Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Borlon]

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.

Well, consider the "immune to fire" special quality. Suppose for a particular creature this immunity is replaced with fire resistance 60. That's a lot. Enough to absorb a maximized fireball without breaking a sweat. A party of 10th level adventurers wouldn't notice the difference between fire resistance 60 and immunity to fire. An epic level party using empowered maximized meteor swarms would notice the difference; the resistant creature takes fire damage, but the immune creature wouldn't.

What you propose, analogously to replacing elemental immunity with elemental resistance, is to replace antimagic with reduced magic. I think the analogy should be tighter. Just as low level adventurers won't distinguish between elemental immunity and really high elemental resistance, so should they be unable to distinguish between the complete absence of magic and greatly reduced magic. But high level (epic) characters should be able to distinguish very nicely between elemental resistance and immunity; they should be able to notice that while their magic is greatly reduced, it is not totally negated.

As for how to match up divine antimagic with parties... well, why not give antimagic an absolute ceiling. It can never be higher than SR 40, say. Against parties with casters (and items) in the 30+ level range it is a hindrance rapidly fading to an annoyance, but higher level parties ignore it entirely. Against these parties you have to use reduced magic, which functions as you propose; reducing bonuses by a factor of 2, 3 or even more.

Antimagic would be like creature SR in this respect, or very high DR. Against a certain level of characters it is an absolute barrier. Against higher level characters it is an annoyance, and against even higher level characters it is hardly noticed.

Alternatively, instead of an absolute cap on antimagic, make the SR grow very, very slowly with respect to level. A creature that produces an antimagic field produces a field with a SR of 40 or 1/4 their CR, whichever is higher. This rule might be employed for planes with strongly antimagical properties. A prison plane can be assigned a CR (and thus an SR) commensurate with the highest level creature whose magic it can hold. Make it so the antimagic is absolute only against characters who would be overwhelmed anyways. 40th level adventurers should have a very, very hard time against a CR 240 opponent; one way to simulate that is to make that opponent generate an antimagic field with a SR of 60.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But thats the point - the stats are not equal. Physical stats give far more bang for their buck, in fact they are pretty much twice as powerful, 'pound for pound', as their mental counterparts.

Physical stats aren't twice as powerful, that's what I'm saying. The comparison was flawed as it didn't properly consider the importance of casting stats.

 

[Sledge]

So here I am going through stuff for fridays run through of labyrinth of madness, and I'm getting frustrated with checking every critter manually to match with the pc's. Is there a list of corrected CR's from the SRD? Also where can I find the latest version of UK's CR/EL rules?

 

[Kerrick]

Interesting take on antimagic, but I have to agree the division is not the same as multiplication - for one thing, you end up with decimal places; for another, like Rulemaster said, dividing takes longer and requires a calculator in most cases. I came up with a variant on antimagic awhile back... basically it was like Borlon's idea, with the SR checks. I also limited AMF in that it can't affect epic spells - in our system, non-epic spells (dispel magic, e.g.) can't affect epic spells, but epic can affect non-epic. To get around this, obviously, I made legendary antimagic field, an epic spell that can affect epic magics. Yes, I know it's another form of absolute, but it's absurd to think that a pathetic little 3rd-level spell can affect, say, an artifact (the DMG doesn't say they're immune, and with the wussified caster levels, a 20th-level caster could easily dispel an artifact's effects [BTW, does anyone else find it interesting that you can suppress an artifact with DM, but you can't dispel an epic spell?]).

Anyway, getting back on track... AMF would have a caster level check of 1d20+level, max +20 (for a total of 40)., and LAMF would have no max on the CL check (or +40, if you really wanted one). On a related note, I got rid of disjunction as a non-epic spell and made it epic - it has basically the same effects (dispels all 0-9th level spells, caster level check against epic, 1% chance of destroying an artifact), but makes more sense.

Is there a list of corrected CR's from the SRD? Also where can I find the latest version of UK's CR/EL rules?

There's a corrected list in the doc, which I will attach to this post.

