Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Ulitharid_Lord]

Interesting take on antimagic. But I agree that division is not the best way to go. It doesn't really make sense that higher-level spellcasters are affected more.

As I mentioned before, I made an antimagic varient, as well as a revision of the epic spell system (see here). One of the varients is X level or lower spells do not function, and spells above that level have the saving throw DC lowered by X. Replace X with any number. I'm not sure what X would be for the antimagic spell or what would happen to items (maybe enhantment bonus lowered by half of X?). Using this varient, low level spells and weak magic items are useless, while high level spells (and heightened spells) function, but are easier to resist. It fits well with my epic spellcasting system, as epic spells are just spells over 9th level.

 

[Anabstercorian]

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

Not so. Dispel magic affects, generally, a single item, and SR only matters for items that manifest attack spells - for which caster level is usually significant anyway.

 

[Fieari]

I don't like the division based antimagic rules. It's a buff to non-epic characters for one thing, which I tend to like to avoid whenever possible. I mean, a lower level wizard in an AMF with these rules could still potentially cast spells, which seems... wrong to me. One thing I've liked about most of the other changes you've made to the system is that it meshes with the current rules as far as lower level gaming goes, but balances it at higher levels. This completely reworks the concept at lower levels. At lower levels, sometimes you just shouldn't have certain options available to you. Like fighting a beholder. At lower levels, the AM Cone really makes for interesting tactical decisions. If that cone still allowed some (diminished) spell casting, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

I'm not sure why you think halving power is less of an "absolute" than the alternatives.

The two alternative systems seem to be either flat lowering the caster level of someone trying to cast there, or requiring an SR check to cast. As I see it, the main benefit of lowering CL is that for those that can cast, they're at least weaker, which means that antimagic areas always mean something, and are never pointless. The main benefit of the SR check is that there's an element of chance involved, which can make things interesting.

I wonder if there's a way to combine the two. Perhaps layered SR DCs? Such as, for example, to cast at 50%, you'd have to pass a CL check at DC 40. To cast at 75%, DC 50. And to cast without penalty, DC 60. I don't see this as an absolute, it doesn't step on the toes of non-epic gaming, it has a gradient where just barely overcomming a DC still has an effect on casting, and there's a point where immensly powerful casters can just ignore it.

I do like the idea of mega-casting areas though. That could be interesting indeed.

 

[Pssthpok]

Well, having antimagic work like SR makes another absolute, if I'm not mistaken. As much as I see where UK is coming from on fractional reductions, that could be too much math just to figure out what's going on, and, as metioned, it weakens antimagic at non-epic levels.

It's easy enough to see how Borlon's idea works insofar as spellcasters. Reduce their caster level by 20 in an antimagic field. If that reduces their caster level below, say, 9th, then they cannot cast 5th-level spells or higher. Of course, this keeps non-epic antimagic the absolute same as it is now, but makes it a gradient at higher levels. Eventually, a 40th-level caster is almost unaffected by antimagic, except their ability to overcome SR.

With summoned and incorporeal creatures, it would have to work two different ways: one, in the case of summoned creatures, it would stamp the caster level of the summon spell down by 20. If this reduces the caster level to below the required level to cast said summon, then the creature winks out. So, a 29th-level caster could cast summon monster V in an antimagic field and have no problems, but his summon monster VII fails. If antimagic field is cast in an area where there are summoned creatures who have SR, the caster needs to overcome their SR as normal.
Incorporeal creatures would disappear/lose their ability to manifest if their HD is 20 or less.

With items, if their caster level is 20 or less, they cease to function. So, an epic weapon with a caster level in the 30s would be fine in an antimagic field, but your periapt of wisdom +4 stops working.

Rather than the six-level increase UK proposes, one could simply Heighten antimagic field, each level increasing the amount by which things are reduced. So, a wizard casting a 19th-level antimagic spell would reduce caster levels by 33, wink out incorporeal creatures with fewer than 34 HD, and nullify items with a caster level lower than 34th.

