The spell-like abilities granted to every immortal template (i.e. sending, magic jar, etc)... does the caster level relate to the base creature's HD or the template's minimum HD? By that I mean, if I have a 20 HD disciple, is his caster level for those SLAs still 10 + DvR or would it be HD + DvR.
NEW Immortals Handbook - Ascension thread
- Status
SokenzanMarauder
First Post
Heya U_K!Upper_Krust said:Hey Sokenzan dude!
I can't wait, I simply can-not wait! I want to be able to bring back an old character of mine from 2nd edition that has, sadly, lost most of his power due to the switch to 3.5.Thats because direct damage spells and I haven't got acquainted yet.
But when we do, expect some fireworks.
Out of curiosity, in which book are you and direct damage spells planning on getting acquainted in?
Cheers,
-Gene
I said it before, and I'll happily reiterate to chime in with others who've said it: VSCs being exponential does not mesh well with the otherwise linear system of damage and HD that D&D uses. Keeping the kludges up in the Eternal realm doesn't make them any less ugly or potentially unnecessary for that fact.
The original idea for VSCs, as I see it, is that a creature that has the STR of a higher size category becomes super-dense and gains some of the benefits of that larger size- including higher base damage. You do this because you want the dice, and physical attacks, to stay relevant at ultra-high levels. Fine goal, but why should it be based on bringing the character the benefits of a larger size? Why should density (which is what your VSC mechanic is really designed to represent) provide benefits identical to larger sizes at all? Doesn't it make sense that a creature that started larger will gain correspondingly greater benefits for increased density (i.e. each VSC gained) than one that started smaller?
Perhaps a linear function for VSCs doesn't work particularly well, but how about polynomial? If the damage dice don't double at a set number of VSCs, but instead just increase based on, say, the square of the number of VSCs, then it becomes more manageable at ultra-high levels. If we said, for example, that rather than a Medium creature dense enough to get 3 VSCs going from 1d4 on its punches to 2d6, it instead goes from 1d4 to 10d4 (1 + number of VSCs squared)- then your damage increase still happens, and becomes much more manageable at ridiculous levels. A Large creature in this scheme, with 3 VSCs would go from 1d6 base damage to 10d6. A Gargantuan creature would go from 2d6 to 20d6. In the lower realms of play this actually brings even greater benefit to the warrior-type than the exponential VSC mechanic does, but the average damage potential evens out with the exponential version around +16-+17 VSCs, and then falls behind after that. You don't get critters with +50 VSCs dealing millions of damage per hit this way, and you're generally rolling a lot more dice, but Epic games require absurd amounts of dice in any case so I don't see that as a significant issue.
The VSC mechanic is simple, but it's obviously broken past a certain point- so let's admit that and try to fix it, rather than just letting it be broken. The polynomial version I introduced above (admittedly not thoroughly playtested or anything yet) is also simple, requiring only an easily-calculated multiplier applied to the original base damage- not even a table lookup is necessary. Sure, Infinite Ability Scores can break the system anyway, but why let the system be broken otherwise? Why not tinker a little and fix it? Being stubborn is not a valid answer.
The original idea for VSCs, as I see it, is that a creature that has the STR of a higher size category becomes super-dense and gains some of the benefits of that larger size- including higher base damage. You do this because you want the dice, and physical attacks, to stay relevant at ultra-high levels. Fine goal, but why should it be based on bringing the character the benefits of a larger size? Why should density (which is what your VSC mechanic is really designed to represent) provide benefits identical to larger sizes at all? Doesn't it make sense that a creature that started larger will gain correspondingly greater benefits for increased density (i.e. each VSC gained) than one that started smaller?
Perhaps a linear function for VSCs doesn't work particularly well, but how about polynomial? If the damage dice don't double at a set number of VSCs, but instead just increase based on, say, the square of the number of VSCs, then it becomes more manageable at ultra-high levels. If we said, for example, that rather than a Medium creature dense enough to get 3 VSCs going from 1d4 on its punches to 2d6, it instead goes from 1d4 to 10d4 (1 + number of VSCs squared)- then your damage increase still happens, and becomes much more manageable at ridiculous levels. A Large creature in this scheme, with 3 VSCs would go from 1d6 base damage to 10d6. A Gargantuan creature would go from 2d6 to 20d6. In the lower realms of play this actually brings even greater benefit to the warrior-type than the exponential VSC mechanic does, but the average damage potential evens out with the exponential version around +16-+17 VSCs, and then falls behind after that. You don't get critters with +50 VSCs dealing millions of damage per hit this way, and you're generally rolling a lot more dice, but Epic games require absurd amounts of dice in any case so I don't see that as a significant issue.