 

[Sledge]

Thanks Kerrick.

 

[Zoatebix]

Ooh - I think I only have v4...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Rulemaster dude!

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.

That sounds like a cop out.

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..

Not a problem!

Basically it forces you to know the caster level of every item in each characters possession!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Borlon mate!

Well, consider the "immune to fire" special quality. Suppose for a particular creature this immunity is replaced with fire resistance 60. That's a lot. Enough to absorb a maximized fireball without breaking a sweat. A party of 10th level adventurers wouldn't notice the difference between fire resistance 60 and immunity to fire. An epic level party using empowered maximized meteor swarms would notice the difference; the resistant creature takes fire damage, but the immune creature wouldn't.

Yes, but at those high levels, the Fire Resistance becomes a resistance, whereas Anti-Magic is still an absolute. Theres no gradient - its an all or nothing approach.

What you propose, analogously to replacing elemental immunity with elemental resistance, is to replace antimagic with reduced magic.

Yes.

I think the analogy should be tighter. Just as low level adventurers won't distinguish between elemental immunity and really high elemental resistance, so should they be unable to distinguish between the complete absence of magic and greatly reduced magic. But high level (epic) characters should be able to distinguish very nicely between elemental resistance and immunity; they should be able to notice that while their magic is greatly reduced, it is not totally negated.

Yes bt the point is that your high-level casters won't be able to distinguish between it because its either off or on. Which means its either useful (in which case the original flaws apply) or useless.

As for how to match up divine antimagic with parties... well, why not give antimagic an absolute ceiling. It can never be higher than SR 40, say. Against parties with casters (and items) in the 30+ level range it is a hindrance rapidly fading to an annoyance, but higher level parties ignore it entirely. Against these parties you have to use reduced magic, which functions as you propose; reducing bonuses by a factor of 2, 3 or even more.

I don't see the point of making it relative for high-level characters and arbitrary for low-level characters.

Antimagic would be like creature SR in this respect, or very high DR. Against a certain level of characters it is an absolute barrier. Against higher level characters it is an annoyance, and against even higher level characters it is hardly noticed.

The problem with this approach is that you are going to have multiple adjudications per round, per character. Will you have to roll for a characters attacks every hit to see if their vorpal sword is working? Will the opponent get the chance to test every defensive item/spell when they go to strike them in turn. This approach just seems like a bottomless pit of confusion.

Alternatively, instead of an absolute cap on antimagic, make the SR grow very, very slowly with respect to level. A creature that produces an antimagic field produces a field with a SR of 40 or 1/4 their CR, whichever is higher. This rule might be employed for planes with strongly antimagical properties. A prison plane can be assigned a CR (and thus an SR) commensurate with the highest level creature whose magic it can hold. Make it so the antimagic is absolute only against characters who would be overwhelmed anyways. 40th level adventurers should have a very, very hard time against a CR 240 opponent; one way to simulate that is to make that opponent generate an antimagic field with a SR of 60.

Doen't my approach do all thsi with minimal fuss anyway!?

The only problem as I can see it is that you are worried that a 3rd-level spellcaster could still cast a spell on a greater deity of magic with a 36th-level Anti-Magic Field spell in effect. But as I see it the effects are going to be so negligable with the imposed penalty that they become inconsequential. Thats why I don't have a problem with it.

If monster 'x' has anti-magic, all you need do is up the level of it to neuter weaker casters.

eg. A 23HD Beholder might reduce the magic effect by 1/3 (-8 to DCs)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Physical stats aren't twice as powerful, that's what I'm saying. The comparison was flawed as it didn't properly consider the importance of casting stats.

What do you propose as the solution to the Challenge Rating dilemma them?

ie. +1 Ability Score = +1 feat

Therefore +6 to an ability score = +1 CR

 

[Verequus]

That sounds like a cop out.

No need to accept the challenge isn't a cop out.

Not a problem!

Basically it forces you to know the caster level of every item in each characters possession!

But you need that number also for dispel magic tries! Or if you attack a creature with SR! It is only another application.