Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Sledge]

DDM In order to get only 45 hp your wizards must have rolled a lot of 1s. Average HP is around what 55 or so at 20th level? It's been a while since I played 2e so I might be wrong. Anyway 2e has a different damage paradigm, and the whole wizards can't be hit by anything ever situation is a whole problem in its own. What you need to do is look at the damages done by attacks and spells, and then turn immunity into sufficient resistance to block most of this damage.
Remember wizards should feel like they could be taken out quite easily. Especially so when they have well below average HP.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Thanks UK mate.

Hello again David!

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

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.

I remember the delights of Stoneskin in 2nd Ed!

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.

But do you use Elminsters Evasion?

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.

Another possibility would be to get your spellcasters to 23 Constitution, which means they wouldn't have any '1's, '2's or '3's on their dice rolls, which for wizards would mean maximum hit points.

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)

I don't like that either, gods can be stupid too - Baghtru, Gruumsh's son for instance.

Sure, some would.
However, the two spellcasters in my campaign are Transmuters, and in 2ed this mean no Abjuration school.

That'll teach them to specialise.

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).

What you could do is simply convert Fire Resistance (for example) into Fire Protection by making it a set figure. I suggest maybe x5 per day.

eg. Fire Resistance 10 would be Fire Protection 50/day in 2nd Edition. Thats just off the top of my head of course.

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 ?

An immunity protects you from something altogether - you don't need to make a save.

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.

Yes but it can be dispelled.

Then we have priest spells, like Protection From Fire, which gives total immunity to fire up to 12 damage 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.

This is the alternative I spoke of above.

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

If, by ok you mean ultimately balanced then I would have to say no. But since I am not even going to push for absolutes to be banned within the Immortals Handbook (as anything more than an option) I can't really condemn their use in your campiagn either.

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.

Well most spells cap at 20th-level anyway - although I know you are using 2nd Edition.

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).

Absolutely.

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 ).

Thats what I meant about tying it into clas progression, so that you could have one new permanenced spell every other level - or something like that.

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

Well I have it finished, I just can't update it to the website yet, until I get this current business resolved.

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

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cheiromancer matey!

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

Thats okay. I don't have a reply from them as I post this. Sunday or Monday is fine. I can have the website updates ready to just be uploaded.

I had thought you had the payment information ready.

I have the details, but I need them to issue a new invoice.

 

[Anubis]

DDM In order to get only 45 hp your wizards must have rolled a lot of 1s. Average HP is around what 55 or so at 20th level? It's been a while since I played 2e so I might be wrong.

They had d4 for hit dice, and only rolled up through Level 9. After that, they get 1/level flat regardless of Con. 2nd Edition sucked. My best solution would be to switch to 3rd Edition, lol.



Anyway, UK, what about the solution that you and I discussed on MSN? You know, the one that gave like 5/10/15 resistance per hit die in place of immunity? The more I look at it, the more I think that's the best way to get rid of the immunities.

 

[DDM]

They had d4 for hit dice, and only rolled up through Level 9. After that, they get 1/level flat regardless of Con. 2nd Edition sucked. My best solution would be to switch to 3rd Edition, lol.



Anyway, UK, what about the solution that you and I discussed on MSN? You know, the one that gave like 5/10/15 resistance per hit die in place of immunity? The more I look at it, the more I think that's the best way to get rid of the immunities.

Well, not totally right. Wizards had 1d4 up to 10th level, not 9th.
But yes, afterwards they get 1hp per level.
Average hp for a wizard at 20th level is 35. (max hp is then 50, or 70 if with +2 constitution bonus)
a fighter gets usually 87 at 20th level (1st hit dice is full with Complete Fighters Handbook, and they have 1d10 up to 9th level).
But while it *sucks* to gain only 1 hp per level for wizards, 2 for rogues/priest, and 3 for warriors, it is what makes 2ed balanced with spells.
In 3ed, hit points continue to rise, but then spells can be maximised etc.
I've played all editions of D&D. AD&D 2ed proved to be the most balanced so far. The only exception is the Elf Bladesinger... dear, I don't know what they were thinking about that one.
Still, it's just part of a Elf Handbook... not a main handbook like player's handbook.

 

[DDM]

I remember the delights of Stoneskin in 2nd Ed!

