Another Immortals Handbook thread

[CRGreathouse]

Trying to work out the spell lists for the Bestiary using the old system was soul destroying. I think my new system is a lot quicker, cleaner and does much the same thing for far fewer feats.

Yep, it's just different approaches for different tastes. Your method is good, too.

So are you suggesting that (for example) epic feats need to be twice as powerful as non-epic feats?

In almost all cases, yes. I think they should usually be twice as powerful, and sometimes even more. Of course, in some cases (spell penetration and initiative) I think that the numerical increase should be about the same.

Epic - Increase Smite Damage; Epic - Increase Smite Frequency Per Round; Divine - Increase Smite Damage; Divine - Increase Smite Frequency Per Round; Cosmic - Increase Smite Damage.

Your idea doubles frequency and damage once for epic, once for divine and then damage again of x8 with the cosmic.

My idea adds two smites per round and adds three to the smite multiplier.

You don't need any special abilities to smite more than once in a give round. A fifth-level paladin can smite twice in a round if she has that many attacks (two-weapon fighting, attacks of opportunity, etc.).

Only an opposed epic, divine or cosmic ability.

So much for a "one-upmanship that is detrimental to the game".

The trick would be to accurately guesstimate exactly how much of a critical multiplier the +5 market modifier was worth. Does your above equation for critical hits help us in this regard I wonder?

My problem is that I have to consider the ramifications of this type of ability when the likes of Thor takes the cosmic version in tandem with Mjolnir and hes dealing x24 damage on a crit and threatening on a 14-20...or something like that.

I'm not sure this will help much. A straightforward damage analysis will tell you that "doubling" the critical multipliers (x2 --> x3, x3 --> x5, x4 --> x7; or x2 --> x4, x3 --> x7, x4--> x10) gives the same damage on average. The trouble is that the high crit weapons will tend to have wasted damage and the low crit weapons will have unimpressive effects (even though the long-run damage will be the same if not in their favor).

A "vorpal" longsword dealing x3 crits just doesn't seem that special, and it's not even close to a +5 modifier. A "vorpal" scythe dealing x7 crits will result in a lot of overkill.

A better solution, perhaps, is to add a set amount (say, +4) to the critical multiplier, but only when the natural attack roll is 20. This balances across all weapon types and allows for impressive effects even from swords and the like. I'm not sure what amount is fair for a +5 modifier, though; frankly it would take a lot.

Should Keen* stack with Improved Critical, should Razor stack with Superior Critical (Divine), should Mono stack with Perfect Critical (Cosmic)...?

As I'm sure you know, Sean Reynolds would argue that they should. I have no particular opinion, and nothing to add except:
* The situation you mention above with Thor is more easily avoided with strict limits
* Sean's argument is sementically compelling and mathematically correct.

*Or its bludgeoning peer.

Just in the same friendly spirit of reminder as before, I'll note that not everyone uses Impact, the Forgotten Realms' extention of keen to bludgeoning.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Sledge matey!

Yes Improved Critical and Keen are supposed to stack, I've seen the numbers, I've done the numbers, it just isn't very worthwhile otherwise. They were designed to stack, and so they should.

I know that, but I am wondering about the implications when you create divine and cosmic extensions of improved critical and epic extensions of the keen weapon ability.

I'm not sure for some reason what Razor and Mono are btw...

Well those are placeholder names for epic extensions of the keen weapon ability.

Razor would give a Scimitar a threat range of 12-20, Mono, a threat range of 9-20 (none of these include the modifier for having the Improved Critical feat).

Anyway while vorpal is very expensive, a high level fighter with an increase to his multiplier is crazy deadly. With Improved Crit and Keen stacking from an 18-20 perspective becomes 12-20 which means 45% of rolls threaten. Not all of them will of course, but you need to consider the worst case scenario. For a high strength fighter every multiplier is worth a +2 to a +3 at a minimum. For the opposite end of the spectrum when crits are rare, the multiplier is almost valueless. Because of all that I equate vorpal to +2 to the multiplier. However, it has yet to see use be an insanely strong opponent. When that happens I may revise my number. This ability seems to be one that vastly improves for stronger (higher base damage) opponents.

