounts of money.  The mantle of spell resistance, which grants SR 21, costs 90,000 gp.  Since most DMs stipulate that you can spend at most half your money on one item (many say even less), one would need to be level 15 to buy this mantel.  SR 21 protects against level 15 spell casters about 25% of the time, assuming no spell penetration.  A cloak of resistance also adds about 25% protection.  And SR doesn't protect against Supernatural or Extraordinary abilites such as breath weapons, gaze attacks, trap saves, poison, psionics, etc.  which the cloak of resistance does help against.  There are few spells that offer no save but offer SR, but all supernatural abilites do not offer SR.  I've encountered FAR more supernatural attacks than spells without saves.  While I'll admit that the mantle of spell resistance is overpriced,
> *




I would probably concur that SR is overpriced . . .



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> I believe that it should cost about the same as a cloak of reistance +5, which I advocate to be 50,000 gp.
> *




. . . but you can't compare saves and SR.  They are two totally different methods of defense, and SR is far more potent.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> As for it being impossible to equal feats to items, why should it be?  Both are aspects of character power, they can both be estimated as a character gains in level (because we have a nice chart stipulating the amount of money a character of a given level should have).  Therefore, logically, one could equate thier values.
> *




That's not how logic works in this case, though.  The actual logic is that since the factors are so different, you can't equate them, because they all are balanced against each other on their own scale and are too variable.  You can't equate variable variables across variable sections of a variable system.  That is impossible!



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Anyways.  I thank you kindly for stopping the excessive use of all caps, which I interpret as shouting.  Now we can have a reasonable discussion.
> 
> Eldorian Antar
> *




For me, that's one way to put EMPHASIS on things.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Thats what I hoped, my group wont even cross level 10 for another couple of months, dont think they need any +10 equivelant weapons just yet  *




I am sure I'll have something for everyone in there. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *How will undead deities function by the way?*




Can you be more specific?



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Concept seems strange to me, since deities normally hold the power to destroy undeads (or command them). *




There will be some undead only SDAs, naturally. As well as the Undeath portfolio.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Like I said, you do whatever you want.*




Thank you.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'll have none of it.*




Don't tease. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's useless arguing with a brick wall.*




Adamantine net actually.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have played these rules since they were released and I KNOW which ones are messed up and which ones are not.  I KNOW what can be equated and what can not through simple playtesting.  I KNOW when I hear someone trying to fix something that is not broken.*




You seem to know everything except how to give me one single fact that repudiates my theory.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You have provided no proof for ANY of your theories, yet you say you have.*




Its simply mind-boggling that you can make such a claim in light of every reply I have made over the past few days. I mean, honestly, do you even read my replies!? I really am starting to wonder!?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have shown ample proof as to what I have said, yet you dismiss everything with a grain of salt.*




I have literally replied to the minutiae of every single solitary shred of prose you have typed, quoting at each step of the way, point for point.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I grow weary of this.*




I'm here all week! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It has become obvious that you have lost sight of what was truly important, which was making a SIMPLE YET BALANCE system for determining CR/ECL/EL.*




I have done that, and then some.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now you have diverted on tangents spanning every factor of the game.  Argh . . .*




Exaggeration (as ever). Actually I have reddressed a few feats and items for balance.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, I'm outta here.  I'll still get the Immortal's Handbook for the deity information, but I imagine this stuff will be useless to me because I feel that the current system works just fine. *




So that will be about one page out of 272+ you won't be using, okay.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2003)

*Re: Alright, that's quite enough fo that.*

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *I've been watching this argument for a while, and while both of you have had many clever and legitimate points arguing your case, I'm forced to make a comment.*




Sure, fire away! I think we could use some impartial comments.  



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Both of you seem to think that you're each ignoring the others arguments -*




Do you mean we think that the other is ignoring our arguments, then I would have to say that Anubis is and I am not. 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *This is not the case from the best of my perception.  You're both examining each others arguments, spotting significant holes in them, and dismissing them because of reasoned counter-arguments.*




I have to admit (from my perspective) it seems to me that Anubis has been willfully ignorant of every point I have made on this matter. 

As regards me responding to Anubis points I can't see how I could bend over backwards anymore than I am already doing!? I quote and respond to every point he makes, yet I seem to be answering the same questions time and time again.



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Neither of you is off-handedly dismissing anything, and as flamy as this has gotten, I admire that. *




Anubis and I are good friends, I would also venture that neither of us has even begun to flame the other yet - at least I know I haven't.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2003)

Howdy Impeesa mate! 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Wow, epiphany there... I suppose it never really occurred to me why you were making such a big deal out of that, I thought you just wanted to offer an alternative for the GM to keep an immortal game running smoothly. *




I like to have a reason for everything. 



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *How? If we assume, say, Luck of Heroes (+1 to all saves) costs 5000 (on the higher end for feats), an item granting it 5 times should cost roughly... wow, 25000 gp.  *




Incorrect. 

Actually Luck of Heroes that stacked five times would be a feat chain/string (whatever you want to call it).

As such the cost multiplies at each increment as with pretty much every numerical based magic item.

My problem is with the Resistance cost multiplier. If it is bonus squared x1000 for a bonus to all three saving throws what does it cost for a bonus to a single saving throw?

Logically about Bonus squared x 400 sounds about right. Which means that placing the Great Fortitude feat into a magic item would cost 1600 GP. Which is far off where our perceived average feat cost (4000 GP) is. Ideally we would want the Great Fortitude feat to be at least +3 (3600 GP) to bring it into line. Of course this is only a minor change, but poignant when the potential for deities to scale such abilities wildly is available: think Divine Fortitude.

Vice versa, if we assume that the Great Fortitude feat is spot on at +2, then a single feat change should cost bonus squared x 1000 (4000 GP item). The idea then would be to reset the modifier for the resistance bonus. Probably bonus squared x 3000 (Giving us a 75,000 GP +5 Cloak of Resistance)

So ideally, either:

Great Fortitude Feat = +2 Bonus
Cloak of Resistance = Bonus squared x 3000 

OR

Great Fortitude Feat = +3 Bonus
Cloak of Resistance = Bonus squared x 1000



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *If you double the cost of subsequent 'effects', it still wouldn't top 45000. Divide by bonus squared to find standard multiplier.... you get 1800. Round up to 2000, and it's now on the same scale as natural/deflection armor bonuses, or weapon enhancement bonuses. I can see that, but I really don't think it needs to go any higher. At the absolute most, a multiplier of x2500 might be acceptable, but that would be the same cost as the universally-useful Luck bonus. *




Actually something I have noticed is that Luck (and Insight while we are on the subject) are very badly handled.

