Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Alzrius matey!

Not that it hasn't been fun but we are going to have to start boiling this discussion down to the key elements.

I think part of the problem is that I am trying to entertain the idea that power doesn't really have limits. But once you invite the idea of Absolutes into your game you impose limits.

By the way have you had a chance to read the "Intercontinental Union of Disgusting Characters" yet?

Hence why I said that it'd be a good idea to increase the damage taken from being exposed to the Plane of Fire.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Why the heck would you increase the fire damage to the point where it would logically melt metal when we know that metal is not supposed to melt on the Plane of Fire in the first place (certain very hot locations being the exception). Its called the City of Brass, not the City of Fire Immune Brass.

Assuming that it wasn't just immune to damage. Major artifacts would lose a lot of their potency if epic/immortal PCs could just whack them into nothing.

Exactly, which is why I never suggested that. What I suggested was the possibility that artifacts could be broken into pieces but that the pieces would reform unless taken and hidden away.

If you remove immunities and replace them with high-level resistances, PCs will seek and prize them just as much as immunities, so we can say that your postulation there definately isn't true.

How is resistance as powerful as an immunity?

Isn't having resistances more likely to favour players being forced into making tactical decisions, since they don't add the complacency that immunities bring to the game.

On the other hand, replacing monsters' immunities with resistances inarguably decreases their threat-potential.

I'm not suggesting remove the monsters immunities and leave the PCs immunities intact! The changes would affect both sides and if anything its likely to be the PCs who feel the brunt of the changes.

Gods of higher rank, beings with immunity-breakers, major artifacts ("major artifact" is Latin for "plot device"), and the big one...damage of a type that they AREN'T immune to! Yes, there are still some of those...and all of those outs are just off the top of my head.

So we can go ahead and disregard every monster book, including the Epic Level Handbook, (and Legends of Avadnu?), and all the non-deities from the IH:Bestiary then?

Heres an idea - why don't we just assume that every epic character, monster, item (etc.) has the immunity breaker, but that immunity breakers don't work on resistances - fair enough?

You say it hamstrings the side that opposes creatures with immunities...I say, it makes it more challenging for them. And D&D is about escalating challenge. Heroes are made more heroic when winning is that much harder.

So its somehow harder for heroes when they are immune to virtually everything the monsters can throw at them? I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion.

Creativity comes from developing new ideas to overcome challenges, not from tearing down things that are slightly difficult to deal with.

An immunity is not a challenge, its the removal of a potential challenge.

Likewise, immortals are immune to electricity, but epic mortals aren't, and that's half of epic/immortal gaming right there.

Rings of Universal Elemental Immunity will be considered standard equipment by the time you can afford one.

Likewise, if a DM has a big problem with immortal PCs being too powerful due to so many immunities, there's a simple answer...don't let them become gods!

Sort of takes the sting out of Immortal Gaming when you disallow PCs from becoming deities - don't you think?

A 1000th-level character can put the smack down on most deities just fine.

I'm sorry, all the 1000th-level characters were killed by a deity using its Life or Death Salient Divine Ability.

Given that epic characters would most likely be relying on magic, which allows the disjunction possibility I outlined before, that hardly seems laughable. As for it being useless versus immortals...

Why would the deity even bother with disjunction when it can just cast Anti-magic Field (to which it is immune) and then just laugh at that epic PC thats much higher level than it.

have you forgotten that it works on deities of lesser divine ranks? Unless your entire party is DvR 19+, they're not inherently immune anyway. And if they are that strong, it seems to make sense that they'd shrug off his power.

Isn't that option a bit limiting? I mean if the only option is to challenge the PCs with higher ranked deities (wherein the PCs immunities are removed) how is this any different from removing the immunities in the first place (except that doing the latter allows you to utilise all potential adversaries, not just higher ranked deities)!?

How about that makes his electrical attacks hideously unbalanced, then? A party of mixed characters (some have electricity resistance, some do not) will quickly divide up into those who only take some of the damage, and those who take all of it. E.g., if Zeus's lightning bolts deal 800 points of damage, the characters with electricity resistance 700 are facing a moderate threat...and those without any are facing a major threat. Being a god, Zeus quickly realizes who is more hurt, and focuses on the characters who take more damage. Said PCs are now facing a disproportionally deadlier encounter.

As opposed to what? Zeus realising his lightning is useless, switches to melee, attacks each character and then concentrates upon the character he was able to hit the easiest. Is the character with the lowest AC now facing a disproportionally deadlier encounter?

I disagree, see the outs listed above. Likewise, there can be epic monsters that have god-like abilities (by this, I mean virtual divine ranks) and so can overcome divine immunities of deities with lesser ranks. See the incredible work Beyond the Gates of Hell over at DICEFREAKS for more on this.

See two points up about why using progressively higher divine ranks (virtual or otherwise) is not the solution.

Almost none of those monsters are meant to be facing immortal PCs, just epic ones. Don't tout their being meant for something different as a flaw of the system, because it isn't.

