Another Immortals Handbook thread

[CRGreathouse]

I gave you a mention on a General thread yesterday, posting a collection of high-level creatures. I thought this might be of interest here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140531#post2424339

 

[Alzrius]

The only point of confusion for me at this juncture are the names (specifically the monster names, not character names, or those mentioned in the Adventure Ideas).

Is there any logical point to making the names of monsters PI?

In all honesty, no. While perfectly allowed in the d20 License, this is something that the community doesn't seem to like, and (IMHO) tends to create some confusion among gamers when a monster with a different name but identical stats appears in another product.

The only names companies still regularly make PI are the names of specific individuals, organizations, etc. (e.g. you'd say that "Lady Tadra" of the "Koph Nia" is PI, but "akalich" wouldn't be). Since, however, virtually all of these names appear in sections that are already not OGC (as you outlined above) then they're already covered. The remainder of the names are ones that cannot be PI because they're from real-world mythology and theology (e.g. Sandalphon, Ouroboros, etc.).

 

[Nifelhein]

I am with Alzrius on the issue, it jsut seems odd and seems to tkae the possibility of being a reference from your book, I like more the "common and not full of flavour name" is open content (like calling it a X_Lich) and the flavoured name is closed, so fans and owners of the book can use it on their daily games (anyone for daily?), which could be some other name.

And yes, i meant abomination, sorry for the confusion.

As for D0 Modedrn, sorry, I don't even consider it whenever I speak, I like GURPS more for modedrn games.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

I am with Alzrius on the issue, it jsut seems odd and seems to tkae the possibility of being a reference from your book, I like more the "common and not full of flavour name" is open content (like calling it a X_Lich) and the flavoured name is closed, so fans and owners of the book can use it on their daily games (anyone for daily?), which could be some other name.

But some of the monsters don't have secondary names, although it wouldn't be too difficult to conjure the missing names up I suppose. :\

Is that what the rest of you think? Keep the esoteric names PI and the common names OGC?

And yes, i meant abomination, sorry for the confusion.

No problem.

As for D0 Modedrn, sorry, I don't even consider it whenever I speak, I like GURPS more for modedrn games.

Is this directed at me?

Edit: ...and I meant to say thanks to CRGreathouse for the nod over in the General Discussion Forums. I appreciate the love dude.

 

[Alzrius]

But some of the monsters don't have secondary names, although it wouldn't be too difficult to conjure the missing names up I suppose. :\

Is that what the rest of you think? Keep the esoteric names PI and the common names OGC?

I don't see the problem with both of them being OGC. If you had to choose though, the OGC names should be the ones used in the Table of Contents and such. But really, why have the secondary names be PI when those names aren't even used that much. Those names just don't seem to be so intrinsic to the book that they must not be allowed to be used by anyone else.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't see the problem with both of them being OGC. If you had to choose though, the OGC names should be the ones used in the Table of Contents and such. But really, why have the secondary names be PI when those names aren't even used that much. Those names just don't seem to be so intrinsic to the book that they must not be allowed to be used by anyone else.

I'd also favor OGCing both sets of names, but do what you must.

 

[Nifelhein]

I am with them on this, and for D20 modern, UK, not it was not for you, CR pointed me out D20 modern line as another line that has OGL in some products.

 

[Fieari]

Hey Krust, or even anyone else if they think they can answer this...

What level, or what Spellcraft DC would you set a spell that causes the target to grow to the level of their virtual size catagory? That is, cast it on a human with an inherant strength of 30, and that human suddenly becomes large (and thus gains -2 dex, +10 str, +4 con, +3 nat armor, -1 AC and -1 to attack). Obviously the restriction would have to be added that it could only be cast on an individual target once at a time, otherwise the +10 to str would provide another virtual size catagory, allowing it to stack infinitely with itself all the way up to universe size levels and beyond.

I want to give this as a Spell Like Ability to an epic/immortal race I'm designing (self only), and want to know how it would likely effect CR. The race would come in age catagories, and though it would only have a natural size of medium, each catagory would grant it +20 str, and from the beginning it would have this SLA.

 

[Sledge]

So when does the official version of Volume 1 come out?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Sledge mate!

So when does the official version of Volume 1 come out?

Okay I am almost done, although I am still frightened of doing the cover I have to admit.

I have instigated all the written changes, and I am going to email another publisher later this week. Talks with the initial publisher were dissolved, albeit amicably it must be said. I won't name names but we just mutually decided we were not right for each other. I'd just like to thank them for all their advice though, much appreciated, and wish them the best in the future.