Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cheiromancer matey!

I'll pay it! Send me the info at jim_stenberg at hotmail dot com and I'll do it ASAP.

I appreciate the love, I'll contact you later, thanks again!

Don't worry about paying me. Just send me bits of the IHB as they become available.

I'm not sure I like that idea - you guys know what I am like at following through on these release dates.

 

[Sledge]

I think Cheiromancer is on to something. Call it the "Guilt System" of motivation.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Well, I give money annually for my EN World membership. And support them on their fundraising drives. I even gave money to that other d20 site, though I never visit them. d20reviews? Something like that. So it is not like sponsoring the Immortals Handbook website is totally out of character. Especially if I get a comp copy of a product now and then.

 

[Sledge]

Just had a thought regarding critical hit immunity. This may have been said before, but why not simply make it a penalty to the confirming roll? No math, nothing confusing to work out.

 

[historian]

Hey U_K!

Indeed, the Neutronium Golem actually does more base damage than the entry level Time Lord believe it or not...unless of course the Time Lord actually spent a few of its many divine ability slots on improving its strength.

The new density rules actually scared me at first, but in retrospect it all makes sense and looking back at the old stats for the Neutronium Golem they were not truly CR 1000+...but the new ones are.

 

[DDM]

Wow.
Hello UK, we've been in contact by email (I'm David Destefanis), Italy.
Well, I've just finished reading the 18 pages thread..
Nice, albeit I want you to focus on finishing the books (I'll keep my gloves on too, just to paraphrase another poster here ), I have a question about immunities.

This whole talk about resistance vs immunities look sound and nice, however I have a problem.
The problem is that with resistances, you are never safe from damage. Which is ok, but for weaker characters (in hp terms), it means certain doom.
In my campaign, some epic mages have 40-45 hp (it's second edition, not 3rd), and fear of course damaging spells and effects, so have with them some immuity objects / spells.
This does not make them invulnerable, imho, far from it.
By resistance talk, it would mean that nearly any hit against them would kill them, and this is, imho, unacceptable.

So I've been thinking about it.
My solution, considering your system, would be just for them to have "higher" resistance than the fighter counterparts. Which means that they would be immune normally, but would get hit (and maybe killed) by something very powerful.
Which is, if I think about it, no different than having a fire immunity but facing "white fire" (as I call it) which is the same as mega fire (and very very rare) allowing you to bypass immunities etc.
Or facing a immortal with some fire portofoglio (immunities then, for what I think of it, are decreased to resistance in that case).
So everything seems to work, BUT then I have another problem: what will stop, besides careful DMing and good players, players "not mage" to get the same very high resistance ?
Until now, facts in my campaign were that magic was scarse (playing at rAvenloft didn't help) and also usually every PC worked on particular projects, or took particular items with them, so while some mages were keen on immunities items, fighters or others were more focused on others items. But I'm thinking that in a immortal campaign, power is different, and time too, so maybe (maybe ???) PC will be able to close the gap in everything, UNLESS I make it so that higher resistances are very difficult to obtain, thus letting the mages continue their "leadership" in that subject, while letting the fighters having to focus on some other things.
..
what is your opinion about it ?
Thanks.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Cheiromancer I have to wait for a reply from the webspace provider before I can give you the details. Hopefully they will respond today.

Hey Sledge mate!

Just had a thought regarding critical hit immunity. This may have been said before, but why not simply make it a penalty to the confirming roll? No math, nothing confusing to work out.

I suspect there is certainly more than one way to 'skin this cat'.

As I have mentioned before I won't be addressing absolutes in the Immortals Handbook except perhaps as an optional rule.

As to your solution, it reminds me of Asgardian Heartwire Armour in the Book of Exalted Deeds.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Wow.

Hello UK, we've been in contact by email (I'm David Destefanis), Italy.

Hiya David mate - welcome to the boards!

Well, I've just finished reading the 18 pages thread..

