Immortals Handbook - Godsend

[Kerrick]

I'm not sure this is the proper thread for it, but... UK, do you mind if I borrow the AMC and Metamagic Freedom feats for my project? Personally, I don't see why we just don't allow spellcasters to freely stack metamagic anyway. I don't recall the discussion on why that feat was necessary.

Oh, on a side note, I found something interesting: The Basics section on Stacking says that real-world measures like distance use normal multiplication (DDQ) rules - tripling a 20-foot radius, for example, results in 80 feet, not 60. Anything that's an abstract measure (hit points, crit multipliers, etc.) follows the DDT formula.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I'm not sure this is the proper thread for it,

No worries mate!

but... UK, do you mind if I borrow the AMC and Metamagic Freedom feats for my project? Personally, I don't see why we just don't allow spellcasters to freely stack metamagic anyway. I don't recall the discussion on why that feat was necessary.

Use away. Although remember to credit me.

Oh, on a side note, I found something interesting: The Basics section on Stacking says that real-world measures like distance use normal multiplication (DDQ) rules - tripling a 20-foot radius, for example, results in 80 feet, not 60. Anything that's an abstract measure (hit points, crit multipliers, etc.) follows the DDT formula.

Weird. Just like british billions and trillions.

 

[Kerrick]

Cool, thanks. I've been wondering - why bother having a feat to allow stacking of metamagic? Why not just make it a standard rule like it was in 3E? The high-level spell system I'm doing is predicated on the premise that metamagic stacks, so it kind of makes sense for me. I don't know how you're doing yours, though.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kerrick mate, sorry for the delay, been working these past three nights.

Cool, thanks. I've been wondering - why bother having a feat to allow stacking of metamagic? Why not just make it a standard rule like it was in 3E? The high-level spell system I'm doing is predicated on the premise that metamagic stacks, so it kind of makes sense for me. I don't know how you're doing yours, though.

The reason for the feat was because of a feat in the ELH which I think stacked two empowers and a maximise (I forget the name of it offhand). So the (rather silly) approach the official rules were taking was to have an infinite number of new feats that were basically just old feats stacked together. Of course I nixed that immediately.

The philosophy around making the stacking of metamagic a feat, was to simply bring it out of the lower levels of the game, where it would probably do more harm than good. Also I think feats (from third parties) are a lot easier for people to swallow than 'new rules'.

In hindsight of course, the entirety of 3E/3.5E was an overload of rules and options.

 

[paradox42]

New month, new book?

I was glad to read about work progressing- congratulations- on something during this time off from work (in the 4E thread, and the book is apparently a "letter A" bestiary containing Abominations, Angels, and Anomalies), but it did leave me wondering: has any progress been made on this one, the last 3.5E book? Those of us who didn't go to 4E are curious.

Even if the rules aren't "complete," we'd rather have something than nothing, particularly since you're not actually going to ever make the rules complete given the leap to the new edition. Godsend shouldn't be much more than a format/type job at this point, should it?

EDIT: Oh, and the feat mentioned in the post above is called Intensify Spell. Sees some considerable use in my games, actually, though always in conjunction with other stuff.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy paradox mate!

I was glad to read about work progressing- congratulations- on something during this time off from work (in the 4E thread, and the book is apparently a "letter A" bestiary containing Abominations, Angels, and Anomalies), but it did leave me wondering: has any progress been made on this one, the last 3.5E book? Those of us who didn't go to 4E are curious.

A little. I plan on working on Gods & Monster this week, the Immortals Index next week and Godsend the following week.

Even if the rules aren't "complete," we'd rather have something than nothing, particularly since you're not actually going to ever make the rules complete given the leap to the new edition. Godsend shouldn't be much more than a format/type job at this point, should it?

There are still some incomplete parts to Godsend.

However, Godsend will definately be the next pdf I release...before any 4E stuff. I just want to give the 4E stuff a headstart so I can commission the art for it.

Its also a lot easier and far more enjoyable working on 4E, so it helps take away the pain of 3.5.

EDIT: Oh, and the feat mentioned in the post above is called Intensify Spell. Sees some considerable use in my games, actually, though always in conjunction with other stuff.

The name escaped me at the time. Thanks for jogging my memory.

