4th Edition and the Immortals Handbook

[Upper_Krust]

U_K!

Hiya mate!

Sounds interesting. XP drain seems a bit against the grain when it comes to 4E, but the Idea is kind of cool.

There would still be the possibility of a negative event causing you to lose QP, including the immortal having their manifestation destroyed.

One idea I was kicking around after reading your post was some sort of divine surge mechanic. It would be a power gained by every deity at 31st level (or whatever level is appropo to be officially a god) that let you, when you die, spend an action point and not be permanently slain. This use is still subject to the one action point per encounter restriction, but it promotes a more cinimatic play style and a less 'neener-neener' style of play. (The villain can be 'slain' on site of his master scheme without jeopardizing later campaigne arcs, but if the players decide to actually go kill him once and for all, they can do so without him miraculously surviving again, plus now the villain is going to finally fight 'all out' in one epic battle)

Given the durability of the new epic characters I think there will definately need to be a mechanic in place for immortals that does something similar...only better.

However, I am not sure if a get out of jail free card is the answer, I still want immortals to be defeated, though not necessarily 'killed'. I'm thinking that the destruction of the gods manifestation may reduce them to their avatar form for a period of time. Or allow them to be imprisoned or in some way subdued (pact forced). So theheroes may well defeat the BBEG, only to have him plot against them (in a lesser capacity, perhaps as a henchman of another BBEG) at a later date - unless they were to completely eradicate the gods Quintessence base - which would be difficult considering non-interference pact of immortals on the Prime Plane. ie. The PCs simply can't go around and kill all that gods worshippers. This may also show up the benefit of Glory (Worship Points) over Power (Power Points).

Hey U_K!

Howdy beej!

I must say, I like what I see here. You could turn that demigod epic destiny into the quasi-diety, if you will.

Well for me the epic destiny is about becoming a Demigod, its not about being a Demigod.

In any case, I'm really excited over the 4e Immortals' Handbook. I got into the IH series a bit too late (two months before 4e released!), and I want to put that into the 4e game somehow. (raises hand) I can playtest, if you ever need any.

I appreciate the enthusiasm and the offer of help. I'll let it be known here and on the website when I need some playtesters. It won't be for a month at least - I think I need to buy a new computer to be able to use InDesign CS3 (and I want to use this new program for my 4E stuff). This current machine won't run it.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Hiya mate!



There would still be the possibility of a negative event causing you to lose QP, including the immortal having their manifestation destroyed.



Given the durability of the new epic characters I think there will definately need to be a mechanic in place for immortals that does something similar...only better.

However, I am not sure if a get out of jail free card is the answer, I still want immortals to be defeated, though not necessarily 'killed'. I'm thinking that the destruction of the gods manifestation may reduce them to their avatar form for a period of time. Or allow them to be imprisoned or in some way subdued (pact forced). So theheroes may well defeat the BBEG, only to have him plot against them (in a lesser capacity, perhaps as a henchman of another BBEG) at a later date - unless they were to completely eradicate the gods Quintessence base - which would be difficult considering non-interference pact of immortals on the Prime Plane. ie. The PCs simply can't go around and kill all that gods worshippers. This may also show up the benefit of Glory (Worship Points) over Power (Power Points).
...

...

This is true; My concern with using QP loss is two fold:
1. The sliding scale of 4E levels. Low-powered characters (5+ levels lower then the rest) cannot hope to contribute against a challenging foe. Granted, while it is the DMs job to make sure there is an appropriate challenge for all involved, but there kind of comes a time where the only time a character can contribute is if he is a full-time healer. (Like 1 Level 10 guy with a bunch of level 20 guys, vs a Level 20 encounter. Lvl 10 guy cannot hit except on a 20)
2. The secound concern I have with QP loss is a mechanical one; 4E has no level loss mechanic. (The raise dead spell mentions a 'death penalty' equivalent to a negative level, but I don't know if thats what you are looking for) Granted, deducting levels from PCs/Monsters is a more simple process. But what if retraining is involved? Like, for example, if a PC of level... 55, loses a level. What if at lvl 55, he switched out his toughness feat for weapon focus, or something like that? Does it switch back? 4E, out of the box, doesn't really have this kind of problem, but I don't know if introducing a mechanic that could create this kind of issue is would be worth the headache. (3E Immortals' example: Nullifying feats; Cool idea, raises issues)