The VSC mechanic is simple, but it's obviously broken past a certain point- so let's admit that and try to fix it, rather than just letting it be broken. The polynomial version I introduced above (admittedly not thoroughly playtested or anything yet) is also simple, requiring only an easily-calculated multiplier applied to the original base damage- not even a table lookup is necessary. Sure, Infinite Ability Scores can break the system anyway, but why let the system be broken otherwise? Why not tinker a little and fix it? Being stubborn is not a valid answer.
Last edited:
Ltheb Silverfrond
Explorer
The current VSC system is neat, and it accomplished what it was set to do. Too well.
Well, if the original idea was that 2d6+9000 damage was absurd, why not decide on the proper 'ratio' of damage bonus to damage dice? Each VSC adds 7 or 8 to bonus damage, so why not have each VSC add 1d10 to base damage dice? This means that any given VSC will add +9 - +18 damage. 100 VSCs? 900-1800 extra damage. Now this scale is very low. I doubt any being will be able to sunder planets with one hit this way, but it does keep damage manageable. You don't need exponentially larger CR and ECL adjustments for VSCs since they all add the same amount. Nor do you need super buff timelords just to survive a fistfight with a well build First One. (a First one of Double Strength Portfolios is about as strong as a neutronium golem, once artifacts and stat-ups, and divine powers are factored)
Well, if the original idea was that 2d6+9000 damage was absurd, why not decide on the proper 'ratio' of damage bonus to damage dice? Each VSC adds 7 or 8 to bonus damage, so why not have each VSC add 1d10 to base damage dice? This means that any given VSC will add +9 - +18 damage. 100 VSCs? 900-1800 extra damage. Now this scale is very low. I doubt any being will be able to sunder planets with one hit this way, but it does keep damage manageable. You don't need exponentially larger CR and ECL adjustments for VSCs since they all add the same amount. Nor do you need super buff timelords just to survive a fistfight with a well build First One. (a First one of Double Strength Portfolios is about as strong as a neutronium golem, once artifacts and stat-ups, and divine powers are factored)
Ltheb Silverfrond said:
No.
The problem with the is because of what WotC decided that a +2 to an ability really meant.
Let's look at this.
Str:
The carrying capacity rules are DEFINED as a expontial growth model, and to have damage based on wielding be anything else creates the attack damage vs. falling damage problem.
IE: constant increase in STR gives a linear increase in lifting power. (+10 str -> *4 lifitng capacity)
IE: if I hit someone with a planet, it would do VASTLY less damage then dropping the same planet on top of them.
Dex:
This has a horrible growth model, assuming no armor, a +1 to dex gives a +1 to AC, and affects range to hit by +1 almost inferior to an equivalen strength increase in every way.
Con:
HP: for hp we get an increase of HD hp per +1 increase in CON, which means that we're actually getting an diminishing returns by investing in CON, atleast %wise, because each +2 to con score gives us HD/previous current MAX hp-fold bonus
Int,Wis:Cha:
Also expontential growth model, atleast for casters.
Spellcasting: for each +2 bonus to the score we get a free spell of the next spell level, and for each +8 bonus to the score we increase the number of each spell level that we could have cast by 1.
So this is also a a constant increase in ability gives a linear increase in power, because an increase in spell level represents a linear increase in power.
A constant return for a linear increase means that if I add say 10 to my stat, I am now capable of doing say 10 times what I could have previous done. Easiest example to see would be to look at the carrying capacity table in the PhB page 162/
Last edited:
It's true that STR is presently exponential in terms of carrying capacity, but that's not where our problem lies here: the problem is with damage, and damage based on STR is a purely linear function. Whether you're using two-handed weapons or not, 2 points of STR gets you exactly the same amount of increased damage in melee at 100 STR as it did at 10 STR. This number is +1 for a one-handed weapon, or +1.5 (and fractions are always dropped in D&D) for two-handed.
The problem with VSCs is that they take the damage and make it exponential like carrying capacity. Exponential damage is broken, that's the problem that caused U_K to decide to give Time Lords a x1000 multiplier to hit points. Hence, those of us who are suggesting fixes for the VSC problem are largely concerned with removing the exponential aspect from it. Remove the exponential curve, and it should either relieve or remove the problem.