Case in point. Luck is valued at bonus squared x 2500. But technically that is for attacks; damage; armour class; saves and checks. What happens if (like the Luck Blade) the luck bonus applies to only one of the above. Why should luck cost any more than resistance in those circumstances?

One caveat is that the luck (or insight) bonus when applied to AC is actually as good as a deflection bonus.



			
				Impeesa said:
			
		

> *Remember, you can equate feats, magic, skills, and abilities all day long.... but it doesn't make sense if your magic items don't equate with each other any more.  *




Absolutely.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *For more, I think Impeesa put it betterthan I ever could have by comparing the cost to the other various bonus types.  Like he said, although I still think it's impossible, for the very reason he gave why you shouldn't in the first place, equating the other stuff is useless if you lose the equity within that grouping. *




Actually I just replied to that particular argument. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *BTW, UK, you may wanna interject on the force weapon enhancement discussion. I may disagree with your CR and magic CURRENT magic item stuff, but for new stuff, you seem to have a good enough grasp of things.*




Sure no problem mate. I already saw you asking me to respond in the thread itself, but I have been kept busy in here, limiting my posting elsewhere. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *By the way, with the +1250 weapon that makes an entire race die if one is touched,*




Actually a lot of the market bonuses I previously discussed should be halved. The above should only be +625. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *does that mean if you kill one deity that they all die? Or is it if you kill a creature that is the same race as a deity, that deity dies?*




The second one. 

You actually get a saving throw of course, but you won't make it, trust me.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 13, 2003)

Excuse me for being bewildering when I inquired about the undead deities. 
Will they be like the Atropal? (gods born living, yet slain and brought back to life) or will they be created undead? I have always seen gods a "energy" filled creatures that might have problems regarding undeath. I figured thats why even the God of the Undead (Orcus) wasn't undead himself. 

I read the Force weapon thread actually, I noticed Anubis remark there as well, figured it might be something you would be up for.... The call a +15 bonus "much"..... tsk tsk


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2003)

Hi Eldorian mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *How can you have a balance issue, while playtesting, with a low costing, passive effect magic item?  I don't advocate increasing the price HUGELY, like UK might.*




I may have went overboard initially. As I subsequently commented, the item should in no way ever be worth more than x3 its current price.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *As for the amulet being as expensive as the ring of deflection, although the item creation rules don't mention, did you ever wonder why Forge Ring gets a feat all by itself?*




To limit players ambitions I wouldn't wonder.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Perhaps because rings are meant to be more powerful than wonderous items.*




Irrelevant. The deflection bonus is standardised at Bonus squared x 2000 GP.

What we are debating here is the value of natural armour versus deflection. Obviously deflection is superior.

Therefore a Ring of Deflection should cost more than an Amulet of Natural Armour with the same bonus.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 13, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Excuse me for being bewildering when I inquired about the undead deities. *




No harm done! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Will they be like the Atropal? (gods born living, yet slain and brought back to life) or will they be created undead?*




Either/or. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I have always seen gods a "energy" filled creatures that might have problems regarding undeath.*




Divinity can attach itself to *anything* as well as anyone. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I figured thats why even the God of the Undead (Orcus) wasn't undead himself.*




You don't have to be undead to have the Undeath template. Just as not all Necromancers are undead. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I read the Force weapon thread actually, I noticed Anubis remark there as well, figured it might be something you would be up for.... The call a +15 bonus "much"..... tsk tsk *




I had another look in, its all a bit confusing though.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 13, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Logically about Bonus squared x 400 sounds about right. Which means that placing the Great Fortitude feat into a magic item would cost 1600 GP. Which is far off where our perceived average feat cost (4000 GP) is. Ideally we would want the Great Fortitude feat to be at least +3 (3600 GP) to bring it into line. Of course this is only a minor change, but poignant when the potential for deities to scale such abilities wildly is available: think Divine Fortitude.
> 
> Vice versa, if we assume that the Great Fortitude feat is spot on at +2, then a single feat change should cost bonus squared x 1000 (4000 GP item). The idea then would be to reset the modifier for the resistance bonus. Probably bonus squared x 3000 (Giving us a 75,000 GP +5 Cloak of Resistance)
> ...




Actually, I have house-ruled the standard save bonus feats (Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will) to give +4, and have added a new feat that gives +1 to all saves.  (The reason is the same as the reasoning behind +5 for Skill Focus with +2 to two skills for other feats.)

Where does that put everything?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Actually something I have noticed is that Luck (and Insight while we are on the subject) are very badly handled.
> 
> Case in point. Luck is valued at bonus squared x 2500. But technically that is for attacks; damage; armour class; saves and checks.
> *




No it's not.  The Luck Bonus costs are for a single modifier.  For Luck Bonus to attack +2, it costs 2^2*2500, and so on and so forth.  To add a Luck Bonus to multiple things, you must double the costs as per the DMG.  It's all right there in both the DMG and T&B.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 13, 2003)

Im especially interested in the Undead deities part, my current campaign is life vs. death oriented (which is why I had to make a Vampire & Lich Template). Also, any weapon qualities which are of definite "Undead" character (as opposed to merely evil)?

One thing I was wondering, now that you seem to be getting so deeply involved in both deities and weapon qualities (something I was thinking myself at times). Have you made any way in which weapon qualities can be "tied" to certain gods? 
(I.e. that the clerics of certain gods, for example, might have benefits for creating certain weapon qualities or even have unique qualities for their gods?).

Anyways, I dont know I should re-post the last questions in the Vampire thread here as well......


----------



## Anubis (Mar 13, 2003)

Clay_More said:
			
		

> *
> I figured thats why even the God of the Undead (Orcus) wasn't undead himself.
> *




Orcus is not the God of the Undead, he's the DEMON PRINCE of Undead.  Nerull and Wee Jas are the Gods of the Undead.  (Hades in Olympic Pantheon, Anubis/Nephthys in the Pharaonic Pantheon, Hel in the Asgardian Pantheon)


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 13, 2003)

Sorry, my mistake Anubis (how could I even forget your name's relation to Egyptian Mythology). I wasn't taking into consideration the many works done on earth mythologies for 2 Ed. 
Im just getting too packed up in my current campaign, I use Orcus as the "opposition" signifying undeath. 