But basically, my concern boils down to when the mythology/pantheon rules you want to implement interfere with the game, and when the game rules interfere with the mythology. I don't think it's a major concern, but I think they may come up and cause some trainwrecks. (Like 3E Immortal's Damage dealt vs Ballooning HP. Neither scales in a balanced manor)

That asside, I am interested in what kind of stuff you can cook up for 4E. So, if you need playtesters, I am interested.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Ltheb mate!

By the way, just in case anyone is trying to email me at the moment I am having some problems opening emails in hotmail. I'm sure its a temporary problem but I just thought I would mention it.

This is true; My concern with using QP loss is two fold:
1. The sliding scale of 4E levels. Low-powered characters (5+ levels lower then the rest) cannot hope to contribute against a challenging foe. Granted, while it is the DMs job to make sure there is an appropriate challenge for all involved, but there kind of comes a time where the only time a character can contribute is if he is a full-time healer. (Like 1 Level 10 guy with a bunch of level 20 guys, vs a Level 20 encounter. Lvl 10 guy cannot hit except on a 20)

Thats another reason why I don't want to throw in too many levels for the immortals. Keep things tight and you retain the interaction. Although you always have the safety net of the Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion 'power roles' to fall back on.

A solo Greater God might be a good BBEG for the first planned adventure, while Elite 'Greater Gods' might feature in the second, and Standard 'Greater Gods in the third.

2. The secound concern I have with QP loss is a mechanical one; 4E has no level loss mechanic. (The raise dead spell mentions a 'death penalty' equivalent to a negative level, but I don't know if thats what you are looking for) Granted, deducting levels from PCs/Monsters is a more simple process. But what if retraining is involved? Like, for example, if a PC of level... 55, loses a level. What if at lvl 55, he switched out his toughness feat for weapon focus, or something like that? Does it switch back? 4E, out of the box, doesn't really have this kind of problem, but I don't know if introducing a mechanic that could create this kind of issue is would be worth the headache. (3E Immortals' example: Nullifying feats; Cool idea, raises issues)

Yes there were some crazy mechanics that on the face of it were just to complicated to implement in open play. I'll try and make sure any new mechanics and ideas are easy to run.

But basically, my concern boils down to when the mythology/pantheon rules you want to implement interfere with the game, and when the game rules interfere with the mythology. I don't think it's a major concern, but I think they may come up and cause some trainwrecks. (Like 3E Immortal's Damage dealt vs Ballooning HP. Neither scales in a balanced manor)

Thats what playtesting is for.

That asside, I am interested in what kind of stuff you can cook up for 4E. So, if you need playtesters, I am interested.

Thanks.

I meant to say Re: 4E Adventures, that perhaps Elder Evil style mini-adventures (3 encounters) might be a cool way forward - or at least an interesting side-quest. Remembering back to most of my immortal adventures and they were rarely protracted Dungeon crawls, they had more in common with the Elder Evil style format. Though obviously I'd like a good mix.

Maybe I could have a smaller main adventure and a pair of side-quests or something like that...?

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Hey U_K, just giving a little report about gameplay at the epic levels of 4.0: it's very, very wonky and prone to the PCs becoming overwhelmingly powerful with even simple optimization, though not as bad as how it was in 3.5. I've been DMing weekly all-combat one-shots through MapTool (www.big-metto.net/RP_Wiki/index.php?title=D&D_4.0:_POWER_KILL) to test out the combat of 4.0; the first session was at level 16, the second was at level 24, the third was at level 26, the fourth was at level 30, and the final was also at level 30.