This is true. Some people say that it's too strong, and in a way it is, like Magic Missile.
We thought for a while that Stoneskin is so fondamental for a mage, that it prevents you from choosing a Abjurer specialist. Then I tried building a NPC Abjurer, who helped during a lot of campaign years the PC.
Conclusion: Abjurers can't become invisible, fly, or use Illusion / Alteration. But trust me, even if you know they're here, you're not taking them down. It reminds me of your immunities talk... geez, it's really incredible. If they had more fighting skills they could kill anyone in close combat too since they won't ever be hit by *anything*. lol

But do you use Elminsters Evasion?

No, but this does remind me something....
Ok now I've looked with a google search this famous spell. lol, now I remember seeing it before.
No, no one uses this: the campaing was mainly a Ravenloft one, so Elminster's spells were not there.
Nice spell.

Another possibility would be to get your spellcasters to 23 Constitution, which means they wouldn't have any '1's, '2's or '3's on their dice rolls, which for wizards would mean maximum hit points.

Clever thinking. Still, again it's max/min.. not very nice.

That'll teach them to specialise.

Lol. I do think that specialisation is superior. Sure, you get 1-2 schools barred. But you get more spells to cast, you can create better school spells (in theory a normal mage could create the same spells, but in a roleplaying aspect a player focalise usually more on his school so finds out more useful spells on his school than an usual mage), and you have some more class advantage (complete's mage handbook or some other stuff).
And it's funny.

What you could do is simply convert Fire Resistance (for example) into Fire Protection by making it a set figure. I suggest maybe x5 per day.

I don't quite follow you... care to explain ?

eg. Fire Resistance 10 would be Fire Protection 50/day in 2nd Edition. Thats just off the top of my head of course.

Ok I understand the connection with your previous sentence... but I still don't get it

An immunity protects you from something altogether - you don't need to make a save.

Correct. A subtle difference, but still a big one. I guess then than spells immunities like Fire Shield who necessit a ST are ok. Ones like Fire Protection for priest are more like immunities, but don't last that much, and are for the caster only, so ok too.

Well most spells cap at 20th-level anyway - although I know you are using 2nd Edition.

I think you're referring to High-Level handbook 2ed, which introduces caps for spells (like 20d4+20 for Cone of Cold).
I did introduce some of those caps already, but not all of them (if the spell is balanced imho no need to weaken it more, but this varies from campaign to campaign).
Without this book, most spells are not capped, but by the spell description (fireball at 10th level, per example).

Thank you for your time.

 

[Sledge]

So if you have a fairly high con (and hey you're a wizard with wish right? if you don't then why?) you'll have a +2 there. That works out to an average of 55 (25 for first ten levels, 10 for second 10 levels, and 20 for con) and a minimum of 40.

For the record did anyone actually fully adopt the 2e High Level campaigns book? I have a hard time imagining it as the book's author specifically didn't like the idea of such campaigns.
Of course I also have a very hard time seeing 2e as "balanced", so I could be missing the picture here.

 

[DDM]

So if you have a fairly high con (and hey you're a wizard with wish right? if you don't then why?) you'll have a +2 there. That works out to an average of 55 (25 for first ten levels, 10 for second 10 levels, and 20 for con) and a minimum of 40.

For the record did anyone actually fully adopt the 2e High Level campaigns book? I have a hard time imagining it as the book's author specifically didn't like the idea of such campaigns.
Of course I also have a very hard time seeing 2e as "balanced", so I could be missing the picture here.

Wish cost you 5 years. In balanced campaigns, trust me, no wizard would cast it to gain some constitution points. In my campaign a wizard would have done it to be back at Con 16 (he lost a point, so he lost 10hp), but being at Ravenloft, Wishes don't really work you know.
The other wizard plays a character with average-low physical stats, so he's not even thinking of boosting his Constitution.

