Another Immortals Handbook thread

[CRGreathouse]

I'm not 100% sure I have the balance for these new rules perfect as yet.

The mechanics between threat and multiplier are balanced, however, when you factor in Damage Reduction they start to favour the high critical multipliers.

At the moment the mechanics strongly favor high multipliers. If that's a concern to you, you'll need to do something about the basic system, because everything at the moment favors high multipliers:

• High threat ranges are less useful when there are more ways to increase the range;
• Low multipliers are hurt more than high multipliers by directly subtracting from the multiplier; and
• Low multipliers have trouble penetrating DR.

Note that the situation is reversed if most creatures encountered are fragile (longsword then has 19/x4 vs. 20/x5 for an axe, making the sword half again as good in critical terms), but I suspect this will make up a smaller proportion of encounters than those resisting crits to some degree.

One possible method of handling this would be a raw multiplier of the critical damage, but this may put you back where you were before mechanically. I don't know.

Conceptually, what is a creature "doing" when it gets a crit for more than x1 damage on a "solid" creature? Why does the hit do more damage when there are no working parts? I have some trouble understanding this, and a lot of trouble understanding why sneak attack should work.


Further, while I abstractly agree that Inevitables (along with many/most constructs) should be subject to critical hits, I'll note they aren't balanced for this extra damage since they have no Con modifier. This may need to be addressed, especially since you have a hardline interpretation on Hit Dice (and as such aren't likely to increase them to compensate).

 

[Fieari]

I think I can answer the conceptual part. Even though there are no working parts, there will be locations that will cause more structural damage than others. In a golem, for instance, it would likely be more damaging to strike at one of the joints, where the material is somewhat thinner and more prone to break, simply by nature of there being less material there and that location being important for locomotion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think I can answer the conceptual part. Even though there are no working parts, there will be locations that will cause more structural damage than others. In a golem, for instance, it would likely be more damaging to strike at one of the joints, where the material is somewhat thinner and more prone to break, simply by nature of there being less material there and that location being important for locomotion.

1. Why would a structural weak point (like a hinge/joint/etc.) be unaffected (x1 damage) by a sword or axe but strongly affected (double damage) by a pick or scythe? That doesn't make sense to me.
2. What about an ooze, where there are no structural weak points at all?

 

[Sledge]

Okay keen/impact is +1
rending is +2

opening/striking is +6
shredding is +6

shouldn't opening/striking be +3 or so?

 

[Sledge]

the opening and superior crit both say triple. This is meant to use the "d&d math" right? Together they give a 5 times right? If so it might be best to use the actual x3 notation in the write ups or better yet give clarification that critical range multipliers stack like other multipliers.

p.s. it's really hard to navigate around the site still. The titles of sections don't lend to easy surfing.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi CRGreathouse mate!

At the moment the mechanics strongly favor high multipliers. If that's a concern to you, you'll need to do something about the basic system, because everything at the moment favors high multipliers:

• High threat ranges are less useful when there are more ways to increase the range;

• 
  
  The same could be said for the ability to increase critical multiplier. So I'm not sure I see that as an issue.
  
  

  [*]Low multipliers are hurt more than high multipliers by directly subtracting from the multiplier; and

  
  Initially I was contemplating this as a fraction, rather than a penalty.
  
  eg. Solid 1/2, Liquid 1/3, Gaseous 1/4, Incandescent 1/5 etc.
  
  What do you think?
  
  

  [*]Low multipliers have trouble penetrating DR.

This assumes DR is standard, but I think we pretty much have to assume it will be standard, certainly at epic levels.

That said, remember we are talking about critical hits here, not base damage. If someone is having trouble penetrating a given DR, then increasing the critical multiplier is only going to help them rather than hinder them.

Note that the situation is reversed if most creatures encountered are fragile (longsword then has 19/x4 vs. 20/x5 for an axe, making the sword half again as good in critical terms), but I suspect this will make up a smaller proportion of encounters than those resisting crits to some degree.

One possible method of handling this would be a raw multiplier of the critical damage, but this may put you back where you were before mechanically. I don't know.

I know. Its a puzzle all right. I don't see how it can be balanced if we make it a flat increase across all weapons though.

Maybe a +1, +3/2, +2 method would be better, but that seems a bit awkward.

Conceptually, what is a creature "doing" when it gets a crit for more than x1 damage on a "solid" creature? Why does the hit do more damage when there are no working parts? I have some trouble understanding this, and a lot of trouble understanding why sneak attack should work.

Any solid object certainly has weak points (as Fieari has touched upon).