Just my thoughts, anyway. Have fun.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

Interesting take on antimagic. But I agree that division is not the best way to go. It doesn't really make sense that higher-level spellcasters are affected more.

I'm still waiting for someone else to propse a non-absolute revision for Anti-magic.

As I mentioned before, I made an antimagic varient, as well as a revision of the epic spell system (see here). One of the varients is X level or lower spells do not function, and spells above that level have the saving throw DC lowered by X. Replace X with any number. I'm not sure what X would be for the antimagic spell or what would happen to items (maybe enhantment bonus lowered by half of X?). Using this varient, low level spells and weak magic items are useless, while high level spells (and heightened spells) function, but are easier to resist. It fits well with my epic spellcasting system, as epic spells are just spells over 9th level.

To me this is still an absolute though (and by your own admission even you don't know how it works on items).

 

[Pssthpok]

Hey there!

I'm still waiting for someone else to propse a non-absolute revision for Anti-magic.

Was my suggestion invisible?

 

[Ulitharid_Lord]

I just saw your Clay Guardian/Golem/Sentinel/Gargant/Colossus/Leviathan. Nice. Are you planning on doing the same for other golems? If you are, when will you have them done? I'd love to see stats for a Mithral Leviathan.

 

[Alzrius]

Okay, U_K has posted the finalized table of contents for the IH Bestiary vol. 1.

For those of us who bought the unofficial release, here's what appears to be new:

The Amidah Template, along with the sample creature Alabaster, an amidah vampire fighter.

A Macrobe Preying Mantis (under the Dire Template listing); the information for the Dire Template says it will also include the Macrobe Template, which isn't in the unofficial release.

The Nexus Dragon (ala Wormhole Dragon); this is the weakest (presumably) of the three breeds of Nehaschimic dragons.

It seems that regarding U_K's recent poll of which two monsters he should put in the Bestiary vol. 1, numbers two and three (the Amidah Template and the Nexus Dragon) won, and the Abomination: Annedotus (Dragon Men) lost out.

Note that there are going to be two more volumes of the Bestiary, along with a "Bestiary 1.5" of 15 monsters that, for some reason, couldn't be squeezed in elsewhere. It's worth noting that the Annedotus isn't listed for any publication.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Fieari mate!

I don't like the division based antimagic rules. It's a buff to non-epic characters for one thing, which I tend to like to avoid whenever possible. I mean, a lower level wizard in an AMF with these rules could still potentially cast spells, which seems... wrong to me.

I've been hearing this a lot over the past few days but as yet no one has said why its wrong.

One thing I've liked about most of the other changes you've made to the system is that it meshes with the current rules as far as lower level gaming goes, but balances it at higher levels. This completely reworks the concept at lower levels. At lower levels, sometimes you just shouldn't have certain options available to you. Like fighting a beholder. At lower levels, the AM Cone really makes for interesting tactical decisions. If that cone still allowed some (diminished) spell casting, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

I'm not sure why you think halving power is less of an "absolute" than the alternatives.

Its obvious. One way either removes magic altogether or doesn't, my way dampens magic.

The two alternative systems seem to be either flat lowering the caster level of someone trying to cast there, or requiring an SR check to cast.

Neither of which work with items lets be honest.

As I see it, the main benefit of lowering CL is that for those that can cast, they're at least weaker, which means that antimagic areas always mean something, and are never pointless. The main benefit of the SR check is that there's an element of chance involved, which can make things interesting.

I wonder if there's a way to combine the two. Perhaps layered SR DCs? Such as, for example, to cast at 50%, you'd have to pass a CL check at DC 40. To cast at 75%, DC 50. And to cast without penalty, DC 60. I don't see this as an absolute, it doesn't step on the toes of non-epic gaming, it has a gradient where just barely overcomming a DC still has an effect on casting, and there's a point where immensly powerful casters can just ignore it.

How would it work on items?

I do like the idea of mega-casting areas though. That could be interesting indeed.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Pssthpok matey!

Was my suggestion invisible?

Apologies dude. I am answering these posts in sequence without having read those further down.

Regarding your system, I don't see how it solves the Absolute problem, since its still an on/off approach.