Another Immortals Handbook thread

[CRGreathouse]

Version 5 doesn't seem to address percentages at all, even within the class breakdown.

I think Zoatebix is trying to say that U_K priced it as if it was 5 increases over 10 levels (0.05 = 5 x 0.1 / 10) instead of 5 increases over 20 levels (0.025 = 5 x 0.1 / 20).

 

[Campbell]

I think Zoatebix is trying to say that U_K priced it as if it was 5 increases over 10 levels (0.05 = 5 x 0.1 / 10) instead of 5 increases over 20 levels (0.025 = 5 x 0.1 / 20).

It looks like he was correct.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

...and thanks for the reply Cheiromancer dude!

I'm finding it very interesting that much of my personal planar overview will be completely contrary to that in the Immortal's handbook.

Obviously you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I think what I have done with the cosmology in the Immortals Handbook is introduce a few ideas that merge seamlessly with the established cosmology while at the same time offer something new.

For instance in my viewpoint anything in the regular outsider hierarchy was once a mortal.

I'm familiar with this atheistical approach. Indirectly the idea still gels with everything in the IH, but I'd need to go into detail on the Pantheons to explain that, so you'll just have to trust me for now.

Freedom of choice is an inherent part of all these outsiders as their status here is just another stepping stone in their evolution. As mortals the evolution is primarily symbolic and such, but once these mortal transition to outsiders they lose their access to their memories without losing their memories influence on their choices. At this point they begin a literal and physical evolution as they progress and develop. In theory as well (never had to deal with this quite yet) there are steps beyond outsider. Several of these will probably be me kidnapping stuff from the IH. At these further steps I will also reveal the big darks. Forces that wanted to do it all differently, and without freedom of choice. These forces will likely redefine evil, as their actions will always be large scale changes.
Hopefully I can keeping mining fluff for ideas while I steal critters.

It sounds as though the terms chaos and law would better suit your needs (I know S'mon prefers a Chaos /Law dichotomy, rather than good and evil).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Zoatebix mate!

Time to distract you for a minute or two, sir!

Okay...but only for a minute.

Okay, I dragged out my version 4 challenge rating document yet again, and I'm a little confused about ability scores. The numbers on pages eight and nineteen don't seem to agree. If the CR factor for +1 to an ability score is 0.1 CR, then shouldn't the percent CR for ability score increases be 2.5%? 5 times .1 divided by 20 is 2.5%, right - just like 11 fighter bonus feats is 11 times .2 divided by 20 is 11%?

This might seem like a mistake, but it was actually a design decision, whether this was correct or not remains to be seen. Basically I was trying to represent the difference between a natural increase and a supernatural increase, so +2 would be okay for a natural increase, but +1 is better for a supernatural increase.

eg. the maximum natural strength for a human is 23. Anything up to 23 (for a human) would be a natural increase, anything after that is supernatural.

On a somewhat unrelated thread, and assuming page 19 is the typo and not page eight, would it be acceptable to update the epic feats "Great [ability score]" so that they give a +2 bonus to the score?

Anyone who remembers the original CR/EL stuff will know that I initially championed the idea of a feat giving a +2 increase. But my spider-sense is telling me +2 for a feat is a bad idea.

eg. Improved Toughness would become markedly inferior to Great Constitution.

eg. Epic Prowess would become notably inferior to Great Strength.

It creates far too many waves.

Third nitpicky thing: The Bestiary vol 1 has no Identification of Open Game Content, nor a declaration of product identity.

The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people.

I found a few more edits to email you, but I forgot to write them down, so I'll have to find them again.

I appreciate the help mate.

The more I read, the more I enjoy the work, and the more I look forward to future installments.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people.

I think, as a manner of legality, that you should reconsider -- without the OGL and open content, you have no grounds on which to create derivative works of the SRD/PH.

(Not a lawyer.)

 

[CR2000]

Just gotta say, a friend of mine bought a copy and I was reading it up while at his house the other day. It was so good it made me go from being just a lurking guest to a signed member just to tell you the good work that has been put into this project.

 

[Zoatebix]

Thanks for the words of advice on ability scores, U_K. I've definately seen the error of my ways.

I think, as a manner of legality, that you should reconsider -- without the OGL and open content, you have no grounds on which to create derivative works of the SRD/PH.

(Not a lawyer.)

Also not a lawyer, but I think section 8 of the OGL has some key information on this stuff, but there might be somethin' somewhere else.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey CRGreathouse mate!

I think, as a manner of legality, that you should reconsider -- without the OGL and open content, you have no grounds on which to create derivative works of the SRD/PH.

(Not a lawyer.)

I'll get it all sorted out before the official release.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey CR2000!

Just gotta say, a friend of mine bought a copy and I was reading it up while at his house the other day. It was so good it made me go from being just a lurking guest to a signed member just to tell you the good work that has been put into this project.

Thanks for the kind words. Its not perfect, but I suppose I am quite happy with most of it. Glad you enjoyed it.

 

[Sledge]

Obviously you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I think what I have done with the cosmology in the Immortals Handbook is introduce a few ideas that merge seamlessly with the established cosmology while at the same time offer something new.

Of course, I wouldn't expect your cosmology to match my cosmology, as then it would just be your cosmology.

I'm familiar with this atheistical approach. Indirectly the idea still gels with everything in the IH, but I'd need to go into detail on the Pantheons to explain that, so you'll just have to trust me for now.

I wouldn't say it is atheistic, so much as a different framework. I still have a creator GOD in mind. It's just that the outsider types aren't his direct soldiers. Some of them seek to follow him I'm sure, but he does not actively lead them, even from atop a celestial pyramid scheme.

It sounds as though the terms chaos and law would better suit your needs (I know S'mon prefers a Chaos /Law dichotomy, rather than good and evil).

Well I did start with the purple basic set...
Seriously though, as everyone says, good or evil actions depend on your viewpoint. The dark powers I have in mind just have a much bigger view point. Hopefully by the time I introduce them, the PC's will also be seeing the picture.