Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Upper_Krust]

RPGNow does indeed accept paypal.

Thanks dude!

 

[Sledge]

The problem with low saves is why they capped saves for characters right?
So cap them based on all HD and you should somewhat limit the disparity in saving throws.

Add to that a system wherein it is cheaper to boost weak saves, and let it all fly.

 

[Farealmer3]

Considering what you do with "normal" vehicle damages. What do you do with the sad starship weapons damage from future?

 

[Kerrick]

No, it won't make it more powerful than disjunction, but it would obviate the need for greater dispelling.

Actually my comment was that an uncapped dispel spell would not be more powerful than disjunction, hence, I didn't see the need to upgrade the spell's level dramatically.

I was agreeing with you - sorry that didn't look right. Yeah, if you lifted the cap, it might bump the spell up a level. We don't play with caps at all in our game, and we don't see any real problems, beyond having to roll huge amounts of dice at higher levels (hehe). Yeah, I know that's why they instituted that rule, but... I dunno.

No, it won't make it more powerful than disjunction, but it would obviate the need for greater dispelling.

But both dispel magic and greater dispelling have set totals, I think that was the point.

Right, right. But if you lifted the caps, there'd be no point for greater dispelling - it's only there now because dispel magic has a +10 cap. For that matter, there'd be no need for superb dispelling, unless you go with my version of things.

I think the problem lies in having low saves at all.

How's that? You kind of have to have low saves for game balance...

At epic level, attacks are generally meant to hit, but at the same time damage totals will be proportionally less when compared to hit point totals....although when I introduce metamartial feats it will make all those misgivings obsolete anyway.

I dunno... seems to take something away from combat...

DM: "The monster has a BAB of +75. Anyone have an AC score above that?"

Players, looking at each other: "Umm... no..."

DM: "Oh good. I don't have to make attack rolls then."

Players: "Oh boy..."

Don't forget, too, special attacks that go along with the normal ones, like poison, ability/level drain, etc. Sure, they have saves for them, but if they always hit, there's a proprtionately greater chance that the characters will fail the saves (especially if it's against the bad save). The metamartial feats thing sounds interesting, though.

By the way, something of particular interest to yourself, I have been tinkering about with my magic system and I may be looking for a playtester for that in a few weeks.

Sweet! I wouldn't be able to actually playtest it, since our group is only 5th-6th level, but I can still offer comments and such.

As far as I can tell, the core of the system and the application of dimensional magic is perfect, I'm just not sure if the implementation of my recent damage changes is balanced in the sense that spell damage starts to eclipse the paralleled accruement of hit points at about 45th-level and rise exponentially, so by the time you are capable of blowing up a planet (approx. 100th-level when min/maxed) you will almost certainly be able to kill any opponent whose spell resistance you penetrate with a single spell...which is a fairly narrow band.

Well that's not good...

My solution to this (work in progress) is to turn spell resistance into a sort of spell dampening/anti-magic type of spell-level DR.

eg. Divide SR by 5 to gauge how many levels of anti-magic you apply to a spell effect.

IOW, if you cast a 15th-level spell at a creature with SR 25, it would effectively be a 10th-level spell for purposes of save, damage, and duration, if applicable? That's a really cool idea. Kind of harks back to 1E/2E magic resistance.

The only problem I see is that you're violating the KISS rule (you know, Keep It Simple, Stupid) - one change requires another change, which requires another, and so on. This would be great for an alternate system, like something you'd see in Unearthed Arcana, but if you say, "I've got this infinitely scaling system for spells, but you have to use this new SR system too," that might not go over as well. But, like you said, it's a work in progress.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

The problem with low saves is why they capped saves for characters right?

So cap them based on all HD and you should somewhat limit the disparity in saving throws.

Add to that a system wherein it is cheaper to boost weak saves, and let it all fly.

I don't really think there is any great problem with saves.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Farealmer3 matey!

Considering what you do with "normal" vehicle damages. What do you do with the sad starship weapons damage from future?

Its pretty simple to modify weapons and armour based on tech levels, I simply treat each leap as an eightfold energy increase.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya Kerrick dude!

How's that? You kind of have to have low saves for game balance...

I know, I don't know what I was thinking before. I don't think there is a major problem with saving throws.

I dunno... seems to take something away from combat...

It just shifts the dynamic of combat, you don't really lose anything.

DM: "The monster has a BAB of +75. Anyone have an AC score above that?"

Players, looking at each other: "Umm... no..."

DM: "Oh good. I don't have to make attack rolls then."

Players: "Oh boy..."

Well, they would still miss on a '1' regardless, so you would still have to roll, also to determine crits.

Don't forget, too, special attacks that go along with the normal ones, like poison, ability/level drain, etc. Sure, they have saves for them, but if they always hit, there's a proprtionately greater chance that the characters will fail the saves (especially if it's against the bad save).

The higher you ascend the less chance those things would be fatal and the greater chance the character has of possessing some defensive measure that would nullify the ability anyway.

The metamartial feats thing sounds interesting, though.

An idea I have been toying with for years now. I think it gives a lot of flexibility to epic combat.

Sweet! I wouldn't be able to actually playtest it, since our group is only 5th-6th level, but I can still offer comments and such.

Well that's not good...

The weird thing is that, logically, the changes actually make sense! ...don't ask me to explain it, because that would mean revealing the system.