As for the High-Level Campaign, when I looked at it the first time, I thought that they were crazy. Some skills seem totally unbalanced, but when you put them into play from 21st level on (and not before) they are very nice.
I've tested them.
They are nice since:
a) wizards get few skills. Well, at least they do not get powerful ones, while other classes do. Since wizards are more powerful at higher level, it helps recreating some balance between classes.
b) all of the most powerful skills, like Invicibility (you make a skill check ? good, you survive any killing/hampering magic or fight until -30hp etc), Challenge, etc are not automatic.
You need a skill check (usually starts at 4 on 1d20). Wherever you make it or miss, you lose 2 points of skill for the day (or week depending on the skill). Usually you lose points also on the Bravery Skill (or Eminence skill for priest). This last skill is a prerequisite for those "broken" skills and is not that great. So basically, to be able to use those skills a lot, you need a lot of points, and considering you gain 3 cp each level (in my campaign, being ravenloft, I make it 4 and it works), it's totally balanced.
So warriors and priests get good skills, but can't use them all right from the start. Since xp progression is hard at high levels (well, it depends on DMing, but in my campaign people go uo a level maybe once each 5 FULL adventures), it is ok.
Thieves get some new skill, some which I think are a little anti-Roleplay, but whatever, and especially Evasion (which allow thieves to dodge fireballs, meteor swarms, etc). This is surely the most powerful thieves' skill, but then, it is not automatic (you need to roll a save) and it's not like Thieves have a lot of hp (fewest besides Mage) or magic (like wizards) to protect them from this kind of evocation magic. Also, it goes alongside well with the rogue class.

All in all, in 2ed, where power do not really increase for characters after 20th level, the High-Level Campaign Handbook is a welcome add-on and very well balanced.
We're at 25th level right now, and I know that my group is always looking upon that next level (even mages, with some skills like Signature Item or Spell Sculpting) to gain some more power.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Anubis mate!

Anyway, UK, what about the solution that you and I discussed on MSN? You know, the one that gave like 5/10/15 resistance per hit die in place of immunity? The more I look at it, the more I think that's the best way to get rid of the immunities.

I think its probably the fairest solution I have seen to date. Lets see what its like in practice.

Dretch - Fire Resistance 10
Marilith - Fire Resistance 80
Fire Giant - Fire Resistance 120
Great Wyrm Red Dragon - Fire Resistance 400
Small Fire Elemental - Fire Resistance 30
Elder Fire Elemental - 360

Its possible it should be 5/10/20?

What do the rest of you think?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey DDM matey!

This is true. Some people say that it's too strong, and in a way it is, like Magic Missile.
We thought for a while that Stoneskin is so fondamental for a mage, that it prevents you from choosing a Abjurer specialist. Then I tried building a NPC Abjurer, who helped during a lot of campaign years the PC.
Conclusion: Abjurers can't become invisible, fly, or use Illusion / Alteration. But trust me, even if you know they're here, you're not taking them down. It reminds me of your immunities talk... geez, it's really incredible. If they had more fighting skills they could kill anyone in close combat too since they won't ever be hit by *anything*. lol

The thing about Stoneskin in them days was that it became such a necessity that everyone had it - so if everyone had it, it became somewhat redundant.

No, but this does remind me something....
Ok now I've looked with a google search this famous spell. lol, now I remember seeing it before. No, no one uses this: the campaing was mainly a Ravenloft one, so Elminster's spells were not there.

Nice spell.

It was the 'get out of jail free card' that no mage left home without.

Clever thinking. Still, again it's max/min.. not very nice.

I'd probably put my faith in min/maing before I would absolutes.

Lol. I do think that specialisation is superior. Sure, you get 1-2 schools barred. But you get more spells to cast, you can create better school spells (in theory a normal mage could create the same spells, but in a roleplaying aspect a player focalise usually more on his school so finds out more useful spells on his school than an usual mage), and you have some more class advantage (complete's mage handbook or some other stuff).
And it's funny.

Well there can be no advantage without penalties to balance it out - otherwise everyone would specialise.

I don't quite follow you... care to explain ?

Ok I understand the connection with your previous sentence... but I still don't get it

I mean, convert Fire Resistance spells and magic items into Fire Protection spells and magic items.

Correct. A subtle difference, but still a big one. I guess then than spells immunities like Fire Shield who necessit a ST are ok. Ones like Fire Protection for priest are more like immunities, but don't last that much, and are for the caster only, so ok too.

Absolutely.

I think you're referring to High-Level handbook 2ed, which introduces caps for spells (like 20d4+20 for Cone of Cold). I did introduce some of those caps already, but not all of them (if the spell is balanced imho no need to weaken it more, but this varies from campaign to campaign). Without this book, most spells are not capped, but by the spell description (fireball at 10th level, per example).

We never capped spells during our 1st/2nd Ed. days - Thats why even the gods called Doomstar sir.

Thank you for your time.

Thats what I am here for, happy to help.