And yes, dropping a planet on somebody is going to do more damage than hitting them, but that should be true if the thing lifting the planet in the first place is many thousands of times smaller than that planet, shouldn't it?
The problem with VSCs is that they take the damage and make it exponential like carrying capacity. Exponential damage is broken, that's the problem that caused U_K to decide to give Time Lords a x1000 multiplier to hit points. Hence, those of us who are suggesting fixes for the VSC problem are largely concerned with removing the exponential aspect from it. Remove the exponential curve, and it should either relieve or remove the problem.
And yes, dropping a planet on somebody is going to do more damage than hitting them, but that should be true if the thing lifting the planet in the first place is many thousands of times smaller than that planet, shouldn't it?
paradox42 said:
I think my greatest problem is actually with Hit Dice and hit points.
Becuase to do this, you need to figure out what exactly 1 hit point means, and what it means to increase something's hit points by 1.
Because if I think that if I can lift a thousand times a non-magical item's weight, I should be strong enough to hit something with it SOO hard that it breaks because of that or alternatively break it in a punch. Then it should do atleast the hp of the object to both itself and the item that is hit.
And as U_K mentioned it wouldn't be unreasonable for most time lords to have 850+ strength, which means that they should be able to do damage roughly to the HP of the universe with a punch. So then either carrying capacity and spell levels need to be rewritten or we're stuck with an exponetial growth model.
800 strengh being the rough STR needed to be able for a medium sized creature to life the universe. so 850 would be the rough STR needed to lift a thousand universes.
Well, Time Lords represent whole universes, so being able to lift one should be a fairly average ability for a Time Lord to have. After all, they presumably can lift themselves on a surface and move around, right?
But there's one problem with your assumption that if you can lift enough weight, you should be able to damage any object for its full hit points: the problem of what you hit the object with, and how "springy" it is. As an example, there are certainly humans on Earth who could lift 1000 little rubber balls (specifically the type Americans call "superballs," which bounce extremely well- I'm not sure they're called that elsewhere in the world). But, can such a person just plain destroy one of those little rubber balls with one hit? Pulverise it completely and destroy its essential bouncy nature? I'd strongly doubt that, personally.
So, how springy is a planet, and what would you hit it with to pulverise it? Cracking the crust should be easy enough for even a Medium creature if it's strong enough and made of hard enough matter, that I grant you; however, being so much smaller than the planet I'd think that the being in question would have a very tough time just plain annihilating it in one hit. And following this line of thought, how springy is a universe? It certainly isn't solid all the way through, so how do you propose to destroy it with one hit? What could you hit it with to do that?
Of course, I'm also one of those who disagrees with U_K's favored numbers for planetary hit points and such, and thinks they should be a lot higher than he sets them. So my take on the above probably isn't very surprising.
After all, they presumably can lift themselves on a surface and move around, right?But there's one problem with your assumption that if you can lift enough weight, you should be able to damage any object for its full hit points: the problem of what you hit the object with, and how "springy" it is. As an example, there are certainly humans on Earth who could lift 1000 little rubber balls (specifically the type Americans call "superballs," which bounce extremely well- I'm not sure they're called that elsewhere in the world). But, can such a person just plain destroy one of those little rubber balls with one hit? Pulverise it completely and destroy its essential bouncy nature? I'd strongly doubt that, personally.
So, how springy is a planet, and what would you hit it with to pulverise it? Cracking the crust should be easy enough for even a Medium creature if it's strong enough and made of hard enough matter, that I grant you; however, being so much smaller than the planet I'd think that the being in question would have a very tough time just plain annihilating it in one hit. And following this line of thought, how springy is a universe? It certainly isn't solid all the way through, so how do you propose to destroy it with one hit? What could you hit it with to do that?
Of course, I'm also one of those who disagrees with U_K's favored numbers for planetary hit points and such, and thinks they should be a lot higher than he sets them. So my take on the above probably isn't very surprising.
I know *I* can sunder a superball with a bite attack.paradox42 said:
Destroying an object is NOT equivalent to annihilating it. Destroying an object is just equivalent to doing it's hp worth of damage, which may just cause it to break into small pieces, just bending it beyond usability, or otherwise making it useless.
Alternatively, the rubber ball has a damage reduction to bashing damage that is greater than it's current hp. And for the planet rules, you could have a maximum based percentage damge for the difference in size values, so that no MATTER how much damage a tiny creature does, it couldn't do say more than 5% of the maximum hp of a large creature in a single physical attack.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar Threads
