Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Eversius mate!

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?

Absolutely!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi RuleMaster dude!

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.

I fail to see how that is a problem, especially given how simple the change is to implement.

Also, dividing numbers should be avoided at all costs.

However I presume you are happy to multiply numbers, such as through metamagic (ie. Empower spell), so what is the difference?

 

[Sledge]

The difference is that in general it takes people twice or three times as long at least to divide as to multiply. Not for everyone, but in general this holds true and is a cause for consternation in many people.

 

[Borlon]

Sorry UK, I wasn't clear enough.

By "meshes seamlessly with existing rules" I mean that, for most cases, antimagic under your proposal ought to function just like it does in the current rule set. It's failure to do so counts against your proposal.

For example, if a beholder's central eye radiates over a party according to the current rules, the +4 enhancement bonus to dexterity that someone gets from cat's grace disappears. Their +3 flaming longsword suddenly becomes just a masterwork weapon. And so on; all magic completely ceases.

If I understand your proposed change, then the beholder's central eye won't have these effects any more. Instead the +4 bonus from cat's grace becomes +2, and the longsword has a +1 bonus and does +1d6/2 fire damage per hit. That is noticeably different from magic completely ceasing.

The rest of the post is me brainstorming, trying to suggest a method that would make antimagic look much the same as it currently does at lower (nonepic) levels, with differences arising only at epic levels. For example, if everything had its caster level reduced by 20, then only a cat's grace cast by an epic caster would function. If all damage was reduced by 20 dice, then the breath weapon of a very powerful dragon would still have some effect.

Or if antimagic functioned like SR (as per Rulemaster's observation) then someone's cat's grace would have to overcome a CL check vs SR 40 to function. Etc.

The effect at non-epic levels would be the same; all magic would completely cease to function. But very high level casters would still be able to have some of their magic works.

I wouldn't really mind it if a 16th level caster had a minuscule chance of being able to work magic in a beholder's antimagic cone. But I would object if a 5th level caster could use any magic at all.

 

[Sledge]

I have to agree with Borlon here as well. Especially with resistances and such, anything that has to get through an antimagic field will almost always be useless at epic levels. In essence your article will result in anti-magic being least effective at pre epic levels and most effective at truly epic levels.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again Borlon mate!

Sorry UK, I wasn't clear enough.

By "meshes seamlessly with existing rules" I mean that, for most cases, antimagic under your proposal ought to function just like it does in the current rule set. It's failure to do so counts against your proposal.

For example, if a beholder's central eye radiates over a party according to the current rules, the +4 enhancement bonus to dexterity that someone gets from cat's grace disappears. Their +3 flaming longsword suddenly becomes just a masterwork weapon. And so on; all magic completely ceases.

If I understand your proposed change, then the beholder's central eye won't have these effects any more. Instead the +4 bonus from cat's grace becomes +2, and the longsword has a +1 bonus and does +1d6/2 fire damage per hit. That is noticeably different from magic completely ceasing.

Ah yes - I understand you now.

The rest of the post is me brainstorming, trying to suggest a method that would make antimagic look much the same as it currently does at lower (nonepic) levels, with differences arising only at epic levels. For example, if everything had its caster level reduced by 20, then only a cat's grace cast by an epic caster would function. If all damage was reduced by 20 dice, then the breath weapon of a very powerful dragon would still have some effect.

As I see it though, the fixed (level based) approach is simply another form of absolute.

If your party of epic characters are fighting a lesser deity who employs anti-magic you are still faced with exactly the same problems inherant within core anti-magic. Basically this on/off switch is going to reduce characters by 1/3 power or greater - that is one heck of a situational modifier.

Or if antimagic functioned like SR (as per Rulemaster's observation) then someone's cat's grace would have to overcome a CL check vs SR 40 to function. Etc.

I'd be curious to hear how Rulemasters suggestion works with items.

The effect at non-epic levels would be the same; all magic would completely cease to function. But very high level casters would still be able to have some of their magic works.