...yes but have you read the other 18 (or so) Immortals Handbook threads yet?

Don't worry, its not copulsory.

Nice, albeit I want you to focus on finishing the books (I'll keep my gloves on too, just to paraphrase another poster here ), I have a question about immunities.

Fire away!, I am on my lunch break at the moment anyway.

This whole talk about resistance vs immunities look sound and nice, however I have a problem.

The problem is that with resistances, you are never safe from damage. Which is ok, but for weaker characters (in hp terms), it means certain doom.

In my campaign, some epic mages have 40-45 hp (it's second edition, not 3rd), and fear of course damaging spells and effects, so have with them some immuity objects / spells.
This does not make them invulnerable, imho, far from it.
By resistance talk, it would mean that nearly any hit against them would kill them, and this is, imho, unacceptable.[/QUOTE]

But aren't they facing a similar problem with physical attacks?

One idea I would suggest is allowing one wish to increase a characters hit points by 1 point per caster level up to the characters maximum possible hit points.

So a 20th-level Wizard (Con 16) could have a possible 70 hit points. So if the wizard only had 45 hp, they could cast a wish to take them up to 65hp, then another wish would take them up to 70hp (their maximum).

So I've been thinking about it.
My solution, considering your system, would be just for them to have "higher" resistance than the fighter counterparts. Which means that they would be immune normally, but would get hit (and maybe killed) by something very powerful.
Which is, if I think about it, no different than having a fire immunity but facing "white fire" (as I call it) which is the same as mega fire (and very very rare) allowing you to bypass immunities etc.

Wouldn't the spellcasters simply have some sort of spell cast to protect them against this energy?

Or facing a immortal with some fire portofoglio (immunities then, for what I think of it, are decreased to resistance in that case).

Thats one way of tackling the issue.

So everything seems to work, BUT then I have another problem: what will stop, besides careful DMing and good players, players "not mage" to get the same very high resistance ?

Not much. It might give the spellcasters an edge if you make the solution spell based of course.

Until now, facts in my campaign were that magic was scarse (playing at rAvenloft didn't help) and also usually every PC worked on particular projects, or took particular items with them, so while some mages were keen on immunities items, fighters or others were more focused on others items. But I'm thinking that in a immortal campaign, power is different, and time too, so maybe (maybe ???) PC will be able to close the gap in everything, UNLESS I make it so that higher resistances are very difficult to obtain, thus letting the mages continue their "leadership" in that subject, while letting the fighters having to focus on some other things.

I think just make it a spell, or even a spell that stacks with an item. So that if the Fighters and Wizards both have the same resistance from similar items, the Wizard can further increase their resistance via spellcasting.

what is your opinion about it ?

One idea I have been toying with lately is the idea that as part of their extended class features, Wizards might be allowed better spells that can be permanenced upon themselves.

Another thing that might help you out is the third article on Absolutes which deals with Anti-magic. Suffice to say it might be what you are looking for. I'll try and get that posted as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Hope I was able to help.

 

[DDM]

Hiya David mate - welcome to the boards!

Thanks UK mate.

...yes but have you read the other 18 (or so) Immortals Handbook threads yet?

Don't worry, its not copulsory.

ARfff... Not yet. If I have nothing to do I will.

But aren't they facing a similar problem with physical attacks?

Sure they are, but usually mages are *never* hit by physical attacks.
Stoneskin in 2ed gives total immunity to X attacks, wherether they hit or not, where X is 1d4 plus 1 for each 2 levels. So a 24th level caster would not fear anything from 13-16 attacks rolls. Enough to run away, to cast more than a couple of spells, to get protection from other PCs, etc.
And since Stoneskin is permanent until dispelled or "used", casters are usually safe.
High-level casters have also a plethora of contingencies.
6th level magic has Contingency, and my group use it with Elayne's Resilient Sphere (basically an improved Otiluke's REsilient Sphere) to prevent any catastrophe from happening to them. There is also Persistence, which can be used also defensively with magic like Fire Shield, and Chain Contingency (9th lvl magic).
All in all, physical attacks are never a problem for mages, in the short run.