Anubis, would you know the god of death in the Hinduistic Pantheon? I know that Shiva represents Destruction, but I am not exactly sure if she represents actual death. If my memory serves me right, I think it is Kali, but im not sure... Think its Kali... though.....


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Mar 14, 2003)

*Its my birthday!!!*

Just been itching to get that out.  




> _Originally posted by Clay_More_
> *Will they be like the Atropal?(gods born living, yet slain and brought back to life) or will they be created undead?*





And Clay_More, I though Atropals were stillborn gods, which would make them dead at birth.


----------



## Clay_More (Mar 14, 2003)

I dont know what I was thinking with that paragraph.....

They Werent Born Alive
They Werent Slain (The were already dead)
They Werent Brought Back to Life (Undeads are NEVER brought back to life... more likely to unlife)...

Im a confused, demented old man. I will go pour hot coffee in my lap...

EDIT: SORRY!... almost forgot, congrats!


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Mar 14, 2003)

Thanks!
And I doubt it deseves hot coffee in the lap, but perhaps mildly warm coffee.


----------



## poilbrun (Mar 14, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Divinity can attach itself to anything as well as anyone. *



Woohoo! I can't wait to have a God of chairs!


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 14, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> By comparing character that have it with those who don't.  Cloak of Resistance is a very important and necessary item.



Sure you can playtest the existance of an item such as the cloak of resistance, but how in the world do you playtest the prices, espceially since I advocate a simple doubling in price?  The in game effects boil down to a 5% difference, that would be astronomically hard to test.



> That's real-life economics.  In a game, you have to consider balance itslef.  If something is so important that damn near everybody has to have it, it needs to cost less to make it more likely that people who need it will get it.




That's game balance.  The more powerful an ability is, the more it costs to get it, obviously.  Thats why we don't give vorpal weapons to children...  So they don't rise up and kill the parents (ie, low levels killing your big bad monsters)





> To be honest, however, that is totally beside the point.  Just using your old argument about the rate of magical combat compared to physical, I can easily demonstrate my point.  You see, for physical combat, defense copsts half that of offense.  Weapons are on the 2000 scale and armor is on the 1000 scale.  Just the same, magical combat is the same way, except the saves increase slightly differently.  Saves increase based on spell level (gained every two levels for most) and ability scores (which go on the 1000 scale but you need twice as much in order to get equal effect), and therefore can be averaged out as if on the 2000 scale.  Again, saves, the defense, should be on the 1000 scale.



Magical offencive items?  Where?  Oh, you mean ability scores. Guess what, they aren't just for magical offence.  They do many other things, including magical defence (wisdom) skills(Int), and.. err.. what does Cha do again?  oh yah. not much unless you have a nifty class =P.  Plus, I'm reading my DMG here.. at it says

A +2 cloak of charsima costs 4k, which adds 1 to save DCs.
A +1 cloak of resistance costs 1k, which adds 1 to saves.

A +4 cloak of charisma costs 16k, which adds 2 to save DCs.  
A +2 cloak of resistance costs 4k, which adds 2 to saves. 

A +6 cloak of charisma costs 36k, which adds 3 to save DCs.
A +3 cloak of resistance costs 9k, which adds 3 to saves.

hmm.. I don't know if I've got the math right (ok, I do) it looks to me like the item that increases save DCs costs 4 times as much as the protection, not twice as you claimed.  _And_ there are 5 levels of protection, while the offence sports only 3.




> I would probably concur that SR is overpriced . . .



Not all hope is lost...


> . . . but you can't compare saves and SR.  They are two totally different methods of defense, and SR is far more potent.



Are we playing the same game?!?!  SR protects against spells.  Spells only.  Saves protect in _many_ more situations, including almost all the situations that SR would help.  The number of spells without saves but with SR could be counted on your fingers, or at least your fingers and toes.  The number of monsters with supernatural or psionic attacks is _vastly_ larger than the number of such spells.  In addition, saves help against mundane attacks, such as poison and falling into pits.  How is SR more potent?  Maybe extremly high levels of SR _seems_ more potent, but get a cleric with good stats and a cloak of resistance and see how much he fears spell casters, or gaze attacks, or psionics, or supernatural charm effects ect ect.  (I would have used monk as my example, but you'd point out they get SR.)





> That's not how logic works in this case, though.  The actual logic is that since the factors are so different, you can't equate them, because they all are balanced against each other on their own scale and are too variable.  You can't equate variable variables across variable sections of a variable system.  That is impossible!




How different are they?  They go up in measurable rates, they provide similiar benifits...  I mean, they look to me to be the same stuff, only the feats you get from experience (reward one) and the magic you get from the monies. (reward two).  Since the amount of money and exp for each fight is directly controled by the DM, and they both have suggested values, it looks to me like they are one and the same.  As equating variable variables (what variables aren't variable?) across variable sections (variable sections? we got 2, magic and feats) of a variable system (i'll give you this, you can pick different feats or magic) being impossilbe?  We only have two variables here.. selection of magic items and feats.  If the magic items and the feats are roughly equal in thier own sets, and thier sets respond to a relation that one could easily define (money per feat, for example),  how can we not compare the two?





> For me, that's one way to put EMPHASIS on things.




ok... what happened to bold or italics?

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 14, 2003)

BTW, I think perhaps we should make a new continuation thread, and perhaps split the CR hashing and the Immortals handbok discussion, so people that aren't interested in the IH (the fools) can read and comment on the way CR aught to be handled.

Good idea?  Basically, 11 pages is too long annoying to work with.


Eldorian Antar

P.S.  Gonna make the threads.

Edit.

Immortal Handbook
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44070

double edit, deleted the other thread at UK's request


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 14, 2003)

I'll get this out of the way first...

Hi Eldorian mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *BTW, I think perhaps we should make a new continuation thread, and perhaps split the CR hashing and the Immortals handbok discussion, so people that aren't interested in the IH (the fools) can read and comment on the way CR aught to be handled.
> 
> Good idea?  Basically, 11 pages is too long annoying to work with.*




Well I would have prefered you ask me first, splitting the thread into two might confuse people and unnecessarily hog more of the House Rules forum than I would wish. Also what if people make comments regarding both in the same post. I would prefer it if you asked the moderators to delete the redundant secondary new thread:

"CR and Item pricing, continuation from the IH thread." 