IOW, if you cast a 15th-level spell at a creature with SR 25, it would effectively be a 10th-level spell for purposes of save, damage, and duration, if applicable? That's a really cool idea. Kind of harks back to 1E/2E magic resistance.

Yes, its along those lines I am working on.

The only problem I see is that you're violating the KISS rule (you know, Keep It Simple, Stupid) - one change requires another change, which requires another, and so on.

I know, thats why I am not satisfied with it.

Technically you don't 'need' spell dampening. But I am just not comfortable putting so much pressure on the Spell Resistance mechanic.

I suppose in many ways this parallels the save or die mechanic that Monte Cook commented he wasn't happy with (and can be prevailant at epic levels)....although I think I have a solution to that specific problem.

However, with the new changes to epic magic I propose, this would mean that damage, will begin to comfortably eclipse hit points. Meaning that the spells would only require the spellcaster to penetrate spell resistance to kill an opponent, even one vastly more powerful than itself, and I am just not sure this is the right approach.

This would be great for an alternate system, like something you'd see in Unearthed Arcana, but if you say, "I've got this infinitely scaling system for spells, but you have to use this new SR system too," that might not go over as well. But, like you said, it's a work in progress.

I'm sure I'll sort it out eventually.

 

[historian]

Hey Kerrick!

I was agreeing with you - sorry that didn't look right. Yeah, if you lifted the cap, it might bump the spell up a level. We don't play with caps at all in our game, and we don't see any real problems, beyond having to roll huge amounts of dice at higher levels (hehe). Yeah, I know that's why they instituted that rule, but... I dunno.

No worries. I'm with you as I can't come up with one sound reason to limit the dispeller's caster check. Seems a bit 2E to me.

As far as I can tell, the core of the system and the application of dimensional magic is perfect, I'm just not sure if the implementation of my recent damage changes is balanced in the sense that spell damage starts to eclipse the paralleled accruement of hit points at about 45th-level and rise exponentially, so by the time you are capable of blowing up a planet (approx. 100th-level when min/maxed) you will almost certainly be able to kill any opponent whose spell resistance you penetrate with a single spell...which is a fairly narrow band.

This is very interesting subject matter U_K. It's possible that you could run into, or exacerbate, the 1E problem whereby Tiamat could kill herself with one hit.

I think the downside risk here is somewhat limited when the spellcaster faces more powerful opponents as these opponents will have access to a variety of abilities (cosmic string/counterspells/unlimited dispel checks/etherealness stowaway) that either counter the spell in question or minimize the inconvenience of being hit with it.

Perhaps the bigger implication arises when meeting a huge group of lesser powered foes or the ability to destroy large objects (such as a planet)? I mean, Galactus is going to be awfully upset if some "lowly" 100th level caster robs him of a hard earned meal.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey dude!

This is very interesting subject matter U_K. It's possible that you could run into, or exacerbate, the 1E problem whereby Tiamat could kill herself with one hit.

Its slightly more pronounced. At 100th-level you could kill yourself to a factor of about 100.

I think the downside risk here is somewhat limited when the spellcaster faces more powerful opponents as these opponents will have access to a variety of abilities (cosmic string/counterspells/unlimited dispel checks/etherealness stowaway) that either counter the spell in question or minimize the inconvenience of being hit with it.

Perhaps the bigger implication arises when meeting a huge group of lesser powered foes or the ability to destroy large objects (such as a planet)? I mean, Galactus is going to be awfully upset if some "lowly" 100th level caster robs him of a hard earned meal.

Galactus would be saved by his spell resistance. Otherwise he would get vapourised, create some sort of damaging spell that you don't get SR against and its adios muchachos.

 

[Upper_Krust]

The basic idea behind the uber-epic magic system.

Hey all!

Okay I am just going to briefly explain the changes to spellcasting that allow for things like destroying a planet at about 100th-level. I wasn't going to reveal it, but I think its looking increasingly like I will have to rely on dimensional magic for the really big effects. So it'll be interesting to hear your opinions.

Anyway, the idea was really simple. What if, stacked metamagic multiplied an effect rather than added to it.

eg. 3rd-level Fireball with Empower Spell x8* (+16 levels for a 19th-level spell) would deal: 10d6 x16 (10d6 x2 x2 x2 x2) = 160d6 damage.

*With Metamagic Freedom.

Instead of 10d6 x5 = 50d6

Of course this would be applied to Widen Spell, or Enlarge Spell etc.

Now the logical aspect is this.

Imagine if you create a 6th-level spell that mimics fireball with the Widen Spell attached.

Fireball = 3rd level, Widen Spell = +3 levels. So its logical that you could create a 6th-level spell that was like fireball, only double the area of effect, right!?

Lets call this spell Greater Fireball.

Now if we apply the Widen Spell feat to Greater Fireball, the area will double.

Fireball (3rd) = 20 ft. radius
Greater Fireball (or Widened Fireball, both 6th) = 40 ft. radius
Widened x2 Fireball (9th) = 60 ft. radius (if a double, double equals a triple)
Widened Greater Fireball (9th) = 80 ft. radius

So the question is, should a double, double equal a triple, or a quadruple? It seems to me that you can keep creating spells and then doubling them, effectively mimicking the quadruple approach.

Anyway, that was the idea. Told you it was a very simple tweak.

Any thoughts?