We are talking about using monsters within the PCs CR bracket. However with so many immunities in play it lopsides the whole process.

Considering that you've said immortal PCs are above epic ones,

They are above epic PCs of the same level certainly. I never said it was a black and white situation...although I am sure you would never jump to that conclusion.

it doesn't seem odd that monsters that are merely "epic" won't threaten immortal PCs.

Epic is just an adjective. The problem is going to be with the situational modifiers for having so many immunities totally messing with your challenge ratings.

This isn't anything immortal monsters (or epic monsters of a much higher caliber) couldn't solve.

See above for why this solution doesn't work.

If you take yourself too seriously, no one will.

He who laughs last...

And I'm talking about all monsters, across the board, having no immunities, and their resistances not being nearly enough to stop them from thusly becoming much too easy to kill.

Its not really a poignant concern for monsters. A Fire Giant having Fire Resistance 100 instead of Fire Immunity is not going to make any real difference to how challenging it is.

If we use common sense, we use immunity, we use immunity breakers, and we chose to stop at a point before it gets ridiculous, instead of having to revise the entire system.

If we use common sense we remove immunities altogether.

You seem to be suggesting that game designers are intentionally creating bad products to appeal to the bad gamers...which sounds rather crazy.

No, I'm suggesting that once 4th Edition comes along the bulk of game designers will design for that.

Wow, even the first 20+ pages? Longest thread I've ever ruined!

I find that difficult to believe.

No, but please do point out some real world gods who only have high resistances and not immunities. And we all know that if it doesn't happen in the real world, it can NEVER happen in D&D.

So do you get the luxury of answering a question with a question and I don't?

 

[Anabstercorian]

This whole line of inquiry is foolish. Upper Krust, you win the argument! Alzrius, you lose! Upper Krust, finish the book or I'll break your knees.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Anabstercorian mate!

This whole line of inquiry is foolish. Upper Krust, you win the argument! Alzrius, you lose!

I know that, but Alzrius still hasn't realised it.

Upper Krust, finish the book or I'll break your knees.

 

[CRGreathouse]

No, the Plane of Fire in general. Besides, the sun's surface is several thousand degrees (30k?). That's the result of nuclear reactions (fission and fusion). How, exactly, does the Plane of Fire, being only fire, compare to that?

There's no fission in the sun -- and why would there be? It's endothermic for all elements as light or lighter than iron. It's all fusion in the sun.

Hence why I said that it'd be a good idea to increase the damage taken from being exposed to the Plane of Fire[...] Well yeah, hence why SKR wrote the article. [...] Hence why I said that[...] I've chosen to waive that entitlement...hence why I'm right.

Please note "hence why" is redundant. "Hence I said it'd be a good idea" (et al.) suffices.

If you remove immunities and replace them with high-level resistances, PCs will seek and prize them just as much as immunities, so we can say that your postulation there definately isn't true.

I don't think they'll prize them as much as immunities, although they'll try to get them nontheless. The problem with immunities here is that with any fixed price, PCs of a sufficiently high level are almost guarenteed to have the immunity, which changes the landscape of challenges.

On the other hand, replacing monsters' immunities with resistances inarguably decreases their threat-potential.

Certainly this is true. Of course, it also gives PCs more options, which can be both good and bad. In the extreme case, where monsters are immune to too much as a baseline, the game becomes less fun. In the other extreme, where monsters aren't immune to what they "should" sensibly be immune to, players get a sense of sameness -- everything burns, everything freezes, etc.

How about that makes his electrical attacks hideously unbalanced, then? A party of mixed characters (some have electricity resistance, some do not) will quickly divide up into those who only take some of the damage, and those who take all of it. E.g., if Zeus's lightning bolts deal 800 points of damage, the characters with electricity resistance 700 are facing a moderate threat...and those without any are facing a major threat. Being a god, Zeus quickly realizes who is more hurt, and focuses on the characters who take more damage. Said PCs are now facing a disproportionally deadlier encounter.

This is a valid point.

I disagree, see the outs listed above. Likewise, there can be epic monsters that have god-like abilities (by this, I mean virtual divine ranks) and so can overcome divine immunities of deities with lesser ranks. See the incredible work Beyond the Gates of Hell over at DICEFREAKS for more on this.

I think this is a terrible, senseless, flavor-destroying system. You're immune to most everything or nothing; it's like 2E weapon immunity, which was worse than 3.0 damage reduction, which was less flavorful than 3.5 damage reduction.

But that's just my opinion.

A large part of his impetus for that stance was as a reaction against infinite reversals...which seems to be lacking as true necessity to institute such a large change.

It'd not a large part of his stance -- it's a sidebar presented as an "exaggeration" and a "corner case".

If we use common sense, we use immunity, we use immunity breakers, and we chose to stop at a point before it gets ridiculous, instead of having to revise the entire system.