...but I suppose the intentions were honourable. Just don't do it again.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 14, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Sure you can playtest the existance of an item such as the cloak of resistance, but how in the world do you playtest the prices, espceially since I advocate a simple doubling in price?  The in game effects boil down to a 5% difference, that would be astronomically hard to test.
> *




Not really.  I've done it effortlessly.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> That's game balance.  The more powerful an ability is, the more it costs to get it, obviously.  Thats why we don't give vorpal weapons to children...  So they don't rise up and kill the parents (ie, low levels killing your big bad monsters)
> *




You seem to equate "necessary" and "powerful".  They are two very different things.  Necessary is "have it or you'll probably die" while powerful is "if i have it you're dead".



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Magical offencive items?  Where?  Oh, you mean ability scores. Guess what, they aren't just for magical offence.  They do many other things, including magical defence (wisdom) skills(Int), and.. err.. what does Cha do again?  oh yah. not much unless you have a nifty class =P.  Plus, I'm reading my DMG here.. at it says
> 
> A +2 cloak of charsima costs 4k, which adds 1 to save DCs.
> ...




I must thank you for proving my point here.  The ability scores do much more than simply raise the spell DCs, and thus cost more.  If you created an item that simply raised spell DCs, which would be a bad thing because then the items totally cancel each other out, but if you were to make such an item, it would cost the same as the Cloak of Resistance as opposed to four times the Cloak of Resistance.

Remember, balance is tilted toward defense, not offense.  It should be harder to increase offense and much easier to increase defense.  That adds to the longevity of the game.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Not all hope is lost...
> 
> Are we playing the same game?!?!  SR protects against spells.  Spells only.  Saves protect in many more situations, including almost all the situations that SR would help.  The number of spells without saves but with SR could be counted on your fingers, or at least your fingers and toes.  The number of monsters with supernatural or psionic attacks is vastly larger than the number of such spells.  In addition, saves help against mundane attacks, such as poison and falling into pits.  How is SR more potent?  Maybe extremly high levels of SR seems more potent, but get a cleric with good stats and a cloak of resistance and see how much he fears spell casters, or gaze attacks, or psionics, or supernatural charm effects ect ect.  (I would have used monk as my example, but you'd point out they get SR.)
> *




Um, I guess not.  SR negates all spells and spell-like abilities.  Saves usually reduce the effect by half, although there are exceptions for the especially powerful things.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> How different are they?  They go up in measurable rates, they provide similiar benifits...  I mean, they look to me to be the same stuff, only the feats you get from experience (reward one) and the magic you get from the monies. (reward two).  Since the amount of money and exp for each fight is directly controled by the DM, and they both have suggested values, it looks to me like they are one and the same.  As equating variable variables (what variables aren't variable?) across variable sections (variable sections? we got 2, magic and feats) of a variable system (i'll give you this, you can pick different feats or magic) being impossilbe?  We only have two variables here.. selection of magic items and feats.  If the magic items and the feats are roughly equal in thier own sets, and thier sets respond to a relation that one could easily define (money per feat, for example),  how can we not compare the two?
> *




I don't see how you COULD compare the two.  You once again left out half the facts.  Yes, they go up in measurable rates . . . BUT those rates are different across the board.  The fact that you get one from experience and the other from money only proves my point.  As for the variables, there are far more than two involved.  There are classes, skills, feats, and magical items.  Those are just the main ones.  The fact that they are all so different makes equating any of them outside their own groupings impossible.  Yes, they are roughly equal within their own groupings . . . BUT their groupings do not actually relate as you claim, as they are all too different!



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> ok... what happened to bold or italics?
> 
> Eldorian Antar
> *




The code on these boards is a pain in the rear, that's what.  I would much rather have HTML allowed.


----------



## -Eä- (Mar 14, 2003)

Greetings all! 


Well... I thought it would be wise to give my stance on the saves issue.


1. There are far more ways to increase the DC of a spell than to increase the saves. Granted: You could get Divine Grace and multiclass like hell, but compared to spell power, ability bonuses (not only from items, but also temporary bonuses and the inherent bonuses), the means through which you may get bonuses to your saving throws are limited. 

Take for instance the Red Wizard: the spell DC will surely outrank the saving throw bonuses, given a few levels. Even the more generic Archmage with its "mere" +6 spell power easily throws away most resistance.

I know taking prestige classes into the equation may be confusing by increasing the number of variables, but as a wizard, I would certainly look for ways to increase the DC to my saving throws. Maybe not as drastically as with the Red Wizard, but certainly enough to even make the best save a character has peanuts without the help of either class abilities or magic items.


2. I must say I have had the same experience as Anubis when it comes to game experience: characters often rely on that cloak to survive. Not that this is an argument for having a low cost, but increasing the cost by a factor of three will certainly raise the mortality rate in a lot of campaigns. In one of the two capaings in which I am playing, the mortality rate is quite high as it is, and it would increase by a factor of 2.3 by increasing the cost of the cloak of resistance by a factor of 3. If this is a measure of anything, perhaps the efficiency of save or die or equivalent spells.


3. Spell Resistance is FAR superior to saving throw when it comes to dealing with spells. Take the examples of Enervation, Harm, the two most lethal examples I can come up with: Saves won't mean anything, SR would stop it. 
Additionally, SR blocks many spells that don't have save, while vice a versa this is not true. Enervation is on that basis one of the most powerful spells in the PHB in my opinion.
Eldorian's example of a cleric withstanding most things with only saves and spells is flawed, and this is mainly because the cleric has access to the spell "Spell Resistance" (which is INSANELY powerful for its level combined with Prayer Beads: Karma.)


4. I think it's the feats that are not balanced, not the item. I think Endurance, Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will need to be fixed by increasing the bonus they grant. Very few characters will take these feats in my experience and I agree that one reason for not to take them is the cost of the cloak of resistance, but I firmly believe that fixing the feats is the way to go in this issue.



Well... I would (and will) go for changing the feats in this particular case and I guess we will have one group that will use this procedure and another one that changes the item. Perhaps it's "playing style"-issue?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 14, 2003)

-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Greetings all!*




Hi Eä mate! 

...by the way Eldorian, see the trouble a non moderated thread closure instigates! People are still replying in here! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Well... I thought it would be wise to give my stance on the saves issue.*




Sure, fire away mate! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *1. There are far more ways to increase the DC of a spell than to increase the saves. Granted: You could get Divine Grace and multiclass like hell, but compared to spell power, ability bonuses (not only from items, but also temporary bonuses and the inherent bonuses), the means through which you may get bonuses to your saving throws are limited.*




I would have said it was even if not actually favouring the saving throws!? 

