Another Immortals Handbook thread

[CRGreathouse]

I'm using dreamweaver mx.

Okay I am confused about this CSS problem - exactly what is wrong?

There are two CSS files referenced in the code, and neither exists in the locations given. One is somewhere else (I looked its contents over), and the other just isn't there at all. CSS files give files their styling. In your case they're only used a little bit, so not too much is lost, but still....

A good rewrite of the code would put more of the styling in the CSS files, and maybe even make alternate CSS files for people who liked slightly different looks for the site. You could have one that is high-contrast, for example, for people with poor vision or color blindness.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

There are two CSS files referenced in the code, and neither exists in the locations given. One is somewhere else (I looked its contents over), and the other just isn't there at all. CSS files give files their styling. In your case they're only used a little bit, so not too much is lost, but still....

A good rewrite of the code would put more of the styling in the CSS files, and maybe even make alternate CSS files for people who liked slightly different looks for the site. You could have one that is high-contrast, for example, for people with poor vision or color blindness.

I remember having a few problems with CSS initially...probably where this stems from.

However I am still not exactly sure what you are saying the problem 'is'? How do these 'dead' CSS styles affect anything? Are some people not able to see the links - which should be the same colour as the page titles.

I have eleven CSS Styles, of which I have no doubt three or four were test styles and two others have not yet seen use (basically there is one style per colour on the site...for some reason it wouldn't let me make a style that was the same colour as the text, possibly ineptitude on my part).

I fear that making alternate CSS styles for different visitors is at the present beyond my ken. At the moment I doubt that researching how to incorporate the idea would be a frugal use of my time...unless someone can talk an imbecile like me through the procedure.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Sledge matey!

basically what I'm saying is that if a weapon is increased 6-20/x4 then you would reduced the crit range before you reduced the multiplier. In other words this weapon would be 12-20/x4. Against liquid it would be 15-20/x3 and against gaseous it would be 18-20/x2. Incandescent would be uncrittable to this weapon. Make any sense?

A sort of Augmented Criticals in reverse?

Perhaps improving threat range is all that should be allowed (?) and the ability to affect monsters otherwise immune to crits should be the preserve of certain feats.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey dude!

I like that you're dealing with fortification, but I think the subtypes (solid, fragile, etc.) are needlessly overcomplicating things.

Possibly.

Frex, the PCs are fighting a group of zombies (solid), a wraith (incorporeal) and a blood ooze (liquid). Two of the PCs are using longswords (19-20/x2), one is using a hammer (x3), and one is using a longbow (x3). Now imagine the nightmare of bookkeeping the DM has in order to ensure that all the PCs do the proper amounts of damage on their crits.

Well in the above example none of the PCs could effectively crit any of the creatures with any of the weapons - so their would actually be no book-keeping to remember at all.

There is, IIRC, an epic feat that enables characters to deliver crits (though I can't seem to find it in the SRD) to non-crittable creatures (or was it sneak attacks?). Anyway, even if there weren't one, it wouldn't be hard to MAKE one and avoid all this nonsense. Say, you can deal crits, but the range is halved (a natural 20 always crits, though). This neatly solves the fortification problem without all the subtypes. For sneak attacks, you deal -5d6 damage, frex. Incorporeal creatures should be immune to all crits except for a few specific cases - holy weapons, e.g. (since most incorporeal are undead), or bane weapons. (Speaking of bane weapons, I just thought of something - a bane weapon could deal crits to the creature to which it is attuned, even if it's normally immune - this would bump the market price up a bit, but it's only one enhancement that works).

Maybe a simpler approach is the way to go, although I sort of liked the idea that liquid was tougher to crit than solid and so forth.

And what about the Devastating Critical feat? If someone has the opportunity to crit on a 2-20 (say, a deity), chances are pretty good that he'll kill most opponents with one hit.

The Devastating Critical feat has its own balance issues that hopefully I can sort out in part four of the article on absolutes.

Regarding immunities in general, my original idea was that portfolios would allow deities to trump immunities. However I no longer believe that is the proper approach to take. Immunities (in immortals at any rate) leave so much of the game redundant that you pretty much have to compensate by making a creatures abilities trump those immunities. This means that the immunity (and the trumping) become mechanically irrelevant.

Philosophically the fire immune immortal could stand at the centre of the sun and be unaffected, even though it could still be burnt by the Phaethons fiery touch. But this approach still alienates all non-divine beings (notably epic characters), though perhaps you could argue that it should...albeit such an argument would be an appeal to authority.

 

[Sledge]

Well changing it to feats would be simpler, however it does put us in a situation where fighters continually need more and more feats to be effective. Need to make sure fighters are still viable at epic levels.

I'd love to see your devestating critical thoughts sooner, rather than later too.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I fear that making alternate CSS styles for different visitors is at the present beyond my ken. At the moment I doubt that researching how to incorporate the idea would be a frugal use of my time...unless someone can talk an imbecile like me through the procedure.

I'll email you on this point. It's actually not hard to do; I do this on my own site. Personally I'd love to see a higher-contrast version; the yellow-on-white is hard for me to read on my laptop.

 

[Pssthpok]

I'd love to see your devestating critical thoughts sooner, rather than later too.

Same here.

Any chance of DevCrit becoming a "vorpal epic feat" for fighters? +5 to Crit modifier on a 20 or after a failed Fort save isn't anything to laugh at and removes the infinite damage aspect.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Sledge and Pssthpok!

Well changing it to feats would be simpler, however it does put us in a situation where fighters continually need more and more feats to be effective.

Exactly. There would be no net gain for such feats (the curse of the absolute you see).

Need to make sure fighters are still viable at epic levels.

The Metamartial Feats should take care of that, not to mention some of the other stff I have cooked up.

I'd love to see your devestating critical thoughts sooner, rather than later too.

Same here.

Any chance of DevCrit becoming a "vorpal epic feat" for fighters? +5 to Crit modifier on a 20 or after a failed Fort save isn't anything to laugh at and removes the infinite damage aspect.

I wouldn't be averse to such a change, however, the flaw in Dev Crit I want to sort out is intrinsic to the save or die mechanic in general, so thats the part I'll be addressing.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

I'll email you on this point. It's actually not hard to do; I do this on my own site.

Thanks, just remember to word it for someone who knows little on the subject.

Personally I'd love to see a higher-contrast version; the yellow-on-white is hard for me to read on my laptop.

...well I did choose the darkest yellow available. How else could I keep that prismatic theme.

 

[Sledge]

So when is it going to be finished?