If Improved Critical modifies a roll by +1, +2, +3; depending on the weapons initial threat range. Should not a feat which increases the critical multiplier (or the magical weapon equivalent - such as Vorpal), increase the multiplier by the inverted amount I wonder?

eg. Warhammer: Threat Range Modifier +1, Critical Multiplier +3
eg. Longsword: Threat Range Modifier +2, Critical Multiplier +2
eg. Scimitar: Threat Range Modifier +3, Critical Multiplier +1

So if you have Improved Critical, Overwhelming Critical*, Keen and Vorpal Longsword: You would Threaten on a 15-20 and deal x6 damage on a critical hit.

Assuming Overwhelming Critical is changed to increase the Critical Multiplier.

The same feats with a Warhammer (Impact and Crushing instead of Keen and Vorpal) would threaten on an 18-20 and deal x9 damage on a critical hit.

On a scimitar you would threaten on a 12-20 but only deal x4 damage.

The solution of course is to have more items that reduce crits rather than negate them, but I haven't gone that far as yet.

Don't worry, I have this covered.

...although I need to finalise how the crit multiplier should scale first.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey CRGreatouse dude!

Yep, it's just different approaches for different tastes. Your method is good, too.

In almost all cases, yes. I think they should usually be twice as powerful, and sometimes even more. Of course, in some cases (spell penetration and initiative) I think that the numerical increase should be about the same.

How can it be one rule for some feats but a different rule for others?

You don't need any special abilities to smite more than once in a give round. A fifth-level paladin can smite twice in a round if she has that many attacks (two-weapon fighting, attacks of opportunity, etc.).

Thats the weirdest thing, I could have sworn I read that they can only smite once per round!

So much for a "one-upmanship that is detrimental to the game".

Yes, but the ability isn't an 'all or nothing' immunity.

I'm not sure this will help much. A straightforward damage analysis will tell you that "doubling" the critical multipliers (x2 --> x3, x3 --> x5, x4 --> x7; or x2 --> x4, x3 --> x7, x4--> x10) gives the same damage on average. The trouble is that the high crit weapons will tend to have wasted damage and the low crit weapons will have unimpressive effects (even though the long-run damage will be the same if not in their favor).

A "vorpal" longsword dealing x3 crits just doesn't seem that special, and it's not even close to a +5 modifier. A "vorpal" scythe dealing x7 crits will result in a lot of overkill.

A better solution, perhaps, is to add a set amount (say, +4) to the critical multiplier, but only when the natural attack roll is 20. This balances across all weapon types and allows for impressive effects even from swords and the like. I'm not sure what amount is fair for a +5 modifier, though; frankly it would take a lot.

If we set the epic feat at +3 to the Critical Multiplier for weapons that threaten on a '20', then my guess is thats worth a +2 weapon ability. Double the extension would have to be an epic weapon ability (probably+7?). So if we retain Vorpal at +5 it would technically average a bonus of +4.5 to the critical multiplier.

As I'm sure you know, Sean Reynolds would argue that they should. I have no particular opinion, and nothing to add except:
* The situation you mention above with Thor is more easily avoided with strict limits
* Sean's argument is sementically compelling and mathematically correct.

I agree Sean is correct in this instance, but he didn't have to consider Thor using Cosmic extensions to certain feats and weapon abilities.

Just in the same friendly spirit of reminder as before, I'll note that not everyone uses Impact, the Forgotten Realms' extention of keen to bludgeoning.

 

[CRGreathouse]

How can it be one rule for some feats but a different rule for others?

Because some abilities scale differently than others. Attacks rolls and saves increase with level and have many potential modifiers, while initiative stays relatively constant. That's why I don't think Supreme Initiative is underpowered despite being "only" as strong as a nonepic feat.