Ability bonuses work both ways of course. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Take for instance the Red Wizard: the spell DC will surely outrank the saving throw bonuses, given a few levels. Even the more generic Archmage with its "mere" +6 spell power easily throws away most resistance.
> 
> I know taking prestige classes into the equation may be confusing by increasing the number of variables, but as a wizard, I would certainly look for ways to increase the DC to my saving throws. Maybe not as drastically as with the Red Wizard, but certainly enough to even make the best save a character has peanuts without the help of either class abilities or magic items.*




Indeed, prestige classes are not really grounds for an overall balance factor.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *2. I must say I have had the same experience as Anubis when it comes to game experience: characters often rely on that cloak to survive. Not that this is an argument for having a low cost, but increasing the cost by a factor of three will certainly raise the mortality rate in a lot of campaigns. In one of the two capaings in which I am playing, the mortality rate is quite high as it is, and it would increase by a factor of 2.3 by increasing the cost of the cloak of resistance by a factor of 3. If this is a measure of anything, perhaps the efficiency of save or die or equivalent spells.*




So you would advocate changing the feats, rather than the items, okay.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *3. Spell Resistance is FAR superior to saving throw when it comes to dealing with spells. Take the examples of Enervation, Harm, the two most lethal examples I can come up with: Saves won't mean anything, SR would stop it.*




Well harm is broken and enervation typically won't kill you.

Surely spell resistance is simply a secondary saving throw of sorts. No better or worse than each other.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Additionally, SR blocks many spells that don't have save, while vice a versa this is not true. Enervation is on that basis one of the most powerful spells in the PHB in my opinion.*




Yes, I would say its pretty powerful.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *4. I think it's the feats that are not balanced, not the item. I think Endurance, Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will need to be fixed by increasing the bonus they grant. Very few characters will take these feats in my experience and I agree that one reason for not to take them is the cost of the cloak of resistance, but I firmly believe that fixing the feats is the way to go in this issue.*




Well as I have mentioned its either one or the other.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Well... I would (and will) go for changing the feats in this particular case and I guess we will have one group that will use this procedure and another one that changes the item. Perhaps it's "playing style"-issue? *




Possibly. Either/or probably works. I dunno, I'll have a think about which to finally adopt.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 15, 2003)

I advocate bumping the feats up to +4 and keeping the Cloak of Resistance the same.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 15, 2003)

ALERT!

UK, WE HAVE SEVERELY UNDERESTIMATED THE POWER OF NPC CLASSES!

I just played out a combat in my campaign with six Level 20 Human Adepts with ability scores 10/10/10/10/18/10 again a Vashar Wizard12 (11/15/13/20/15/11), a Vashar/Vampire Fighter7 (18/22/--/17/16/16), a Half-Dragon (Black)/Vashar Rogue9 (22/21/16/18/10/14), and a Half-Human/Half-Vashar Bard 12 (14/16/12/16/9/20) . . . The adepts even had only 5000 gp woth of wealth here, and the PCs are some of the smartest gamers around and had full wealth plus some, and according to the numbers we've come up with, this should have been a very easy battle for them.  That is not the case . . . THEY WERE PULVERIZED TOTALLY!

I am officially changing my stance on the NPC classes to just below the WotC rating but far above the ratings given here.  That is all.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Mar 15, 2003)

*Sounds like an outlier to me...*

...It doesn't strike me as a statistically standard thing.  I think that's a 1 in a 1000 event.  Tell us more about how the fight went, Anubis - Either way, it sounds pretty darn interesting!


----------



## Eldorian (Mar 15, 2003)

Can we please switch to the new thread?  This one is too long, and it's hard to keep track of which page you're on past 9.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44070


Eldorian Antar

PS i'll reply over there.


----------



## Anubis (Mar 15, 2003)

*Re: Sounds like an outlier to me...*



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *...It doesn't strike me as a statistically standard thing.  I think that's a 1 in a 1000 event.  Tell us more about how the fight went, Anubis - Either way, it sounds pretty darn interesting! *




Okay, there were six Level 20 Human Adepts.  It was a standard combat, and I posted a lot of the variable stats above.  Like I said, this is an expert group playing here.  Vampire, Wizard, Half-Dragon Rogue, and Bard.

Anyway, in the first round, the Vampire got a couple good hits, nothing big.  The Wizard cast I think Haste and a spell that required a Will Save at DC 24 or so, and the Adept made the save.  Two of the Adepts cast Stoneskin, and two others cast Lightning Bolt.  The Vampire didn't take much damage, but the Wizard got hit twice and was taken down to under 10, and the Rogue avoided with Evasion.  This is when the battle turned around.

One of the Adepts cast Polymorph Other on the Rogue, he missed his save, and was turned into a Toad.  The Bard tried to use Dispel Magic, but against DC 31, that was pretty futile.  Next round, the Vampire hacked and slashed some more, and the Wizard cast a couple of instant death spells that didn't work.  One required a Will save and the other the Adept rolled a 20.  The Adepts go again, and use Polymorph Other on the Bard this time, turning her into a Toad as well.

Anyway, the Vampire was still doing okay, but the Wizard was about dead.  It took three Adepts with Polymorph Other, but they finally turned the Wizard into a Toad as well, then fried her with Lightning Bolt.  All of them used Polymorph Self to change into Fire Giants, and the Vampire was soon down to like 11.  Anyway, after that, all the Adepts had Stoneskin on as well.

Anyway, the Vampire used Heal to stop the Wizard from dying, picked her up, and carried her out.  For the first time ever, I got use out of the Hide skill as the Vampire hid next to the building.  The other two Toads got out, but the Adepts were looking for the Vampire anyway.  Next round, the Vampire took Dire Wolf form and got the heck outta there.

Like I said, PULVERIZED.  The PCs had NO CHANCE.

They DID get revenge, a bit later, however, by using Control Weather to level the city with an F5 Tornado, but that's another story . . .


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 7, 2003)

U_K, here's a question on an oft-ignored aspect of divinity for your upcoming book:

How will the IH deal with divine resurrection? While, by the D&Dg rules, its (comparitively) not that hard to kill a god (please people, don't respond to this, there are other threads about that), bringing one back is supremely easy. Even given that they're Outsiders, all that means is that a high-level (not even an Epic level) character can just drop a _Wish_ or _Miracle_ to bring the god back, and there's no reason for the resurrected god to lose power. Heck, gods themselves should be bringing back their dead divine buddies all the time.

