NEW Immortals Handbook - Ascension thread

[mercucio]

Hey guys!

I see a compromise has to be reached with regards some of the weaknesses.

Perhaps if the single portfolio drops the opposed ability score by 1/2 your divine rank, and the double portfolio by 1/divine rank?

I could also change the weakness which disallows you gaining anymore bonuses instead halving (single)/quartering (double) the bonuses...what do you think? Better fit?

Hmmm...what if a weakness halved (or quartered) your attribute bonus instead of applying a penalty to the attribute itself?

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Hmmm...what if a weakness halved (or quartered) your attribute bonus instead of applying a penalty to the attribute itself?

That sounds like it could work. It heavily penalizes really high level epic characters during the early divinity tiers, though. Ex: A 100th level fighter, who has say 30 Int. (needed for a feat) becoming a disciple of Strength, would suddenly lose 15 points of Intelligence! (and, thusly, the feat)

It works if a character gains the next divinity template at the same time he or she increases his or her Hit-Dice to the minimum for the next divine 'level up'. They get unduly penalized otherwise.

 

[Fieari]

How about a combination of the two... a set penalty based on DvR, to a maximum of 1/2 (or 1/4). That gets rid of both problems, I'd think.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

How about a combination of the two... a set penalty based on DvR, to a maximum of 1/2 (or 1/4). That gets rid of both problems, I'd think.

Wait, no, this couldn't possibly work... Why?.. Um... Because... Yes. Just Because.
(Great idea )

 

[mercucio]

That sounds like it could work. It heavily penalizes really high level epic characters during the early divinity tiers, though. Ex: A 100th level fighter, who has say 30 Int. (needed for a feat) becoming a disciple of Strength, would suddenly lose 15 points of Intelligence! (and, thusly, the feat)

It works if a character gains the next divinity template at the same time he or she increases his or her Hit-Dice to the minimum for the next divine 'level up'. They get unduly penalized otherwise.

That wasn't my intention. My idea was to reduce the bonus, not the score. So a 30 int would only give a +5 bonus to Int-based statistics/checks but would still be a 30 for qualifying for feats, maximum spell level castable (but not bonus spells or save DCs), ect.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

That wasn't my intention. My idea was to reduce the bonus, not the score. So a 30 int would only give a +5 bonus to Int-based statistics/checks but would still be a 30 for qualifying for feats, maximum spell level castable (but not bonus spells or save DCs), ect.

Ahh, I see. Though with that method, you get some pretty strange interaction with spellcasters, since, despite there being a clear formula involved, Bonus spells are not based on ability score modifiers, but on the ability score itself. Not to mention other strange interactions. (Combat reflexes with 0 or a negative dex modifier... 1+0, Why?... 1+(-4) Wait, I lose attacks?) (or characters with a freakishly high strength, and can lift a mountain as a light load, but can't deal any real damage in melee)

 

[dante58701]

Yeah...that just wouldn't work. Krusty's idea is more accurate. Though Fieari's idea could work too.

 

[Pssthpok]

I don't think "accuracy" comes into it; we're talking about an arbitration here. I'd prefer not to see the ability score actually reduced in any way, since it's problematic for staple deities who haven't dedicated the ability points to compensate for it, which would be unnatural as hell.

 

[paradox42]

I don't think "accuracy" comes into it; we're talking about an arbitration here. I'd prefer not to see the ability score actually reduced in any way, since it's problematic for staple deities who haven't dedicated the ability points to compensate for it, which would be unnatural as hell.

Very much agreed on this point.

But then, I'm also the one who said that the "attribute Portfolios" should be named only after the actual attribute, and if the concept was anything slightly different that it should be treated as something else entirely. Thus, in my view, the attribute Portfolios would be Strength, Agility or Dexterity, Health or Toughness, Intelligence, Wisdom or Perception, and Charisma (possibly Attractiveness, Leadership, Confidence, or something else depending on the individual DM's view of the stat).

Thus, "Stoicism" does not constitute the Portfolio of CON, nor does "Knowledge" constitute INT- however close they may be as concepts. And actually, going by real-world knowledge, Knowledge has very little to do with Intelligence conceptually- while it is true that intelligent people tend to have a lot of knowledge, it is not true that people with a lot of knowledge necessarily have great intelligence in the IQ sense. Being intelligent doesn't mean you know a lot, nor does a high degree of schooling mean you're smart- intelligence actually just means you figure things out and learn quickly. Knowledge is by definition learning that you've already acquired, and thus does not represent your ability to gain said learning (whether fast or slow in relative terms).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

I don't think "accuracy" comes into it; we're talking about an arbitration here. I'd prefer not to see the ability score actually reduced in any way, since it's problematic for staple deities who haven't dedicated the ability points to compensate for it, which would be unnatural as hell.

Its less the idea that I want to reduce the score, more a case that I don't think they should benefit from divine bonuses to that ability score.