Well, let's just say that for the final game, the 5-man party seriously defeated a pair of Orcuses without either of the two beasties taking a single action. In fact, one of the party members didn't really contribute that much, so they could've pulled it off with just a 4-man party. No, seriously, they did it through legit teamwork tactics without resorting to things like Blade Cascade or Seal of Binding. They relied on stunlock and Divine Miracle to keep the Orcuses perpetually stunned with an extremely low chance of either one recovering. There's a convoluted log here if you want some proof: http://rapidshare.com/files/127206991/4eLevel30Orcus.html

Stunning powers and the Demigod epic destiny certainly unbalance epic-level play very much.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Interesting. I read the first two fights a while back. I understand the concerns with stun-cheese. (A problem in any system with stun-like effects) But, are the problems with epic play, or with specific epic power design? IE Every epic character can stun/weaken. Perhaps solo opponents need a few more resistances to Stun-like conditions...

To me, 4E combat seems to be whoever gains the upper hand controls the tide of battle. Monsters, like PCs, seem to have combos, that, left unchecked, would destroy the party. Example: The Ghoul. Claw imobilizes, which then lets him bite the foe for effectively double damage and worse effects. Same with Mindflayers, Chuuls, and the oh so fun Gibbering Orb.

The problem, it seems, after reading those logs, is that the tide of battle does not shift. Whoever gets the upper hand first is going to win... Eventually. Now, I have no problem with this as long as the PCs are exhausting resources. How Many fights against Two Orcuses could they take? Without their Dailies, would they have won? Without action points? Surely after the first fight, they would not be able to spam-stun the next two to death.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Interesting. I read the first two fights a while back.

You go to... <i>that</i> board then? It should be noted that the level 16 game wasn't filled with that much cheese, in fact, the PCs were getting their asses kicked in the second fight however. For the level 24 game though, I managed to get a very competent optimizer as a regular in the group, and the lockdown level rose a bit. For the level 26 game, another slick optimizer joined as a regular, and the lockdown cheese reached its peak.

I understand the concerns with stun-cheese. (A problem in any system with stun-like effects) But, are the problems with epic play, or with specific epic power design? IE Every epic character can stun/weaken. Perhaps solo opponents need a few more resistances to Stun-like conditions...

I really think that solo creatures should have some form of status effect resistance. Attacks that normally stun instead only daze them, attacks that normally daze only slow instead, and attacks that normally slow are nullified.

To me, 4E combat seems to be whoever gains the upper hand controls the tide of battle. Monsters, like PCs, seem to have combos, that, left unchecked, would destroy the party. Example: The Ghoul. Claw imobilizes, which then lets him bite the foe for effectively double damage and worse effects. Same with Mindflayers, Chuuls, and the oh so fun Gibbering Orb.

Yes, I've noticed that it's a matter of gaining the upper hand first, and a high initiative count helps with this. Problem is, starting at the paragon levels, the PCs are basically guaranteed to all go before the monsters due to feats like Commanding Presence (for warlords), Danger Sense, and Improved Initiative.

The problem, it seems, after reading those logs, is that the tide of battle does not shift. Whoever gets the upper hand first is going to win... Eventually. Now, I have no problem with this as long as the PCs are exhausting resources. How Many fights against Two Orcuses could they take? Without their Dailies, would they have won? Without action points? Surely after the first fight, they would not be able to spam-stun the next two to death.

They would have more trouble with no dailies at their disposal, but I think they could handle the fights fairly well, due to the supreme cheese of Divine Miracle. That's not the point though, the point is that a fight against a pair of Orcuses is supposed to be impossible for a group of level 30 PCs, even if they get an extended rest beforehand.

 

[beej]

They would have more trouble with no dailies at their disposal, but I think they could handle the fights fairly well, due to the supreme cheese of Divine Miracle. That's not the point though, the point is that a fight against a pair of Orcuses is supposed to be impossible for a group of level 30 PCs, even if they get an extended rest beforehand.

Well, if we're running along that train of thought, then I would point out that there aren't supposed to be two Orcuses to begin with.