 

[Geraturatu]

Hurray!! It's good to see you again! (and good to see progress in the book, but that's not as important as well being)

 

[Sulacu]

I wonder. Why is it easier and far more enjoyable to work on 4e? I personally find 3.5e a lot more interesting most of the time. I know, personal opinion and all.

 

[Alzrius]

I wonder. Why is it easier and far more enjoyable to work on 4e? I personally find 3.5e a lot more interesting most of the time. I know, personal opinion and all.

I don't think this is the place to discuss that, and I worry that the topic might give way to an edition war...but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

First, monsters and NPCs are no longer made using the same rules as characters. As a generalization, they have no skills, no feats, and no spell-like abilities, which unto itself takes a lot of the work out of designing them. They basically only have what special powers the designer wants them to have to function within their specified role (e.g. skirmisher, controller, etc.), nothing else is necessary.

The system is inherently capped, in that PCs can't gain more than 30 levels. This is easier to design for, because you have a clear beginning and end to power progression, making it easy to know just how far to spread abilities, bonuses, etc. Even monsters are like this, as you know how powerful the "most powerful" monsters should be (a few levels above the last level PCs can gain). This is much simpler than trying to do this in a system that has no endpoint regarding leveling, meaning that you effectively have to balance things and spread out bonuses and abilities over infinity. In a closed system, even if you up the total number of levels it's possible to gain (as U_K plans to) that still keeps a clear beginning and endpoint.

Finally, there's a lot of minor things that altogether make stuff simpler. As mentioned before, roles are a big thing now, both for monsters and PCs, as it provides a much clearer focus on what PCs and creatures are supposed to be able to do well. Spell selection isn't something that needs to be agonized over before each adventure anymore. There are less skills to choose from. It goes on and on. There's simply less to deal with across the board.

As you noted, this is all mostly a matter of opinion. I enjoy tactical gaming and tweaking rules sets, but I personally think that 4E simply went too far in that direction, and cast off too much in the name of streamlining the game. Other people disagree, seeing it as the shedding of excess baggage that wasn't really helpful in the first place.

I'm not surprised (though I am somewhat saddened) that U_K and so many other promising designers are so enamored of 4E that they're largely eschewing 3.5 now. It's an elegant system, to be sure, but for me it's far too limited.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Sulacu dude!

I wonder. Why is it easier and far more enjoyable to work on 4e? I personally find 3.5e a lot more interesting most of the time. I know, personal opinion and all.

Well Alzrius already gave an answer which covers most of what I would have said.

During a gaming session (low level 3.5E) last year where two 'noobs' (to D&D) were being broken in I had an up close and personal opportunity to see the immense flaws of 3E in operation. 3E in general simply has far too much excess baggage. Too many working parts that don't add up to fun. Looking at it now it just feels so bloated.

When contrasted against 4E, the difference is incredible. It just disects all the irrelevant nonsense and leaves the cool stuff in. You don't have the same meta-gamey aspect to multiclassing.

Now take that greater ease of use and multiply it by a factor of ten for DMs. Putting together balanced encounters (and indeed adventures) is so much easier. Modifying monsters is simplicity itself.

Then take how easy it is for DMs and multiply that by a factor of ten for game designers! 4E is so much simpler to designer for, cuts out all the rubbish, but still has the same level of depth to the game (as far as I can see).

Then take how easy it is for game designers and ramp that up to a factor of about a thousand for epic/immortal game designers...oh wait, thats just me. By the official rules, 3/3.5E epic is virtually unplayable. Now, I'm not talking about levels in the low 20's here. I mean above that. I had to make a boatload of changes to the official epic rules just to get the thing barely playable!

The hard part about 4E is stopping myself from creating too much stuff. I started with the idea of maybe having 12 angels and that section alone could end up with a hundred stat-blocks.

When I design monsters I don't want to have to worry about Skills, Feats and Spells/Spell-like Abilities...and now I don't. None of that stuff ever led to unique monsters anyway and in the end it really deflated my enthusiasm for creating stuff.

Now, all you determine is Level, Role and the handful of Special Abilities that make that monster unique.

What I don't understand is why people still prefer 3/3.5E? I mean to an extent I can understand if you are wary of spending money on new books, thats a valid point. To a lesser extent I guess I can understand that people are sometimes afraid of change. But beyond that I don't see it at all...and I certainly don't see it for epic/immortal* gaming.

*Of course I don't have those done yet but I can see it in my head that its going to be far better simply as an extension of whats there already.