One idea I would suggest is allowing one wish to increase a characters hit points by 1 point per caster level up to the characters maximum possible hit points.

I'm against it. Well, of course Wish can do that, but then it would mean that for epic/immortal campaigning, a *berk* (as we call them in planescape setting) would have to have a lot of hit points everytime. Which takes away from personalizing your own character, imho. Sure, you *can* do it, and there's nothing wrong with it. I know however that none of my players would want to do that. It is more akin to Power Gaming for them, and min/max, which they despise.

Like I don't like very much some old immortal rules, saying that you need all your characteristics (str, con, etc) to be 13 or more to become immortal. (2ed rules)

Wouldn't the spellcasters simply have some sort of spell cast to protect them against this energy?

Sure, some would.
However, the two spellcasters in my campaign are Transmuters, and in 2ed this mean no Abjuration school.
While Fire Shield is also of Alteration school, it is mostly an exception.
Also, I don't know how your "resistance system" works with magic.
In 2ed, there is no resistance like in 3ed (albeit the resistance system is a good new rule, and I'm using it more and more in 2ed too) but some stupid items like Ring of Fire Resistance.
So spells like Fire Shield (mage, 4th lvl) allow the caster to suffer half damage from a failed save, and none with a succesful save, from fire (or cold).
From what I've gathered from your system, this is what you would call "immunity", and immunity is not a good thing right ? Or is it ?
So are you just telling me that "immunity SPELLS" are ok, since they wear off ?
What if they don't so quickly ?
I mean, no one did that yet, but a 7th/8th level improved fire shield spell could last for days, and not rounds. IT's not permanent, but it's like Immunity for epic spellcasters, since it does not cost them anything to cast it back from time to time.

Then we have priest spells, like Protection From Fire, which gives total immunity to fire up to 12damage per caster level (so a 20th level priest would be protected from 240 damage, which is a lot by 2ed standards), AND give 1/2 damage vs it anyway with a +4 ST bonus, so first the caster would save for half damage, then substract the amount from the protection.
Ok, it is only for the priest (the absorbtion), and it lasts only 1 turn / level, but still, it's only 3rd level.

So what about spells ? is it ok for them to give "full immunities" ?

I think just make it a spell, or even a spell that stacks with an item. So that if the Fighters and Wizards both have the same resistance from similar items, the Wizard can further increase their resistance via spellcasting.

So this would mean that some spells, like Fire Shield, would have a resistance cap against epic/immortal magic, meaning that some fire amount could damage the caster anyway.
And that stacking would be allowed.
So for example if a ring of fire resistance would give a 50 damage reduction, and Fire Shield a 30, I could rule that both together gives 70, or 80, or 100 (who knows, balance is about 2ed, still have to work out that one).

One idea I have been toying with lately is the idea that as part of their extended class features, Wizards might be allowed better spells that can be permanenced upon themselves.

I've been toying with that too. As for now, the only spell who has been permanenced by a player was Tongues. But I guess that for an Immortal Campaing, this could be done, of course, if limited in number (we don't want each caster with 39863459365 permanency on them ).

Another thing that might help you out is the third article on Absolutes which deals with Anti-magic. Suffice to say it might be what you are looking for. I'll try and get that posted as soon as possible.

I was cursing indeed when I saw that it was not finished yet.
Get to work, you lazy UK guy. (j/k)

Hope I was able to help.

You were, thanks a lot, and I gave you some more material to ponder with.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Cheiromancer I have to wait for a reply from the webspace provider before I can give you the details. Hopefully they will respond today.

I hope I hear from you in the next few hours- I'm going out of town till Sunday. I had thought you had the payment information ready.