If the idea of infinite reversals was the real problem, then that would be a fair point. It's not; no one is seriously suggesting that. How do you react to this more salient quote from Sean's article:

"The dorky thing about the actual feat that Megaflames is based on is that it doesn't increase your fire damage against anything but fire-immune creatures ... so your "super-hot" fire spells don't do any more fire damage to 99% of your targets!"

That seems much more relevant and interesting, and makes a better point against Megaflames IMO.

 

[Farealmer3]

I agree with Upper Krust, i have seen how bad immunities can get. But for me 2 practical reasons exist.

1. Immunities make skill at an ability useless as an immunity basically means no matter how good you are you cannot effect it(it creates the DvR 6 troll god with divine fire mastery problem).

2. This is bigger than D&D the system it uses is D20 which represents many games that now have tons of immunities floating around thanks to the badly designed immunity system.

Now for the One ring, it could handled that by saying that the ring has "unbeatable"(1000) resistance to all damage, except where it was forged. That simple, so if you run an uber game you could destroy it outright, but since most people aren't, they have to do it the hard way.

But i believe force should always be an option the only matter is how much. It reminds me of the Batman beyond series when this guy had a suit that repelled matter and energy. So Batman captured him using NASA super steel and said that the metal was unbreakable. The suit guy then told him as he slowly broke out that nothing is unbreakable if you apply enough force. That is a good example of how i see immunities, not unbreakable, just needing more force to overcome.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Hey Wolv0rine dude!



I don't think fire damage would continue to burn you, flesh would melt rather than burn, hair might burn, some clothes perhaps. Acid and Fire damage may heal much slower than normal wounds...?

I think creating optional damage structures for each of the energy types might be interesting, although its not my priority at the moment.

To paraphrase your own catch-phrase, UK, it's all a matter of scale. Yeah, flesh will melt if[/b[ it takes enough damage. But if the flame breath of the red dragon doesn't melt you into goo, it makes sense that having just been bathed in fire you (and your clothes, gear, etc) would continue to be aflame until you were put out (or until the fire just kind of petered out, but That is asking a LOT of the d20 system). It's not so much adding damage structures as taking the existing damage form to it's logical next step. If doused with acid, the acid doesn't cease to be acidic after the initial splash, you're going to be burned until it's washed off.
That said, like I added before, if one isn't inclined to go that far, it's kind of silly to begin the process. I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Farealmer3]

Another thing about immunity that bothers me is that most are supernatural, yet they are labled extraordinary. For example a dragon(according to the Draconomican) is immune to energy because of a tie with the elemental planes the same reason they have breath weapons. So despite the fact that both powers come from the same source one is magical and the other is not? In a magical world something either is made of a substance that resists fire(fire resistence). Or it is never burned because of a magical reason(immunity), because all mundane flesh burns, if it doesn't magic is involved. And thus the immunity is supernatural, yet for "some reason" it is not. It's like regeneration healing heads and the knowledge in the brain cells, yet not be magical?

It should be noted that i think a fire elemental not only should be immune to fire but healed by it. It seems stupid that a fire rat(MM2) is healed by fire yet a creature made from it isn't.

 

[Sledge]

I've gotta throw my 2 cents in here. I have in a few sessions removed "immunities and made them resistances, because you either end up in situations where player X is useless against a huge list of opponents and is very frustrated, or you strike those opponents from the list. It is like taking several wizards up against golems. One encounter is a challenge. But 1 encounter out of 10 gets to be a nuisance, and if you have a savvy opponent it SHOULD be 1 encounter out of every 2 wherein the party is annoyed. Immunities suck and get to just be a nuisance. No benefit from them. Plenty from their removal. This isn't me just talking this is my experiences with currently a 15th level group, and 16th (should be 17 tomorrow) in addition to the epic group which will finally get going again after I get Labyrinth of Madness set up right.

 

[Farealmer3]

Sledge reminded me of something. Doesn't it seem stupid that a mortal mage can make a creature immune to magic, yet a god cannot make it'self immune. After all what better way for a fighter god to overcome it's greatest weakness(or a mage god with peircing, bludgeoning, and slashing immunity)? And that another problem with immunities, they should be easier to acquire with magic, but most creatures don't have them, not because they wouldn't but because designers don't give it to them. Thats another reason why i want most immunities gone, if they aren't there, you don't have to ask why every powerhouse doesn't have them.

You can say a DM has a duty to ref, and i agree to a point, but if you have to balance the black and white, then it isn't balanced. By the rules you can become invincible, so thats all the proof i need to judge immunities unbalanced. The rules need to do one of 3 things.
1. Limit immunities
2. Remove them
3. Give them layers
Personally i use a little of all three, but i'am just complicated like that.

 

[Alzrius]

Blech, I was going to respond point-for-point again, but with everyone calling for an end to this, it wouldn't be fun anymore. In the spirit of keeping things from becoming an actual arguement, I'll let it go...for now.

But I know I'm right.