Obviously, it shouldn't/isn't supposed to work that way. More flavorful things we've seen talk about dead gods only coming back very very rarely, and then it usually takes a powerful artifact and/or a massive gathering of that god's old worshippers, etc. Will the IH make divine resurrection something truly daunting to do?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hey Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *U_K, here's a question on an oft-ignored aspect of divinity for your upcoming book:*




Sure, fire away. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *How will the IH deal with divine resurrection? While, by the D&Dg rules, its (comparitively) not that hard to kill a god (please people, don't respond to this, there are other threads about that), bringing one back is supremely easy. Even given that they're Outsiders, all that means is that a high-level (not even an Epic level) character can just drop a Wish or Miracle to bring the god back, and there's no reason for the resurrected god to lose power. Heck, gods themselves should be bringing back their dead divine buddies all the time.
> 
> Obviously, it shouldn't/isn't supposed to work that way. More flavorful things we've seen talk about dead gods only coming back very very rarely, and then it usually takes a powerful artifact and/or a massive gathering of that god's old worshippers, etc. Will the IH make divine resurrection something truly daunting to do? *




Divine Resurrection is possible in the IH, but its incredibly difficult.

Without giving too much away, any destroyed deity needs to be recreated (rather than resurrected). This is involves an immense amount of worship point expenditure, far more than a deity of the same measure of power would possess.

So for example you would probably either need a Greater God to recreate a Lesser God. 

Of course there are certain rituals and ceremonies you can go through to boost worship points so it might just be possible for a group of mortals to recreate a deity if they had an appropriate sacrifice on the holiest of days in the holiest of places etc.

Even through all that gods felled by another with the death portfolio (who trumped the first god in power) could not be returned unless by the hand of an even more powerful god with the Healing portfolio.

I hope that answers your question a little.


----------



## Gez (Apr 7, 2003)

In other words, a _miracle_ may resurrect the dead god, but won't restore him to his divine status... Interesting.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hi Gez mate! 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> *In other words, a miracle may resurrect the dead god, but won't restore him to his divine status... Interesting. *




No, you can't resurrect a Demigod or above, you must recreate them. But you could resurrect a Quasi-deity or below.

Technically you could always recreate them without Divine Power though, or less power.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 7, 2003)

I'm just glad your book is going to deal with this idea. I'm awaiting it even more eagerly now!


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 7, 2003)

Hey, I was wondering, are you gonna include some form of Abomination Template, to create the misbegotten kind of spawns found in the ELH? I always liked the Abominations, especially the Atropal. 

Is this thread gonna be remade soon, its approaching critical mass  (Watch out Captain, shes gonna blow)
It might be a little unsuitable simply posting in your CR/EL thread, since thats not the purpose of that thread (and, I am really not that keen on CR systems, so I have very few comments on the matter). By Keen, I mean that I am interested, but not skilled to make deep comments. Seems as if though there are some people already responding there that are far more clever than me on the matter 

I was actually wondering, will it be anyone we might know that is going to do the art, or will it be a text-mostly kind of book? I have kinda noticed (I have a bad habit of using peoples profile to see what they respond to) that you seem to get into the threads discussing D&D art. Even though, being a good writer is very important, good arts puts the text to life.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *I'm just glad your book is going to deal with this idea. I'm awaiting it even more eagerly now! *




Appreciate the love. 

...I couldn't rightfully have a book about gods and not include the matter in question now could I!?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Heya mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hey, I was wondering, are you gonna include some form of Abomination Template, to create the misbegotten kind of spawns found in the ELH? I always liked the Abominations, especially the Atropal.*




I have 5 new Abominations in the IH, I'll show how they are made although essentially they already did that in the ELH, didn't they!?

Of course Abominations are only the misbegotten offspring of the immortals...wait until you get to see the progeny of the sidereals (cosmic gods).



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Is this thread gonna be remade soon, its approaching critical mass  (Watch out Captain, shes gonna blow)*








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *It might be a little unsuitable simply posting in your CR/EL thread, since thats not the purpose of that thread (and, I am really not that keen on CR systems, so I have very few comments on the matter). By Keen, I mean that I am interested, but not skilled to make deep comments. Seems as if though there are some people already responding there that are far more clever than me on the matter *




We already started a new thread on this subject, I only linked to this one because it has the FAQ.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I was actually wondering, will it be anyone we might know that is going to do the art, or will it be a text-mostly kind of book?*




I'm doing the art.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I have kinda noticed (I have a bad habit of using peoples profile to see what they respond to) that you seem to get into the threads discussing D&D art. Even though, being a good writer is very important, good arts puts the text to life. *




I am probably as capable an artist as I am a writer, whether thats compliment to my art or an insult to my writing I'll leave up to people when they get the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 7, 2003)

Oh, you paint yourself. Did you do your own paintings for the monster contributions for the Scarred Lands monster book? I havent really seen examples of your art (that Im aware of), so ill refrain from making any comments on your "as good writer as artist" line 

The Abominations in ELH werent really templates. They were more like creation guidelines. I think that it could have been made a template, if it had a good number of variables.

I dont know why, but I have a strange fondness for templates. It offers varieties you dont find in ready-made monsters... sometimes I even wake up at night.. just thinking about templates... ahhh


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Oh, you paint yourself. *




Yes, although the art in the IH will be b&w, although I am capable of colour.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Did you do your own paintings for the monster contributions for the Scarred Lands monster book?*




No. Maybe I probably could have if I had wanted, but that takes away time working on the IH. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I havent really seen examples of your art (that Im aware of), so ill refrain from making any comments on your "as good writer as artist" line  *




I don't think anyone has seen anything recent. I know S'mon has seen a lot of my past efforts and poilbrun saw a sketch I was working on for a prestige class a few months back, but other than that I have been doing more design that illustration over the past few years.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *The Abominations in ELH werent really templates. They were more like creation guidelines. I think that it could have been made a template, if it had a good number of variables.*




Well there are 20 divinity templates in chapter 2; 46 portfolio templates in chapter 3 and 7 monster templates in chapter 7. Is 73 enough for you?