I wouldn't really mind it if a 16th level caster had a minuscule chance of being able to work magic in a beholder's antimagic cone. But I would object if a 5th level caster could use any magic at all.

Why would you object though? Its all relative.

 

[DDM]

Albeit not being a perfect 3ed rule guru, I tend to agree with the core of the posters here.
The idea that ANYONE's magic would still work, even if lessened, in an antimagic area simply takes out, IMHO, the whole mean of "anti-magic" word,
It becomes, like you said, a "lessen magic" (or something of that extent).

Anti-magic has always been a powerful too at DM's disposal.
put a mage in an anti-magic zone, and he will sweat. A lot.
Now a mage is just cursing, saying "well, if things go wrong, my contingencies will still work" (hey, he could still teleport away, right ???). This would mean that some magic might be more useful than others in this new anti-magic concept.

I think I understand the goal you're trying to achieve.
I guess however, that anti-magic *should* stay "anti-magic* at non epic levels.

Some concepts have been proposed there, and I do understand them all.
Another would be to decide that *using magic in an anti-magic area, at epic levels, could be done, but it is tiresome*. Which means that the more you cast magic in an anti-magic area, the more it becomes difficult to overcome the full "anti-magic effect".
This basically means that magic users have to make a distinct effort to overcome anti-magic, and that this effort can be made only by epic level PCs.
How to implement this solution ? in any way you think of. It's the concept that I like, and it follows the line of thought that "antimagic is dangerous", and not "oh, ok, now all my spells are 50% less effective, well, who cares, I can deal with that since I *know* how they will work" (with the tiredness rule, which can be "increasing difficulty to overcome antimagic", you never know WHEN your spell will work.. or fail...).

Just trying to help, of course.

 

[Verequus]

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 think, I should clarify the definition of EoMR/ME. Those are two books, not simply one. The mechanics are similar, but have some major differences. EoMR uses Magic Points, similar to Psionic Points, to fuel spells. Spells are created by combining enhancements, which function similar to augmentations. Enhancements are available through both so-called spell lists and magical skills.

EoMME is a further evolution of EoMR. All spell lists have been converted into skills (and skills have been folded together) and instead using MP, you have to succeed spellcasting checks to cast a spell - low-level spells are practically unlimited. Futhermore, while EoMME uses the term spell level, it refers more to something like the costs of an augmented power. Basically you convert core spell levels to EoMME spell levels with 2*level +1. Considering, that you can increase the power of a spell with buying of enhancements, this system lends itself to epic play.

Regarding the dragon: In EoMR you would use the CR as caster level, but in EoMME you would the HD (at least I think, that you use HD like other spellcasters - the author hasn't addressed this issue).

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?

I haven't found a quote, which supports, that being incorporeal or ethereal is a magical effect. The closest I've discovered is a ghost using manifestation. Even if that would be true, I think, that this should be handled like undeads and golems in an AMF.

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.

Why should magic be cancelled like in the core rules? In EoMR/ME, 2 matching spellcasters can cancel each other spells with 50% probability. It also cancels somewhat the grapple-spellcasters-in-AMF-area tactic.

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 think, that adding the paladin level to the +10 is a bad idea. You get already a Will save bonus through class levels, so you would triple the advancement, making a paladin practically immune to fear effects, unless a god casts magic. Too similar to our current situation.

 

[Verequus]

However I presume you are happy to multiply numbers, such as through metamagic (ie. Empower spell), so what is the difference?

In EoMR/ME, I don't use Empower Spell - I just add more damage enhancements. In essence, there are no multipliers there. Simple and easy.

 

[Verequus]

I'd be curious to hear how Rulemasters suggestion works with items.

I can't find it in EoMME, but in EoMR it was the spell level. Probably it is the same there. As the spell level in EoMRE is comparable to 2*core spell level +1, it isn't as bad it seems. But in core, magic items have caster levels already listed, so it wouldn't be a problem here.