Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Alzrius]

Is the antimagic article up? I don't see it on your site, Krust.

It's here: http://www.immortalshandbook.com/sermon1.3.htm

You may be having the same problem I did. My AOL browser didn't show the new update, but IE (and Firefox) do.

 

[Pssthpok]

Not what I expected... Borlon's idea seems closer to home for me.

 

[Alzrius]

Hmmm. I'm not terribly impressed with the revised way of doing anti-magic. UK suggests that it makes spells and supernatural attacks have half their normal effect instead of being completely negated. I would prefer that it mesh a little more seamlessly with the existing rules.

For instance, suppose it reduces the caster level of spells or SLAs by 20. If this reduces the caster level below the minimum caster level the spell doesn't function. Supernatural abilities do 20 dice less damage (for breath weapons and the like) or have +20 to saves (for non-damaging effects with a save) or don't work unless the creature has more than 20 hit dice (for other effects).

High level creatures would be greatly inconvenienced by this, but (assuming CL above 20) would not be entirely neutralized.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of this.

 

[Eversius]

Hmm. So could you also reverse Borlon's idea to work like UK's? For example, make "Mega-Magic" increase caster level/HD for the purpose of effects by 20? If so, how could you augment this and Borlon's proposed effect by heightening AMF/MMF or other effects that are similar?

 

[Eversius]

Also, UK, I'm glad to hear that the bestiary is almost ready! I'm psyched! People who paid for the preview still get the full version, right?

 

[Verequus]

In Elements of Magic - Revised/Mythic Earth, anti-magic is handled like spell resistance. Every effect has to make a caster level check against the SR of the AMF, which starts at 10. I like this solution better. Basically, you have three areas: 1. The caster level is less than SR-21 - all spells fail. 2. The caster level is between SR-20 and SR-1 - spells can function. 3. The caster level is at least the same as the SR - all spells function. There is no need to change the spells and their effects, unlike your system, UK. Also, dividing numbers should be avoided at all costs.

The only problem is, how you determine the SR within the core rules. In EoM-R/ME you have to increase the costs for higher SRs and the maximum is capped by the maximum rank of a magical skill. Maybe increase the SR with the caster level?

 

[Borlon]

The EoMR/ME rules look like they extend well to an epic spell system. Maybe it is not so surprising that their anti-magic rules might also work well at epic levels. If we are talking about a Supernatural effect (like a dragon's breath weapon), would it be the source's hit dice that is used as a caster level?

I also recall something about incorporeal creatures disappearing inside an antimagic cone/field. Or maybe it is an ethereal creature? Does that happen in EoMR/ME too?

As for the SR; to absolutely match the core rules, an antimagic field would have to be a minimum of SR 40 to block all spells by non-epic casters. That's very high considering it could be generated by an 11th level caster. I wouldn't allow it to scale with CL. If I did, then I would make it SR 20 + caster level. CL capped at 20 for a maximum SR of 40.

If you want to make greater effects, use higher level spells. +10 SR/3 spell levels might work. If a 6th level spell gives SR 40, then a 9th level spell could give SR 50, a 12th level spell could give SR 60, and so on. If scaling with caster level is a good idea, each 3 levels would increase the cap on caster level by 10.

This idea is pretty rough, and maybe it should be in its own thread. I just hope that UK doesn't work through all the variations on this before publishing. It's been delayed enough.

I've been thinking about the other kinds of immunities; SKR's site made me think. I think that a paladin's immunity to fear needs to be more subtantial than +10 to saving throws vs fear. +10 + paladin level would be better. I think the other immunities could be handled the same way: +10 +1/class level, where the class is the one that provides the immunity.

For saves that give half damage, you could add a rule that if you save with a margin of 20 or more, you take no damage, just as if you had evasion or mettle.

If something doesn't allow a save, you get one anyway, but at a -20 penalty (this number might vary).

I like the notion that elemental immunities be based on hit dice. Resistance of 5/10/20 per hit dice, or something similar. My only concern is that a 1 hd creature that is immune to fire (but without a fire subtype or anything) would have less resitance than a 1 hd creature with fire resistance 10. Maybe there should be minimum values. Immunity can never be less than resistance 20 or something.

Anyways. While I have high hopes for the release of the various chapters of the Immortals Handbook, I don't think the material on immunities is anywhere close to being published.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Heh

Howdy!

Uhm... Ok. I'm still not sure I get it. I understand that some ability scores might be worth more than others (although I thought we all agreed many moons ago that abilitiy modifiers are equal; it depends on the class/ special ability using them). But Rulesmaster makes a good case.

I'm not totally sure what to do for the best regarding ability scores, they have been a thorn in my side for a while.

But I still don't get it how you rate a class ability like Divine Grace or an undead having +1 deflection per charisma bonus. (Well, it's easier for the undead, though you'd have to do it for each single undead, if they had different cha.). But Divine Grace? Monk's AC bonus from Wisdom?

Well generally what I would do is take the average. So something like Divine Grace, a typical Paladin would have Charisma 16 which is a +3 bonus to all saves which is equivalent to 3 feats which is equivalent to +0.5 CR.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Borlon dude!

Hmmm. I'm not terribly impressed with the revised way of doing anti-magic. UK suggests that it makes spells and supernatural attacks have half their normal effect instead of being completely negated. I would prefer that it mesh a little more seamlessly with the existing rules.

It does mesh seamlessly - its pretty much meta-magic in reverse.

For instance, suppose it reduces the caster level of spells or SLAs by 20. If this reduces the caster level below the minimum caster level the spell doesn't function.

Where did I say it reduces caster level?

Supernatural abilities do 20 dice less damage (for breath weapons and the like) or have +20 to saves (for non-damaging effects with a save) or don't work unless the creature has more than 20 hit dice (for other effects).

I don't know where you are getting these ideas from, but it isn't my optional anti-magic rules. Either you don't understand it or I haven't explained it well enough.

Feel free to post up some examples of where you think its broken and I'll take a look. I don't see where you are getting this +20 to saves business!

High level creatures would be greatly inconvenienced by this, but (assuming CL above 20) would not be entirely neutralized.

The whole point is that it inconveniences opponents relative to their power, yet does not totally neutralise magic.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey CRGreathouse matey!

Idiocy. Measure stats where they're best for the purpose of increasing them, not where they're worst.

But thats the point - the stats are not equal. Physical stats give far more bang for their buck, in fact they are pretty much twice as powerful, 'pound for pound', as their mental counterparts.