As a rule of thumb, I think the epic feats should be (and largely are!) 2-3 times as strong as the base versions. Automatic Metamagic Capacity is more than 3 times better than whatever feat a third-level wizard takes to buff up his casting.

Thats the weirdest thing, I could have sworn I read that they can only smite once per round!

I went over the rules very carefully before posting, even though I was pretty sure you could smite more than once per round. You can. Perhaps you're thinking of the monk's Stunning Fist?

If we set the epic feat at +3 to the Critical Multiplier for weapons that threaten on a '20', then my guess is thats worth a +2 weapon ability. Double the extension would have to be an epic weapon ability (probably+7?). So if we retain Vorpal at +5 it would technically average a bonus of +4.5 to the critical multiplier.

Let's make it a +5 ability that gives +5 to the crtical multiplier, but only when the natural attack roll was 20.

 

[Sledge]

I think I personally would avoid giving super keen abilities. Otherwise we will essentially have a situation where every single hit is a crit. The only way this is even viable is if you have a set up where by the crit reducers actual shrink the threat range, but again you get stuck with a case of one upmanship.

BTW for the critical multiplier it should not vary. This is because the results are the same no matter what the initial multiplier is. +2 to the multiplier, is rolling 2 more times for damage no matter how many times you roll normally.

 

[CRGreathouse]

BTW for the critical multiplier it should not vary. This is because the results are the same no matter what the initial multiplier is. +2 to the multiplier, is rolling 2 more times for damage no matter how many times you roll normally.

Yes, +2 is +2, but if you have 18-20 you're getting it 3 times as often as someone who crits only on a 20.

 

[Sledge]

For which you (with the 20) already get +2 for free. These balances are already in place.

 

[CRGreathouse]

For which you (with the 20) already get +2 for free. These balances are already in place.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, so I'll write some examples to see where we stand. I'm going to calculate average damage, which means (for these purposes) I'm assuming that the monster's AC is such tht we hit on a natural 18 or lower and its hit points are at least as high as the damage we do with the largest crit possible (say, x4 + 2 = x6).

Average damage without crit: X

Base Case
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.15X (3 chances of double damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.15X damage (1 chance of quadruple damage)

Case A: +2 to crits with natural 20
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.25X (1 chance of x4 damage, 2 chances of x2 damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.25X (1 chance of x6 damage)

Case B: +2 to crits
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.45X (3 chances of x4 damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.25X (1 chance of x6 damage)

Case C: "Double" crit multiplier
18-20/x2 weapon: 1.30X (3 chances of x3 damage)
20/x4 weapon: 1.30X (1 chance of x7 damage)

Case A and case C are balanced, although case C has a better chance of "wasted" damage and unexceptional results, so I argue that it's not as good of a choice even though it's mathematically 'balanced' under certain assumptions. Case B isn't balanced.

If you're arguing for case A, I have no disagreement; if you're arguing for B, it's pretty badly flawed in my view. If you're arguing for something else, I'm lost; please explain.

 

[Sledge]

Okay I'm running your numbers. You're forgetting however that 18-20 isn't the standard, 19-20 is. All of the 18-20 weapons have a slightly lower base damage. Look at your numbers with regards to 19-20 for B.
19-20/x2 with "vorpal B": 1/10 hits will do 3 extra rolls. So 1.3
20/x4 with "vorpal B": 1/20 hits will do 5 extra rolls. So 1.25

Checking C we get:
19-20/x2 with "vorpal C": 1/10 hits will do 2 extra rolls. So 1.2
20/x4 with "vorpal C": 1/20 hits will do 6 extra rolls. So 1.3

And finally A:
19-20/x2 with "vorpal A": 1/20 hits will do 1 extra roll, and 1/20 will do 3 extra rolls. So 1.2
20/x4 with "vorpal A": 1/20 hits will do 5 extra rolls. So 1.25

So where do we go from here?

 

[Sledge]

I'd really like to go ahead with this whole becoming immortal and divine bit. Anything else you can tell me UK?