Have them go through Glyphimhor, the Council of Riven Ram, endless undead hordes, covens of liches, Harthoon, Doresain, etc instead.

Point is moot, though. Stunning is quickly becoming 4e's problem condition. If we'll ever see 4.5, it'll probably be because of this. I wonder why all those playtesters didn't notice it?

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Well, if we're running along that train of thought, then I would point out that there aren't supposed to be two Orcuses to begin with.

Have them go through Glyphimhor, the Council of Riven Ram, endless undead hordes, covens of liches, Harthoon, Doresain, etc instead.

Each Demigod wizard in the party was packing 4 Legion's Holds per day.

Point is moot, though. Stunning is quickly becoming 4e's problem condition. If we'll ever see 4.5, it'll probably be because of this. I wonder why all those playtesters didn't notice it?

The problem is mostly with stunning solos. A solo is supposed to fill in for 5 monsters, so when you stun a solo, you effectively stun 5 monsters' worth of power.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

You go to... <i>that</i> board then?
...
...

Sadly, yes. My boredom knows no bounds.

Stunning is quite a pain, I agree. Solo opponents need some sort of Resistance to stunning. (Or to whatever condition neuters them absolutely) Stunning is like 3E's Nauseated: No real resistance, and it makes your character do nothing.

I ran an encounter:4 PCs (Lvl 2) vs a Lvl 4 Solo version of the Deathjump Spider. (It had a new ranged attack that immobilized, but just picture a Large, solo-ified Deathjump Spider) The encounter started near a chasm, that the spider leapt from. I fully knew, while designing the encounter, that the PCs with their plethora of push powers could push it off the cliff. Heck, I expected it. Even with the Save (at a +5 Bonus) to avoid being pushed off the cliff, the fighter and rogue succeeded in knocking it off the cliff before bloodying it. (it lost 1/3 of it's HP in total)
A good fight in all, and really one to get the players used to more tactical styled play. However, it was damn easy to push that spider around, and it would be equally easy, if not easier, for an Orbizard to stun a foe into submission.

Ideas for Stun-related Resistances:
Immunity to Stunning - 90% cheese factor here. Would use sparingly. PCs should probably not get this.
+X (5? 10?!?) to saves against Stunning - Not total cheese, but evens out Orbizards vs Solos a bit.
Stun->Daze->Slow->Nil - Knocking the stunning down a level or two would help.
Condition Track - As above, but starting at nil, each stun effect 'stacks' to move up the track. (Ex: A 3x Stunned foe would actually be stunned, but if he saved against one of the stuns, he'd only be dazed)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

I think that as you guys attest, I'll almost certainly be forced to nerf stunning in the Immortals Handbook.

I'm think along the Elite/Solo lines whereby an Elite Monster needs to be stunned by two sources each round to be stunned (and can save against both) while Solo monsters need to be stunned four (or five?) times (and can save against each).

The condition track might be useful in terms of:

Slow x2 = Daze, Daze x 2 = Stun, Stun x 2 = Elite Stun, Elite Stun x2 = Solo Stun.

I have also been thinking about the Expanded Size Rules for 4E and I think that it will simply be x10 multipliers (since Size only effects reach and space for 4E, not ability scores, movement and so on).

So for instance instead of Medium or Gargantuan you would have Mega-medium and Mega-Gargantuan which would increase Space and Reach tenfold.

Then you might have Giga-Large etc. increasing a hundredfold, and so on.

Naturally at a certain point your attacks will become area attacks, and I am also thinking that such monsters would always have Resist All equal to half their level (rounded down to the nearest 5).

Godzilla (for instance) could be a sort of Mega-Tarrasque (as the base creature). So it would be 10 times bigger than the Tarrasque and have a reach of 30 squares and space of 40 squares.

Any thoughts on either?

Meant to add I am also thinking that pushing/pulling monsters could be lessened (or even increased) by that monsters size difference. This way when a Fighter hits the Tarrasque he won't knock it prone or back two squares or whatever.