...I have one more planned for the web enhancement. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I dont know why, but I have a strange fondness for templates. It offers varieties you dont find in ready-made monsters... sometimes I even wake up at night.. just thinking about templates... ahhh *




If you're not careful you will turn into a template.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 7, 2003)

Its okay, I think thats enough Templates to sooth my achy-breaky heart. 
You should post a picture or two here, you should have some done I presume. Give the crowd another thing to rant to you about


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Its okay, I think thats enough Templates to sooth my achy-breaky heart.*




Glad to hear it! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *You should post a picture or two here, you should have some done I presume. Give the crowd another thing to rant to you about  *




I will post some on the boards when I get back from Gencon UK.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 7, 2003)

Well, youre always talking about other peoples pictures, might be suitable that you stop hiding yours 
Who else of the regular crew are gonna be there at gencon? Anyone of the ppl who respond here? Grrrr.... I wanna go


----------



## Anabstercorian (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Sounds like an outlier to me...*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Okay, there were six Level 20 Human Adepts.  It was a standard combat, and I posted a lot of the variable stats above.  Like I said, this is an expert group playing here.  Vampire, Wizard, Half-Dragon Rogue, and Bard.
> 
> ...




See, your problem is you were using insta-kill spells on enemies that probably had boosted saves, and probably low hit points as well.  Additionally, they used broken spells (I used to use Polymorph Self regularly, but it made me feel dirty.)  To be honest...  I believe that your claim of NO CHANCE is garbage.  That's why god invented the fireball spell.  Not to mention that globe of invulnerability would nullify half their spell selection...  I dunno.  I still don't see it.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 20, 2003)

Hi U_K! Hope you had fun at GenCon, er, UK...wow, that's an interesting little coincidence right there!

Anyway, just another oddball question about the IH: will there be rules for having mortals who exist on their own (that is, not created directly by a deity) become an avatar of a god if that god wishes them too? Or will it just be the old "deity manifests an avatar directly" like from D&Dg?

Thanks!


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

Hi Alzrius mate!  (U_K here)



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Hi U_K! Hope you had fun at GenCon, er, UK...wow, that's an interesting little coincidence right there!*






Its been both good and bad. The slots are booked at awkward times, meaning we can't take an evening slot and get home.

Also some of the celebrities seem wasted:

I mean I attended a seminar with Jonathan Tweet yesterday about Ars Magica. They have the creator of 3rd Ed. at the show and there are no seminars about d20, 3.5 Ed. or similar.

But I did have a good chat with Todd Lockwood about possibly doing the cover for a certain book. 

S'mon (who incidently teaches copyright law) startled one of the AEG guys when we were at their stand by saying "we were just wondering whether to sue you or not for using the 'worship points system' name" (a term they used on the back of their 'GOOD' supplement). But it all simply turned into an amicable discussion.

I also got chatting with someone from Dragon magazine about possibly submitting the CR/EL system. I'll chat more with them today.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Anyway, just another oddball question about the IH: will there be rules for having mortals who exist on their own (that is, not created directly by a deity) become an avatar of a god if that god wishes them too? Or will it just be the old "deity manifests an avatar directly" like from D&Dg? *




It seems more like a case of terminology rather than mechanics.

I don't see why not (my own character Thrin has a quasi-deity called Vantor for all intents and purposes effectively acting as his Avatar).

So a mortal could indeed *act* as a deities Avatar. Whether or not the deity wanted to bestow any power to go with that responsibility is up to the deity.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 20, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *It seems more like a case of terminology rather than mechanics.
> 
> I don't see why not (my own character Thrin has a quasi-deity called Vantor for all intents and purposes effectively acting as his Avatar).
> 
> So a mortal could indeed act as a deities Avatar. Whether or not the deity wanted to bestow any power to go with that responsibility is up to the deity. *




Having thought about your answer some, you're right in that it probably is more of a case of terminology. The example you provided could just as easily have been a high-level proxy instead of an avatar.

Given that distinction, and how confusing it could otherwise become, with trying to show the differences between a mere cleric, a mortal proxy, and a mortal-imbued-avatar, its probably something best left alone.

Thanks anyway!


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 21, 2003)

Welcome back UK. Hope you enjoyed the Gencon thingy. I just enjoyed a week of eating pasta & ketchup (the whole lacking bundles of money thing I talked about earlier)

I sent ya a mail, hoping to see the Hellsing stuff


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson (Apr 21, 2003)

Krustbert(which I assume Krust is short for), if this book of yours ever comes out, who should we all (w'all?) look for it to be authored by? (or However you would phrase that.  Blah!)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 21, 2003)

Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Having thought about your answer some, you're right in that it probably is more of a case of terminology. The example you provided could just as easily have been a high-level proxy instead of an avatar.
> 
> Given that distinction, and how confusing it could otherwise become, with trying to show the differences between a mere cleric, a mortal proxy, and a mortal-imbued-avatar, its probably something best left alone.
> 
> Thanks anyway!*




Anytime mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 21, 2003)

Howdy Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Welcome back UK. *




Good to be back mate. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hope you enjoyed the Gencon thingy.*




It was both good and bad.

The ENWorld game was fantastic (and a great bunch of people too).

Unfortunately the organisers made a lot of stupid mistakes regarding slots, timing, seminars and other things.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I just enjoyed a week of eating pasta & ketchup (the whole lacking bundles of money thing I talked about earlier)*








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I sent ya a mail, hoping to see the Hellsing stuff  *




I can guarantee I didn't get it.

I am having problems with my hotmail account, I really need to delete a lot of emails.

Send it to me again and put Hellsing in the title.

Incidently I just noticed that instead of having all 13 episodes I actually have episode 8 twice and am missing episode 12 (the penultiate episode).

So I'll have to see about getting that fixed. 

The reason I didn't notice before was that I never owned the final episodes prior to a week or so ago (and they were copied by a different friend on different discs to the ones I watched)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 21, 2003)

Hello Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Krustbert(which I assume Krust is short for), if this book of yours ever comes out, who should we all (w'all?) look for it to be authored by? (or However you would phrase that.  Blah!) *




Well I hear some berk called Craig Cochrane is the author.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 22, 2003)

Doh, now I cant find your mail adress. grrrrr...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

Hiya mate! 

I cleared out 400k so there shouldn't be any problems now.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Doh, now I cant find your mail adress. grrrrr... *




agooddesigner@hotmail.com


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 28, 2003)

Okay... Finally it should be the right one. I gave the one for my parents, since I am moving in a week, dont want things to get mixed up. 
I have been having an interesting time this last month, think I broke my own record in staying at various places. I think I must have stayed in 10-11 different places during this time (three different hostels, at some various friends, at my parents, at my hotel etc.) Damm, I miss a place of my own. 

