Highlander-style immortals in the D&D world

[PureGoldx58]

For the right audience, yes. However, my impression is that the OP is bringing the NPC(s) into an existing campaign, rather than building a new campaign for it. In which case, removing resurrection effects mid-game is not generally a good move.

Unless it was a plot point, my DM cut off all fire-magic and access to the fire plane even though most of us focused on fire spells and fire elementals. Granted it affected me the most and I am the kind of audience that doesn't mind being gimped if you get to kill a god in the end .

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Someone around here has done a take on Highlander d20, which I've attached to this post. I don't know who to credit, though, since there's no name in the doc itself!

I've never played it or really looked into how it works, and I believe it's meant to be used as Highlander specificially, trather than merely to be like Highlander. But you might be interested in taking a look at its mechanics.

I will pass this along, thanks! Yes, the goal is to add highlander-style concepts into the generic D&D setting.

I would think that most of the "dying" and recovering would be easily enough handled with regeneration. Everything but decapitation is nonlethal damage. They are knocked unconscious when they "die" and depending on how bad the damage was determines how long they're "dead" for.

This is a useful mechanic, We'll toy with it.

The trick is less about how to kill the Highlanders and more about what you get when you kill one.

I'd look at the slain Highlander's skill list and give the slayer +2 "Highlander" bonuses to the highest 5 skills, which may stack with other "Highlander" bonuses.

This is alos a useful mechanic. we haven't figured how Quickening bonuses will work yet.

Love the idea. Would love to play in the game.

The above is the gaping hole in your thinking though. As soon as they hear mortals can gain immortal status - and you can be sure of knowledge this-and-that checks up the wazoo - they will desire it like nothing else. You must either give it to them in the end, or have a pack of dissatisfied players. At least, that is how the players I know would feel.

There are already ways for PCs to achieve immortality. But this one is probably the fastest and would most likely be the easiest of any choice.

You guys are absolutely right. This is incredibly desirable. PCs, with all the free will of PCs, can attempt to acquire this. There will be categories of Immortals that are very old, and therefore epic level class characters that will be seriously difficult to kill. There also may be the opportunity to find and try to protect new immortals, which my the mechanic could be killed for their immortality, but this would be an evil act for Good aligned characters. Now, an Evil character could kill a young immortal, and the PC's could than kill that Evil character, gaining the immortality without the moral dilemma. that could also be an option. Finally, the Immortals are seriously rare. if there are 4 or 5 PCs in the game, it's unlikely all off them will kill an immortal and gain the immortality, so how would the PC's decide who gets to live forever?
I agree, to tell PCs that they will play alongside immortals, with a mechanic to gain immortality, and forbid them to gain it, would be cruel. I'm just saying it'll be tough.

Silly questions: What happens if you cast Resurrection on:
1) An Immortal who's "Dead"?
2) An Immortal who's been beheaded?

Great questions, Dunno. we'll have to chew on those questions. Maybe return to life as a mortal?

Removing resurrection spells from the game could make this even more appealing though.

For the right audience, yes. However, my impression is that the OP is bringing the NPC(s) into an existing campaign, rather than building a new campaign for it. In which case, removing resurrection effects mid-game is not generally a good move.

Yeah, those spells will stay in. The rest of the D&D world goes on like standard, it just has these rare characters throughout.

 

[domino]

You could do the +2 to highest skill ranks idea for adding new skills, but I would wonder what that would do to immortals who might not be as skilled as you. Let's say you're a thousand year old tailor. But you chop off the head of a 300 year old tailor. His highest skill will be tailoring, but odds are it won't be as high as yours, he's had less than a third the time to do it you have. Do you still get better because you got his quickening?

It can go either way. Just because you know more than your victim doesn't mean you know the same stuff as he does and more. Or, it could mean that you're better skilled at the basic techniques, and have refined the stuff he's got in a much rougher form.

Another thing I'd suggest would be raise your skill ranks to at least equal with the victim's. If the victim is better than you, you get just as good. If he's worse, you stay where you are. This would be much more rapidly advancing than the other option most likely. Depends on how much more powerful you want them to get.

Or, you could just add on 1 character class level of the opponent. You're a fighter 10 who kills off a wizard 6? Now you're a fighter 10/wiz 1. Kill a thief after that, it's fighter 10/wiz 1/rog 1...

That would provide skills, feats, combat ability (BAB) special abilities all in one chunk.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

You could do the +2 to highest skill ranks idea for adding new skills, but I would wonder what that would do to immortals who might not be as skilled as you. Let's say you're a thousand year old tailor. But you chop off the head of a 300 year old tailor. His highest skill will be tailoring, but odds are it won't be as high as yours, he's had less than a third the time to do it you have. Do you still get better because you got his quickening?

It can go either way. Just because you know more than your victim doesn't mean you know the same stuff as he does and more. Or, it could mean that you're better skilled at the basic techniques, and have refined the stuff he's got in a much rougher form.

Another thing I'd suggest would be raise your skill ranks to at least equal with the victim's. If the victim is better than you, you get just as good. If he's worse, you stay where you are. This would be much more rapidly advancing than the other option most likely. Depends on how much more powerful you want them to get.

Or, you could just add on 1 character class level of the opponent. You're a fighter 10 who kills off a wizard 6? Now you're a fighter 10/wiz 1. Kill a thief after that, it's fighter 10/wiz 1/rog 1...

That would provide skills, feats, combat ability (BAB) special abilities all in one chunk.

You've stumbled upon our dilemma. with this quickening, what get's boosted? Your "Gain 1 character class of the opponent" idea sounds sweet, especially if the 1 level of class that get's added doesn't interfere with the normal exp progression. So even though this is a Fighter 10 with one level of wizard and one level of rogue, and for ECL would be considered a 12th level character, for experience point progression he'd still be considered a level 10 character, no penalty for multiclassing as it stands for the acquired levels, etc. That is a simple enough mechanic. I'll suggest that.

 

[xigbar]

You've stumbled upon our dilemma. with this quickening, what get's boosted? Your "Gain 1 character class of the opponent" idea sounds sweet, especially if the 1 level of class that get's added doesn't interfere with the normal exp progression. So even though this is a Fighter 10 with one level of wizard and one level of rogue, and for ECL would be considered a 12th level character, for experience point progression he'd still be considered a level 10 character, no penalty for multiclassing as it stands for the acquired levels, etc. That is a simple enough mechanic. I'll suggest that.

Look up Illithid Savant. It has similar mechanics.