NEW Immortals Handbook - Ascension thread

[Pssthpok]

dante, dante... there you go again.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi dante mate!

Do you have any plans for epic level fey? Such as faerie lords.

I have two few planned for the Epic Bestiaries. I also have one other that I was working on for Creature Collection 3 (which never got used), I haven't decided if I will incorporate that in some fashion.

As for Faerie Lords, I consider the Eladrin and Fey to be closely related.

Speaking of which...how would you revise LeShay.

I wouldn't.

But I do have a race called Eldren which may or may not be related.

The Hoary Hunter would only require very minor tweaking (damage reduction and spell resistance primarily...and that weak little sword)...but other than the sword (could you advise me on the sword)...nothing really needs done with it.

Hoary Hunter...as it stands...what Challenge Rating/Level Adjustment would you give it?

See Version 6. Hoary Hunter was one of those tricky CRs I mentioned (I have all the v6 CRs done except for those beings with equipment included in their stat write ups).

 

[Alzrius]

U_K, is there any method for a deity to remove or otherwise get rid of a portfolio's intrinsic weaknesses? Such a thing would likely be transcendental or higher, if there was one.

I mention this because at the higher divine ranks, some of the penalties seem to grow disproportionally. A Time/High Lord with the Magic portfolio, for example, seems like they could end up with a ridiculously low Strength score (woe to the one who takes it as a double portfolio). That'd also undercut them taking Infinite Strength, since they wouldn't likely be able to meet the prerequisite.

On a related note, an eternal that takes Omneity will likely have stacking weaknesses (such as having the Darkness and Sun portfolios).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Alzrius dude!

U_K, is there any method for a deity to remove or otherwise get rid of a portfolio's intrinsic weaknesses? Such a thing would likely be transcendental or higher, if there was one.

Not as such, but you could indirectly take divine/cosmic abilities which boosted the abilities lowered by the weaknesses.

I mention this because at the higher divine ranks, some of the penalties seem to grow disproportionally. A Time/High Lord with the Magic portfolio, for example, seems like they could end up with a ridiculously low Strength score (woe to the one who takes it as a double portfolio). That'd also undercut them taking Infinite Strength, since they wouldn't likely be able to meet the prerequisite.

Technically portfolios should really max out at Divine Ranks 32/48 for Old Ones (single portfolio)/First Ones (double).

On a related note, an eternal that takes Omneity will likely have stacking weaknesses (such as having the Darkness and Sun portfolios).

Yes, that needs clarification.

 

[Pssthpok]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but TABLE 3-3: PROJECTED PORTFOLIO POWER gives you the flexibility to ignore portfolio weaknesses.
Example: if a greater deity wants to ignore hisportfolio weaknesses, he simply increases his ECL by +4 per portfolio, since the weaknesses of a greater deity's portfolio mitigates the ECL boost by -4. Logically, removing that mitigation should bring that '4' back into the math.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Pssthpok mate!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but TABLE 3-3: PROJECTED PORTFOLIO POWER gives you the flexibility to ignore portfolio weaknesses.
Example: if a greater deity wants to ignore hisportfolio weaknesses, he simply increases his ECL by +4 per portfolio, since the weaknesses of a greater deity's portfolio mitigates the ECL boost by -4. Logically, removing that mitigation should bring that '4' back into the math.

Mathmatically/mechanically you would increase the ECL by 1/2 divine ranks.

So a greater deity template would be +88 instead of +80 ECL.

However that said, I prefer it with the weaknesses kept in.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

Wanted to put this to the group. I just fixed the portfolio weakness problem that had been dogging me over the past few days, and part of the solution involved breaking down the Portfolios by classes (and/or NPC classes).

I was able to immediately determine all the rest, but the three 'fly's in the ointment' ended up being the Monk, Paladin and Psion.

I am just wondering if it would work to tie those classes into the following portfolios (to some degree) and vice versa:

Monk = Peace
Paladin = Charity
Psion = Science

Any thoughts?

As it stands I think those above portfolios are the least mechanically sound.

I am also thinking that certain portfolios may have more overt and obvious class based benefits.

 

[Pssthpok]

Hey Pssthpok mate!



Mathmatically/mechanically you would increase the ECL by 1/2 divine ranks.

So a greater deity template would be +88 instead of +80 ECL.

However that said, I prefer it with the weaknesses kept in.

Yeah: +4/portfolio would yield a +8 overall. Okay, I've been wondering if that would be a fair trade-off, especially given my disdain for certain portfolio weaknesses.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

I am not for or against the portfolio/class relationships. If it is the simplist way to make it work, then so be it. But, as I am sure someone will mention, what if I wanted to have a goodly wizard god of magical charity? Monks of Destruction and Violence seem a bit 'out there' but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. (Otherwise there wouldn't be any villains for the kung fu movies )

Though I do think that keeping the portfolios as "class neutral" as possible might be a better option, I as of yet don't know what your planned changes are exactly, so I can't fully weigh in.

 

[Pssthpok]

Clock's a-tickin', UK.