Seems the entire discussion regarding IH these days is about the CR system, which I like but feel unqualified to comment on


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 28, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Okay... Finally it should be the right one. I gave the one for my parents, since I am moving in a week, dont want things to get mixed up. *




Okay, got your email.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I have been having an interesting time this last month, think I broke my own record in staying at various places. I think I must have stayed in 10-11 different places during this time (three different hostels, at some various friends, at my parents, at my hotel etc.) Damm, I miss a place of my own.*




You have done more travelling than a gypsy. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Seems the entire discussion regarding IH these days is about the CR system, which I like but feel unqualified to comment on  *




Well, details on the IH are few and far between so there is not that much to discuss without me revealing material.

I am sure when the pdfs are released people will have something to get their teeth into and chew on.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 28, 2003)

Well, I have been around these last couple of weeks. 

Will you be posting some of the PDF's here or will you be keeping it reserved for a small playtesting crowd?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 28, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, I have been around these last couple of weeks.*




While I have been in London. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Will you be posting some of the PDF's here or will you be keeping it reserved for a small playtesting crowd? *




I don't understand, why would I post pdfs I am planning to sell?


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 29, 2003)

Well, I meant that there might be some previews available at some time or another that one might bite into. Off course, its made for sale, that part is clear


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 29, 2003)

Ups


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 29, 2003)

Ups


----------



## Buddha the DM (Apr 29, 2003)

*Clay_More:* You having problems or something? One response would've been sufficient.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 29, 2003)

Hey Buddha
It was merely my at times annoying connection that got the better of me. Dammit, and off course you cant delete  your posts....
Sorry UK, didn't mean to triple post it


----------



## DarkElven (Apr 29, 2003)

Hey there U_K. Once again, long time no see!

I have but one question.

Is it EVER COMING OUT!? I was hoping for sometime like yesterday


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 29, 2003)

Hiya mate (and Hello Buddha mate) 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, I meant that there might be some previews available at some time or another that one might bite into.  *




Absolutely. By the way AV said its July for the SRD update: 

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49231



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Sorry UK, didn't mean to triple post it.*




The punishment is a smack on the wrist.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Apr 30, 2003)

sorry about that... i know return you to your regularly scheduled thread, and to my lurking.


----------



## Clay_More (May 1, 2003)

So, hows the work progress been so far? Is it soon time for any updates & sneak previews? How many question marks is the maximum allowed in a thread?


----------



## DarkElven (May 1, 2003)

I know you're here UK, I can hear you breathe (not to mention I saw your name perusing the forums). There is no escape from my all-seeing eyes (aside from blindness)

I would like to make an observation.

When I was in Florida last week I saw a place called the Upper Crust. Can you believe they dared to spell your name wrong?

I also used the term "Upper Krust" this morning before I realized it.

 These are obviously signs.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson (May 1, 2003)

So is July a pretty sure thing and then how long till you get your stuff out there?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 1, 2003)

Hey Buddha mate! 



			
				Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> *sorry about that... i know return you to your regularly scheduled thread, and to my lurking. *


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 1, 2003)

Heya mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *So, hows the work progress been so far? *




Okay.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Is it soon time for any updates & sneak previews?*




No, not just yet. 

Give me two or three weeks to sort something. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *How many question marks is the maximum allowed in a thread? *




Many as you want, I just reserve the right not to answer any questions of course.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 1, 2003)

Hi Dark Elven mate! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I know you're here UK, I can hear you breathe (not to mention I saw your name perusing the forums). There is no escape from my all-seeing eyes (aside from blindness)*




I am multidimensional. I can be in two or more places at the same time. 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I would like to make an observation.
> 
> When I was in Florida last week I saw a place called the Upper Crust. Can you believe they dared to spell your name wrong?*




Blasphemy. Theres no other word for it.



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I also used the term "Upper Krust" this morning before I realized it.*




Just as long as you didn't use it in vain. 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *These are obviously signs. *




It won't be long now before the moon turns blood red and it starts raining toads.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 1, 2003)

Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *So is July a pretty sure thing.*




Fingers crossed. 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *and then how long till you get your stuff out there? *




Should be with 24 hours at that point.

Do people think I would be better releasing all the pdfs at once or stagger them perhaps one a week? (I am leaning towards the latter idea)


----------



## DarkElven (May 1, 2003)

I (not so humbly  ) agree with the staggering idea. Perhaps it is just my personal taste but I think things would be better served by letting people digest the material instead of throwing them into the depths of the ocean without life preservers.


----------



## poilbrun (May 2, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Should be with 24 hours at that point.
> 
> Do people think I would be better releasing all the pdfs at once or stagger them perhaps one a week? (I am leaning towards the latter idea) *



It takes approximately 2-3 days to RPG Now to check a product they put it on sale, so, for us customers, it will be a bit longer than that.

I would go for one a week too...

Cheers


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 2, 2003)

Hi DarkElven mate! 



			
				DarkElven said:
			
		

> *I (not so humbly  ) agree with the staggering idea. Perhaps it is just my personal taste but I think things would be better served by letting people digest the material instead of throwing them into the depths of the ocean without life preservers.  *




Point noted - thanks for the feedback dude.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 2, 2003)

Hey poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *It takes approximately 2-3 days to RPG Now to check a product they put it on sale, so, for us customers, it will be a bit longer than that.*




Shows what I know. 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *I would go for one a week too...
> 
> Cheers *




Okay, thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Anubis (May 2, 2003)

I wanna know when the BOOK is gonna be out.  Forget the PDFs.  I want the solid book in front of me.


----------



## Bjorn Doneerson (May 3, 2003)

Yeah, PDF to book, how long?  And if it takes too long, I put my vote on all the PDF's @ once.  Dang it, I want it fast!!!


----------



## Clay_More (May 3, 2003)

I think my own expectations are the largest on the issue of Weapon Abilities and Undead Deity Templates. But thats just me off course. Seems that Mr. Krust might offer a little preview of the book to satisfy the masses, wouldn't want any accidents here (hint, hint).


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I wanna know when the BOOK is gonna be out.  Forget the PDFs.  I want the solid book in front of me. *




I appreciate the love dude but I can't say when that will happen with any degree of certainty.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

Hi Bjorn mate! 



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *Yeah, PDF to book, how long?*




I honestly can't say at this point.



			
				Bjorn Doneerson said:
			
		

> *And if it takes too long, I put my vote on all the PDF's @ once.  Dang it, I want it fast!!! *




Appreciate the feedback, but I think the one week staggers is the more likely option at this point.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I think my own expectations are the largest on the issue of Weapon Abilities and Undead Deity Templates. But thats just me off course. Seems that Mr. Krust might offer a little preview of the book to satisfy the masses, wouldn't want any accidents here (hint, hint). *




In due time I'm sure he will.


----------