When I think of a critical hit upon a liquid based monster I think of the grenade hit to the T-1000 in Terminator 2. Although you could also have any blow which manages to seperate, or displace a significant portion of the liquid mass from the main 'whole'.

For gas based monsters, again you want an effect that going to disturb as much of it as possible.

For incandescent creatures you probably want the blows to smother as much of it as you can.

Remember that with something like a fire or water elemental, we are already assuming they can be hurt by weapons, so its not so great a stretch to assume some people know how to hurt them better than others.

Further, while I abstractly agree that Inevitables (along with many/most constructs) should be subject to critical hits, I'll note they aren't balanced for this extra damage since they have no Con modifier. This may need to be addressed, especially since you have a hardline interpretation on Hit Dice (and as such aren't likely to increase them to compensate).

Sticking to the letter of the law, Inevitables are clockwork creatures, which means they are not solid, but rather a mechanism, not doubt with certain cogs and springs more important than others.

But I take your point about lacking Constitution. According to my Monster Manual 3, Warforged actually have a Constitution score so this would seem to be the appropriate course of action.

Kolyarut: Con 11
Marut: Con 20
Zelekhut: Con 14
Quarut: Con 14
Varakhut: Con 14

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Sledge mate!

Okay keen/impact is +1
rending is +2

opening/striking is +6
shredding is +6

shouldn't opening/striking be +3 or so?

No. Although its possible Rending should be +3. A +1 critical multiplier increase to a base threat of 20 is worth a +1 market modifier.

We are allowing the ability to increase once normally, then once more at divine levels (represented by a +6 bonus), then once more at cosmic levels.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again!

the opening and superior crit both say triple. This is meant to use the "d&d math" right? Together they give a 5 times right? If so it might be best to use the actual x3 notation in the write ups or better yet give clarification that critical range multipliers stack like other multipliers.

Together? Opening is for slashing/piercing weapons and striking is for crushing weapons...maybe I didn't make that clear enough...?

p.s. it's really hard to navigate around the site still. The titles of sections don't lend to easy surfing.

Do the rollovers not work for you? When you position the mouse over a link you should get the more obvious section name...a bit like the monsters in the bestiary having both esoteric and common names. I thought the idea was kinda neat.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The same could be said for the ability to increase critical multiplier. So I'm not sure I see that as an issue.

There's a natural limit to threat ranges beyond which they have no effect. If you can only hit on a 10, dropping your threat range below that is pointless. Since as you always say, fights at higher levels involve hitting your opponent more times, the chance of 'wasting' damage by getting a huge crit is slim.

Initially I was contemplating this as a fraction, rather than a penalty.

eg. Solid 1/2, Liquid 1/3, Gaseous 1/4, Incandescent 1/5 etc.

What do you think?

That does balance better across weapons. I don't know how I like it.

This assumes DR is standard, but I think we pretty much have to assume it will be standard, certainly at epic levels.

That said, remember we are talking about critical hits here, not base damage. If someone is having trouble penetrating a given DR, then increasing the critical multiplier is only going to help them rather than hinder them.

I'm just saying that low-crit weapons will fare poorly under a subtractive system. Even with increases they'll have trouble doing more than x1 or x2.

Any solid object certainly has weak points (as Fieari has touched upon).

When I think of a critical hit upon a liquid based monster I think of the grenade hit to the T-1000 in Terminator 2. Although you could also have any blow which manages to seperate, or displace a significant portion of the liquid mass from the main 'whole'.

For gas based monsters, again you want an effect that going to disturb as much of it as possible.

For incandescent creatures you probably want the blows to smother as much of it as you can.

So a pick is good at smothering and disturbing plasma/gas creatures? Why are picks better than swords at these varied functions? It makes no sense.

But I take your point about lacking Constitution. According to my Monster Manual 3, Warforged actually have a Constitution score so this would seem to be the appropriate course of action.

Kolyarut: Con 11
Marut: Con 20
Zelekhut: Con 14
Quarut: Con 14
Varakhut: Con 14

Fair enough.

 

[Sledge]

Hello again!
Together? Opening is for slashing/piercing weapons and striking is for crushing weapons...maybe I didn't make that clear enough...?
Do the rollovers not work for you? When you position the mouse over a link you should get the more obvious section name...a bit like the monsters in the bestiary having both esoteric and common names. I thought the idea was kinda neat.

Umm nope the rollovers don't work.

Anyway my point wasn't the enhancement titles. Its just that I've already had to explain to someone that the two items that triple the crit range should have their triples added together using the usually d&d math into a single 5x.